Lacson v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.
This is a civil case between Cerina T. Lacson and Spouses Romulo M. Lacson and Cynthia T. Lacson (petitioners) and BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (respondent). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the respondent is entitled to the deficiency obligation of the petitioners in the amount of P1,379,166.49 plus interest, as the foreclosure sale did not fully satisfy the loan obligation of the petitioners. The Supreme Court also ruled that Republic Act No. 6552, known as the Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act, is inapplicable to this case as the seller of the condominium unit and the creditor of the petitioners' outstanding obligation are separate entities. (G.R. No. 233509, August 13, 2018)
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233509. August 13, 2018.]
CERINA T. LACSON AND SPOUSES ROMULO M. LACSON AND CYNTHIA T. LACSON, petitioners, vs.BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 August 2018which reads as follows: cHaCAS
"G.R. No. 233509 (Cerina T. Lacson and Spouses Romulo M. Lacson and Cynthia T. Lacson v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 17, 2017 Decision 2 and August 10, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 106688 for failure of petitioners Cerina T. Lacson (Cerina) and Spouses Romulo M. Lacson and Cynthia T. Lacson (collectively, petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that: (a) respondent BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (respondent) is entitled to the amount of P1,379,166.49 plus interest, representing petitioners' deficiency obligation under the loan agreement; and (b) Republic Act No. (RA) 6552, 4 otherwise known as the "Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act," does not apply in this case.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent is entitled to petitioners' deficiency obligation in the aforesaid amount, since the foreclosure sale involving the subject property of the real estate mortgage did not fully satisfy petitioners' loan obligation to it. 5 It is settled that if the proceeds of the foreclosure sale of a mortgaged property is insufficient to cover the principal debt, then the creditor-mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor-mortgagor, 6 as in this case.
Further, RA 6552 is inapplicable to this case, considering that the seller of the condominium unit, i.e., Avida Land Corporation, and the creditor of the petitioners' outstanding obligation, herein respondent, are separate entities. This law finds application only in transactions where the buyer purchases via a sale on installment payments a real property from the seller, who also becomes the creditor of the said installment payments. DACcIH
SO ORDERED." (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave)
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-23.
2.Id. at 31-37. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
3.Id. at 27-29.
4. Entitled "AN ACT TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO BUYERS OF REAL ESTATE ON INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS" (August 26, 1972).
5. See rollo, p. 36.
6. See Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Chuy Lu Tan, 792 Phil. 70, 79 (2016), citing Spouses Rabat v. Philippine National Bank, 688 Phil. 33, 47-48 (2012).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU