Lasala v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 200362. April 18, 2018.]

LOURDES M. LASALA, ET AL., petitioners,vs. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 April 2018which reads as follows: AIDSTE

"G.R. No. 200362 (Lourdes M. Lasala, et al. vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, et al.). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 2 dated January 17, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 119924.

Factual Antecedents

Spouses Manuel C. Daves and Juanita V. Daves (Spouses Daves) are the registered owners of the house and lot located at El Grande Avenue, BF Homes, Las Piñas, Metro Manila (subject property), and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. S-96109. 3

Sometime in 1979, Spouses Daves obtained two loans from respondent Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino), as evidenced by Promissory Notes (PN) 08-15066-4-79 and 13-15066-9-83 in the amount of P205,000.00 and P148,000.00, respectively. As security for the loans, Spouses Daves mortgaged the subject property in favor of Banco Filipino. 4

On January 10, 1985, petitioner Lourdes M. Lasala (Lourdes) and her late husband Alberto T. Lasala (Alberto) entered into a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage 5 with Spouses Daves, whereby the latter ceded, transferred and conveyed the subject property in favor of petitioners with assumption of the loan obligations incurred by Spouses Daves with Banco Filipino. Petitioners, thereafter, took possession of the subject property and constituted the same as their family residence. 6

Petitioners only made random payments of the loans during the period from 1985 to 1994. 7 As of March 15, 1995, the payment of the amortizations was delayed for 93 months. 8 From June 1994 to October 1995, demand notices were sent to Spouses Daves through petitioners. The notices either required them to settle the overdue accounts or informed them of the possible legal action that Banco Filipino would take in event of non-compliance. 9 Petitioners, however, failed to settle the unpaid obligations.

Alberto immediately communicated with Banco Filipino and requested for computation of their loan obligations after they received the copy of the Notice of Sheriff's Sale dated October 4, 1995. 10 Banco Filipino, through its officers, furnished Lourdes a computation of their loan obligations sans interest thereon. Petitioners thus paid the amounts of P400,000.00 and P208,697.83 on October 20, 1995 and on November 20, 1995, respectively.

Subsequently, Banco Filipino withdrew the auction sale in view of petitioner's substantial payments. Petitioners then requested that the title of the subject property be surrendered to them. 11

In a letter dated January 17, 1996, Lourdes sent a letter to Banco Filipino informing the latter of their intent to settle the accrued unpaid interest from March 16, 1995 to November 20, 1995. Petitioners allegedly received no response from Banco Filipino. 12

On June 6, 1996, petitioners received a demand letter from Banco Filipino for them to pay their remaining unpaid obligation. In response, the petitioners, in a letter dated June 26, 1996, 13 manifested that they already complied with the payment of the outstanding loan obligation. In the same letter, they again requested for the computation of the accrued interest. AaCTcI

On October 22, 1996, petitioners received from Banco Filipino a letter dated October 22, 1996, 14 which served as final notice before the filing of foreclosure proceedings. 15

Subsequently, petitioners received the Notice of Sheriff's Sale 16 dated June 27, 1997, which scheduled the auction sale on August 4, 1997. This prompted them to file, on July 31, 1997, a petition for mandamus and injunction, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against Banco Filipino before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. 17

Petitioners sought to prohibit, restrain, and enjoin Banco Filipino from implementing the Notice of Sheriff's Sale dated June 27, 1997 and the consequential holding of the public auction of the subject property covered by the notice. They prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Banco Filipino to execute the document of releases of mortgage in their favor and the delivery of the documents to them, together with the title to the subject property, specifically TCT No. S-96109. 18

On January 14, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, for petitioners' failure to prove their case by preponderance of evidence, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Preliminary Injunction earlier issued is now SET ASIDE.

Respondent's counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 19 (Emphasis in the original)

Aggrieved with the above decision, petitioners appealed to the CA. The CA, in its Decision 20 of January 17, 2012, denied the appeal for petitioners' failure to state a cause of action to avail the remedy of mandamus.

Hence, the present petition.

Petitioners primarily seek for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Banco Filipino to execute the document of releases of the real estate mortgages in their favor and to surrender to them the title of the subject property. To support the relief that they pray for, they claim that the CA failed to appreciate the true and genuine facts of the case and assert that their last payment in the amount of P608,697.83 21 constituted complete payment of their loan obligations. 22 On this basis, petitioners assailed Banco Filipino's right to foreclose the mortgage and pray that damages be awarded in their favor.

Ruling of the Court

The petition lacks merit.

The Court emphasizes that in a petition for review on certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is not the function of this Court to re-examine the evidence submitted by the parties unless the findings of fact of the CA are not supported by evidence on record or the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts. The Court is limited to the review or revision of errors of law and not to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again. 23

In this case, petitioners claim that the CA failed to appreciate the true and genuine facts that they have already paid in full the obligations assumed by them. The Court nonetheless finds this contention bereft of merit. EcTCAD

Petitioners allege that the amount of P608,697.83 stated in the October 4, 1995 Notice of Sheriff's Sale represents their total outstanding obligation to Banco Filipino, which they allegedly paid in full on November 20, 1995. A perusal of the stated Notice of Sheriff's Sale, however, indicates that the amount of P608,697.83 corresponds to the total amount of mortgage debt as of March 15, 1995.

From March 15, 1995 to October 15, 1995, petitioners admit that they did not remit any payment to Banco Filipino. After their payment on November 20, 1995, they did not heed the subsequent demands of Banco Filipino. They insist on their claim of full payment albeit their acknowledgement of the remaining unpaid accrued interest, penalty and other charges.

The Court notes that Alberto affirmed, during his testimony, that the amount of P608,697.83 they paid to Banco Filipino did not include the interest, penalty and other charges. 24 Notably, they even requested from Banco Filipino for the computation of the accrued interest. 25 On this basis alone, it is clear that petitioners have remaining obligation to Banco Filipino. This is inconsistent with their claim of full payment.

The Court agrees with the trial and the appellate courts that when petitioners assumed the loan obligations of Spouses Daves, they were bound to comply with all the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. This necessarily includes the payment on due dates of any balance, principal and interests, which are payable to Banco Filipino, as the creditor. 26

Petitioners, in several instances, faltered to pay the monthly amortizations due on the mortgage and Banco Filipino made several demands from petitioners to liquidate their accountability. 27 Petitioners, however, failed to settle their obligations in full. After their payment on November 20, 1995, they refused to comply with the succeeding demands of Banco Filipino. 28 This satisfactorily shows that Banco Filipino had the right to foreclose the mortgage on account of petitioners' undisputed and continuing default.

Petitioners are not entitled tomandamus.

Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. 29 Section 3, Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs the issuance of the writ of mandamus in this jurisdiction, to wit:

SEC. 3.  Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.

Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the CA that mandamus is not the proper recourse to enforce petitioners' action against Banco Filipino. Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. 30 It cannot be availed of as a remedy to enforce the performance of contractual obligations. 31 HSAcaE

Besides, mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioners' right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful. 32 Petitioners in this case indisputably failed to establish a clear legal right; their contentions are uncertain. They specifically admitted that the interest, penalty and charges, which accrued on the foreclosure amount, remained unpaid. This, therefore, defeats their claim to the relief that they pray for.

While petitioners' case could be one for specific performance, the Court still sees no legal justification to compel Banco Filipino to release the real estate mortgage and the title of the subject property involved therein. Petitioners, as mortgagors, should be mindful of the effects and implications of a mortgage on their rights over the properties given as collaterals, especially when the loan secured thereby remains unpaid. 33

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to depart from the assailed CA Decision dated January 17, 2012 as the petitioners failed to show that the CA committed reversible error in its findings.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 8-48.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Angelita A. Gacutan concurring; id. at 60-72.

3.Id. at 425.

4.Id.

5.Id. at 454.

6.Id. at 425-426.

7.Id. at 426.

8.Id. at 528.

9.Id. at 426-427.

10.Id. at 426.

11. Id. at 427.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 483.

14.Id. at 472.

15.Id. at 427.

16.Id. at 485.

17.Id. at 428.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 530.

20.Id. at 424-436.

21. As reflected in the Notice of Sheriff's Sale dated November 24, 1995. The amount referred to the mortgage debt as of March 15, 1995.

22.Rollo, p. 407.

23.Sps. Ocampo, Jr. v. First Metro Leasing and Finance Corp., 512 Phil. 771, 775-776 (2005).

24.Rollo, pp. 280-282; 586-587.

25.Id. at 432, 511.

26.Id. at 432.

27.Id. at 530.

28.Id. at 529.

29.Sia v. Arcenas, et al., 750 Phil. 923, 931 (2015).

30.University of San Agustin, Inc. v. CA, 300 Phil. 819, 830 (1994).

31.Manalo v. Paic Savings Bank, 493 Phil. 854, 860 (2005).

32.Id.

33.Philippine National Bank v. Castalloy Technology Corp., et al., 684 Phil. 438, 446 (2012).