THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234564. June 22, 2020.]
AMELIA CABRERA SIMBUL, petitioner, vs. TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE CENTER (FORMERLY TECHNOLOGY AND LIVELIHOOD RESOURCE CENTER, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 22, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234564 (Amelia Cabrera Simbul, Petitioner, v. Technology Resource Center (formerly Technology and Livelihood Resource Center, Respondent) — This petition for review 1 assails the Partial Judgment 2 dated 14 June 2017 and the Order 3 dated 14 September 2017 of Branch 146, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Civil Case No. 12-658 for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage. The RTC dismissed the complaint against respondent Technology Research Center (respondent) and ordered the presentation of evidence ex-parte against Anastacio Tamayo, Jr. (Tamayo).
Antecedents
Petitioner Amelia Cabrera Simbul (petitioner) filed a complaint for Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage against respondent and Tamayo. Petitioner alleged that she is the registered owner of a real property located in San Fernando, Pampanga with an area of approximately 446 square meters, and covered by TCT No. 370111-R (property). Under a Mortgage Agreement 4 dated 15 September 2004, petitioner acted as an accommodation mortgagor for the P1,000,000.00 loan obtained by Tamayo from respondent. The P1,000,000.00 Loan Agreement 5 dated 13 September 2004 between respondent and Sasmuan Duck Raising Project represented by its proprietor Tamayo, used petitioner's property as collateral, and was payable over a period of three years. Petitioner alleged that she did not receive any benefit from the loan and only acted as an accommodation mortgagor.
In 2010, petitioner learned that respondent sent a letter 6 to Tamayo dated 26 July 2010 demanding payment of his outstanding loan obligation in the total amount of P1,794,291.84. To prevent foreclosure, petitioner offered to redeem the property by paying the unpaid principal in the amount of P924,000. 7 However, respondent declined the offer since it could not waive the interests and penalties on its loans without clearance from the Commission on Audit. 8 Subsequently, respondent sent a letter dated 03 February 2012 to Tamayo, with a copy furnished to petitioner, demanding the payment of the loan which had already amounted to P2,329,248.27 as of 31 January 2012, prompting petitioner to file the complaint. Petitioner maintained that since the loan was restructured without her consent, she is thus released from the accessory obligation under the Mortgage Agreement.
Respondent alleged in its Answer 9 that it could not cancel the mortgage and release the title used as collateral since petitioner has not fully paid the obligation amounting to P2,329,248.27, inclusive of interests and penalties. Respondent prayed that the court order petitioner to pay respondent the amount of P2,329,248.27, including interest, penalties, and the 12% VAT, and the costs of the suit. Tamayo, on the other hand, did not file any answer despite the service of summons upon him.
During pre-trial, respondent failed to appear despite notice, and petitioner was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. On 09 September 2015, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant Tamayo in Default, which was disregarded by the RTC in its Order dated 24 November 2015. On 28 January 2016, the RTC dismissed the complaint against both respondent and Tamayo for failure of petitioner to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time and for failure to formally offer her documentary evidence. However, in an Order dated 11 May 2016, the case was reinstated upon motion of petitioner and respondent.
Ruling of the RTC
On 14 June 2017, the RTC rendered a Partial Judgment, dismissing the complaint against respondent for lack of merit, and ordering the presentation of evidence ex-parte against Tamayo.
The RTC held that petitioner freely, knowingly and voluntarily executed and signed the mortgage as accommodation mortgagor, and was fully aware that her property could be foreclosed if Tamayo failed to pay his loan. Citing Article 2126 10 of the Civil Code, the RTC ruled that in case of default in the payment of the obligation, the mortgagee has the right to have the mortgaged property foreclosed and sold, and to apply the proceeds thereof to the payment of the obligation.
The trial court likewise found untenable petitioner's claim that she is released from her accessory obligation under the mortgage since she was neither informed of nor consented to the restructuring of Tamayo's loan. The Real Estate Mortgage clearly stated that the mortgage remains in full force and effect and that respondent cannot just cancel the mortgage and release the title of the property to petitioner without the payment the principal obligation, including the accrued interests and penalties. The RTC also noted that in a letter dated 03 November 2010, petitioner voluntarily offered to pay Tamayo's principal obligation in order to redeem her property, which constitutes as a waiver of her right to question the validity of the mortgage. The RTC held that "by offering to redeem her mortgaged property, petitioner has acquiesced that the mortgage is valid, existing and in full force and effect." 11
As regards respondent's counterclaim for petitioner to pay the balance of the loan in the amount of P2,329,248.27, the RTC ruled that the same should be denied since petitioner signed the mortgage contract merely as an accommodation mortgagor, which does not make her personally liable for Tamayo's loan. The mortgage contract merely provides that the mortgaged property of the accommodation mortgagor shall serve as security for the payment of the loan granted by respondent to Tamayo. Respondent's claim for litigation expenses was also denied by the RTC for failure of respondent to substantiate its claim.
Issue
Petitioner raises the sole issue of whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint against respondent, alleging that petitioner's liability as accommodation mortgagor had been extinguished by novation when the loan agreement was restructured by respondent and Tamayo without her consent.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is denied.
At the outset, petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by directly filing the petition with this Court instead of with the Court of Appeals through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 12 Direct resort to this Court under Rule 45 is only allowed incases involving pure questions of law. Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the petition also involves questions of fact since the issue cannot be resolved without examining or evaluating the evidence presented. 13 To stress, an error in the mode of appeal is a ground for outright dismissal pursuant to Section 5 (f) of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.
It is undisputed that petitioner voluntarily signed the real estate mortgage as an accommodation mortgagor and that she knew her obligations therefrom. As such, petitioner is bound by the stipulations therein. Article 1159 of the Civil Code provides that "[o]bligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith."
Petitioner's claim of the extinction of her liability as an accommodation mortgagor is untenable. The mortgage agreement dated 15 September 2004 executed by mortgagor Tamayo as representative of Sasmuan Duck Raising, petitioner as accommodation mortgagor, and respondent as mortgagee, expressly provides for the continuing liability of the accommodation mortgagor in case the payment of the loan is extended or restructured. The pertinent provisions of the mortgage agreement state:
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and as security for the payment of the additional loan above-mentioned and/or the interest and penalties thereon and/or other obligations arising thereunder, or hereunder, the MORTGAGORS do hereby TRANSFER and CONVEY BY WAY OF FIRST MORTGAGE unto the TLRC, its successors and assigns, the aforementioned parcel of land and other personal properties described and listed in the List of Mortgaged Properties together with all the buildings and improvements now existing or which may hereunder be constructed on the mortgaged properties, all easement, sugar quotas, agricultural or land indemnities, aids or subsidies and all other rights or benefits annexed to or inherent therein, now existing or which may hereafter exist. In the event that the MORTGAGORS execute subsequent Promissory Note or Notes either as a renewal of the former Note, as extension thereof, or as consolidation and/or restructuring of accounts represented by said Promissory Note or Notes, and/or Guaranty accommodations, including advances and charges on the loan as well as advances and/or other fees, interest, and charges on guaranty accommodations, or as a new loan, this Mortgage shall stand as security for the payment of said loan/s as evidenced by those Promissory Note or Notes without the necessity of executing a new contract, and this mortgage shall have the same force and effect as if the said Promissory Note or Notes and/or accommodations were existing on the date hereof. This Mortgage shall also stand as security for any and all other obligations of MORTGAGORS to the TLRC of whatever kind and nature, whether such obligations have been contracted before, during or after the constitution of this Mortgage. However, if the MORTGAGORS shall pay to the TLRC, its successors or assigns, the obligations secured by this Mortgage; together with the interest, penalties and other charges thereon according to the terms and conditions contained in the Loan Agreement and the Promissory Note above referred to and shall keep and perform all the covenants and agreements herein contained, then the Mortgage shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall remain full force and effect.
This Mortgage is constituted under the following conditions:
xxx xxx xxx
10. Accommodation Mortgage — Whenever this Mortgage is executed in accommodation of a Debtor other than the MORTGAGORS, it shall stand as security for the payment of the obligation secured by this Mortgage or its conversion to any other credit facility that may be agreed between the Debtor and the TLRC, as well as all additional loans or credit accommodations that may be granted by the TLRC to the Debtor, without need of amending this Mortgage and the Debtor is hereby appointed as Attorney-in-Fact to the MORTGAGORS for such purpose. The MORTGAGORS further agree that this Mortgage shall also secure his own personal obligations with the TLRC of whatever king [sic] and nature, whether direct or indirect, principal or secondary, as appearing in the books of TLRC as if this Mortgage were executed to secure the said personal obligations of the MORTGAGORS under the same terms and conditions. 14 (Emphasis supplied)
The mortgage contract clearly stipulates that the mortgage shall stand as security for the original obligation and the subsequent loans or credit accommodations, such as extension or renewal of the promissory note or restructuring of accounts, that may be granted by respondent to the debtor (Tamayo). Thus, although a mortgage liability is usually limited to the amount stated in the contract, but when the intent of the contracting parties is clearly evident in the provisions of the mortgage contract that the mortgaged property shall also answer for additional loans or credit accommodations, the same is valid and binding between the parties. 15
As an accommodation mortgagor, petitioner was not required to be furnished with the loan documents, or notice of the debtor's default in paying the obligation, or of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, unless stipulated in the mortgage contract. 16 In this case, there was no such stipulation, especially since the mortgage contract serves as a continuing security for the loan obtained as well as additional loans or credit accommodations as expressly provided in the mortgage contract. Thus, the RTC correctly ruled on the lack of basis to annul the mortgage.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Partial Judgment dated 14 June 2017 and the Order dated 14 September 2017 of Branch 146, Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No. 12-658 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.Rollo, pp. 124-131. Penned by Judge Encarnacion Jaja G. Moya.
3.Id. at 132-133.
4.Id. at 157-161.
5.Id. at 144-154.
6.Id. at 163-165.
7.Id. at 166.
8.Id. at 167.
9.Id. at 171-175.
10. Article 2126. The mortgage directly and immediately subjects the property upon which it is imposed whoever the possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was constituted.
11.Rollo, p. 129.
12.Quilo v. Bajao, 794 Phil. 445 (2016).
13.Almendras v. South Davao Development Corp., Inc. (Resolution), 807 Phil. 884 (2017); Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760 (2015).
14.Id. at 157-159.
15.Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 508 Phil. 704-715 (2005); G.R. No. 164910, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 751.
16.Spouses Sierra v. Paic Savings and Mortgage Bank, Inc., 742 Phil. 719-733 (2014); G.R. No. 197857, 10 September 2014, 734 SCRA 694.