Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/384154738/22-Larrobis-v-Phil-Veterans-Bank-GR-No-135706
Timestamp: 2019-08-20 23:24:19
Document Index: 248962232

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 1144', 'Art. 1154', 'Art. 1142', 'Art. 1115', 'Art. 1115', 'Art. 1155']

22. Larrobis v Phil Veterans Bank GR No. 135706 | Receivership | Foreclosure
Uploaded by Kaye Miranda Laurente
saveSave 22. Larrobis v Phil Veterans Bank GR No. 135706 For Later
Commodities Storage vs. CA.docx
DBP v. GARCIA
Wednesday - October 10, 2012 - ForeclosureGate Gazette
dbc v. nlrc
Buckingham v. Bank of Am – foreclosure, standing.pdf
Pleading Case 2
Biaco vs. PCRB
7/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 440
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Larrobis, Jr. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank
G.R. No. 135706. October 1, 2004.
SPS. CESAR A. LARROBIS, JR. and
VIRGINIA S. LARROBIS, petitioners, vs.
Banks; Receivership; Obligations; The receiver of
the bank is obliged to collect pre­existing debts due to
the bank, and in connection therewith, to foreclose
mortgages securing such debts.—When a bank is
prohibited from continuing to do business by the
Central Bank and a receiver is appointed for such
bank, that bank would not be able to do new
business, i.e., to grant new loans or to accept new
deposits. However, the receiver of the bank is in fact
obliged to collect debts owing to the bank, which
debts form part of the assets of the bank. The receiver
must assemble the assets and pay the obligation of
the bank under receivership, and take steps to
prevent dissipation of such assets. Accordingly, the
receiver of the bank is obliged to collect pre­existing
debts due to the bank, and in connection therewith, to
foreclose mortgages securing such debts.
Same; Same; Same; Settled is the principle that
a bank is bound by the act, or failure to act of its
receiver.—Settled is the principle that a bank is
bound by the acts, or failure to act of its receiver. As
we held in Philippine Veterans Bank vs. NLRC,a
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
labor case which also involved respondent bank, . . .
all the acts of the receiver and liquidator pertain to
petitioner, both having assumed petitioner’s
corporate existence. Petitioner cannot disclaim
liability by arguing that the non­payment of
MOLINA’s just wages was committed by the
liquidators during the liquidation period. However,
the bank may go after the receiver who is liable to it
for any culpable or negligent failure to collect the
assets of such bank and to safeguard its assets.
Actions; Prescription; Prescription of actions is
interrupted in the following instances.—Prescription
of actions is interrupted when they are filed before
the court, when there is a written extrajudicial
demand by the creditors, and when there is any
written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 1, 2004 35
Civil Law; Contracts; Mortgage; Foreclosure;
Notice; Notices of foreclosure sent by the mortgagee to
the mortgagor cannot be considered tantamount to
written extrajudicial demands.—The notices of
foreclosure sent by the mortgagee to the mortgagor
cannot be considered tantamount to written
extrajudicial demands, which may validly interrupt
the running of the prescriptive period, where it does
not appear from the records that the notes are
covered by the mortgage contract.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/24
PETITION for review on certiorari of the
decision and resolution of the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City, Br. 24.
Florante L. Abad for petitioner.
The Chief Legal Counsel and Ma.
Corazon L. Leynes for Philippine Veterans
AUSTRIA­MARTINEZ, J.:
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),1
Branch 24, dated April 17, 1998, and the order
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
25, 1998, raising pure questions
On March 3, 1980, petitioner spouses
contracted a monetary loan with respondent
Philippine Veterans Bank in the amount of
P135,000.00, evidenced by a promissory note,
due and demandable on February 27, 1981, and
secured by a Real Estate Mortgage executed on
their lot together with the improvements
On March 23, 1985, the respondent bank
went bankrupt and was placed under
receivership/liquidation by the Central 3
from April 25, 1985 until August 1992.
1 Penned by Judge Pricila S. Agana; Rollo, pp. 29­37.
2 Rollo, pp. 38­42.
3 Rollo, pp. 29, 82.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/24
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
On August 23, 1985, the bank, through
Francisco Go, sent the spouses a demand letter
for “accounts receivable in the total amount
P6,345.00 as of August 15, 1984,” which
pertains to the insurance premiums advanced
by respondent bank5 over the mortgaged
property of petitioners.
On August 23, 1995, more than fourteen
years from the time the loan became due and
demandable, respondent bank filed a petition
for extrajudicial foreclosure
of mortgage of
petitioners’ property. On October 18, 1995, the
property was sold in a public auction by Sheriff
Arthur Cabigon with Philippine Veterans Bank
as the lone bidder.
On April 26, 1996, petitioners filed a
complaint with the RTC, Cebu City, to declare
the extrajudicial foreclosure and the
subsequent sale7
thereof to respondent bank
In the pre­trial conference, the parties
agreed to limit the issue to whether or not the
period within which the bank was placed under
receivership and liquidation was a fortuitous
event which suspended the running of the ten­8
year prescriptive period in bringing actions.
On April 17, 1998, the RTC rendered its
4 Records, p. 14.
5 Rollo, pp. 62­63.
6 Records, pp. 15­16.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/24
7 Id., pp. 11­12.
8 Rollo, pp. 12, 35, 58.
Art. 1144 of the Civil Code provides:
the time the right of action accrues:
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 1, 2004 37
“WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is
hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of
merit. Likewise the compulsory counterclaim9 of
defendant is dismissed for being unmeritorious.”
“. . . defendant bank was placed under receivership
by the Central Bank from April 1985 until 1992. The
defendant bank was given authority by the Central
Bank to operate as a private commercial bank and
became fully operational only on August 3, 1992.
From April 1985 until July 1992, defendant bank
was restrained from doing its business. Doing
business as construed by Justice Laurel in 222
SCRA 131 refers to:
“. . . a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements
and contemplates to that extent, the performance of acts
or words or the exercise of some of the functions normally
incident to and in progressive prosecution of the purpose
and object of its organization.”
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/24
The defendant bank’s right to foreclose the mortgaged
property prescribes in ten (10) years but such period was
interrupted when it was placed under receivership. Article
1154 of the New Civil Code to this effect provides:
“The period during which the obligee was prevented by
a fortuitous event from enforcing his right is not reckoned
In the case of Provident Savings Bank vs. Court of
Appeals, 222 SCRA 131, the Supreme Court said.
“Having arrived at the conclusion that a foreclosure is
part of a bank’s activity which could not have been
pursued by the receiver then because of the circumstances
discussed in the Central Bank case, we are thus convinced
that the prescriptive period was legally interrupted by
fuerza mayor in 1972 on account of the prohibition
imposed by the Monetary Board against petitioner from
transacting business, until the directive of the Board was
nullified in 1981. Indeed, the period during which the
obligee was prevented by a caso fortuito from en­
forcing his right is not reckoned against him. (Art. 1154,
NCC) When prescription is interrupted, all the benefits
acquired so far from the possession cease and when
prescription starts anew, it will be entirely a new one. This
concept should not be equated with suspension where the
past period is included in the computation being added to
the period after the prescription is presumed (4 Tolentino,
Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
Philippines 1991 ed. pp. 18­19), consequently, when the
closure of the petitioner was set aside in 1981, the period
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/24
of ten years within which to foreclose under Art. 1142 of
the N.C.C. began to run and, therefore, the action filed on
August 21, 1986 to compel petitioner to release the
mortgage carried with it the mistaken notion that
petitioner’s own suit for foreclosure has prescribed.”
“Even assuming that the liquidation of defendant
bank did not affect its right to foreclose the
plaintiffs’ mortgaged property, the questioned
extrajudicial foreclosure was well within the ten (10)
year prescriptive period. It is noteworthy to mention
at this point in time, that defendant bank through
authorized Deputy Francisco Go made the first
extrajudicial demand to the plaintiffs on August
1985. Then on March 24, 1995 defendant bank
through its officer­in­charge Llanto made the second
extrajudicial demand. And we all know that a
written extrajudicial demand wipes out the period
that has already elapsed and starts anew the
period. (Ledesma vs. C.A., 224 SCRA
175.)”
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration
which the RTC denied on August 25, 1998.
Thus, the present petition for review where
petitioners claim that the RTC erred:
. . . IN RULING THAT THE PERIOD WITHIN
WHICH RESPONDENT BANK WAS PUT UNDER
RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION WAS A
FORTUITOUS EVENT THAT INTERRUPTED THE
RUNNING OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD.
10 Rollo, pp. 35­37.
11 Id., p. 42.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/24
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 1, 2004 39
. . . IN RULING THAT THE WRITTEN
EXTRAJUDICIAL DEMAND MADE BY
RESPONDENT ON PETITIONERS WIPED OUT
THE PERIOD THAT HAD ALREADY ELAPSED.
. . . IN DENYING PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR
OF ITS HEREIN ASSAILED
Petitioners argue that: since the extra­judicial
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage was
effected by the bank on October 18, 1995, which
was fourteen years from the date the obligation
became due on February 27, 1981, said
foreclosure and the subsequent sale at public
auction should be set aside and declared null
and void ab initio since they are already barred
by prescription; the court a quo erred in
sustaining the respondent’s theory that its
having been placed under receivership by the
Central Bank between April 1985 and August
1992 was a fortuitous event that interrupted
the running of the prescriptive period; the
court a quo’s reliance on the case of Provident
Savings Bank vs. Court of Appeals is
misplaced since they have different sets of
facts; in the present case, a liquidator was duly
appointed for respondent bank and there was
no judgment or court order that would legally
or physically hinder or prohibit it from
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/24
foreclosing petitioners’ property; despite the
absence of such legal or physical hindrance,
respondent bank’s receiver or liquidator failed
to foreclose petitioners’ property and therefore15
such inaction should bind respondent bank;
foreclosure of mortgages is part of the
receiver’s/liquidator’s duty of administering the
bank’s assets for the benefit of its depositors
and creditors, thus, the ten­year prescriptive
period which started on February 27, 1981,
12 Id., p. 13.
14 G.R. No. 97218, May 17, 1993, 222 SCRA 125.
15 Rollo, pp. 13­14.
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
was not interrupted by the time during which
the respondent bank was placed under
receivership; and the Monetary Board’s
prohibition from doing business should not be
construed as barring any and all business
dealings and transactions by the bank,
otherwise, the specific mandate to foreclose
mortgages under Sec. 29 of R.A. No. 265 as
amended by Executive
Order No. 65 would be
rendered nugatory. Said provision reads:
“Section 29. Proceedings upon Insolvency.—
Whenever, upon examination by the head of the
appropriate supervising or examining department or
his examiners or agents into the condition of any
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/24
bank or non­bank financial intermediary performing
quasi­banking functions, it shall be disclosed that
the condition of the same is one of insolvency, or that
its continuance in business would involve probable
loss to its depositors or creditors, it shall be the duly
of the department head concerned forthwith, in
writing, to inform the Monetary Board of the facts.
The Board may, upon finding the statements of the
department head to be true, forbid the institution to
do business in the Philippines and designate the
official of the Central Bank or a person of recognized
competence in banking or finance, as receiver to
immediately take charge its assets and liabilities, as
expeditiously as possible, collect and gather all the
assets and administer the same for the benefit of its
creditors, and represent the bank personally or
through counsel as he may retain in all actions or
proceedings for or against the institution, exercising
all the powers necessary for these purposes
including, but not limited to, bringing and
foreclosing mortgages in the name of the bank.”
Petitioners further contend that: the demand
letter, dated March 24, 1995, was sent after the
ten­year prescriptive period, thus it cannot be
deemed to have revived a period that has
already elapsed; it is also not one of the
instances enumerated by Art. 1115 of the17 Civil
Code when prescription is interrupted; and
the August 23, 1985 letter by Francisco Go
16 Id., pp. 17­18.
17 Art. 1115. The prescription of actions is interrupted
when they are filed before the court, when there is a
written extrajudicial
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/24
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 1, 2004 41
demanding P6,345.00, refers to the insurance
premium on the house of petitioners, advanced
by respondent bank, thus such demand letter
referred to another obligation and could not
have the effect of interrupting the running of
the prescriptive period in favor of herein
petitioners insofar as 18
mortgage is concerned.
Petitioners then prayed that respondent
bank be ordered to pay them P100,000.00 as
moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary 19
damages and P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
Respondent for its part asserts that: the
period within which it was placed under
event that interrupted the running of the
prescriptive period for the foreclosure of
petitioners’ mortgaged property; within such
period, it was specifically restrained and
immobilized from doing business which
includes foreclosure proceedings; the
extrajudicial demand it made on March 24,
1995 wiped out the period that has already
lapsed and started anew the prescriptive
period; respondent through its authorized
deputy Francisco Go made the first
extrajudicial demand on the petitioners on
August 23, 1985; while it is true that the first
demand letter of August 1985 pertained to the
insurance premium advanced by it over the
mortgaged property of petitioners, the same
however formed part of the letter’s total loan
obligation with respondent under the mortgage
instrument and therefore constitutes a valid
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/24
extrajudicial demand20
In their Reply, petitioners reiterate their
earlier arguments and add that it was
respondent that insured the mortgaged
property thus it should not pass the obligation
through the letter dated August
demand by the creditors, and when there is any written
18 Rollo, pp. 19­22.
20 Id., pp. 58­59, 62­63.
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
To resolve this petition, two questions need to
be answered: (1) Whether or not the period
within which the respondent bank was placed
under receivership and liquidation proceedings
may be considered a fortuitous event which
interrupted the running of the prescriptive
period in bringing actions; and (2) Whether or
not the demand letter sent by respondent
bank’s representative on August 23, 1985 is
sufficient to in terrupt the running of the
Anent the first issue, we answer in the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/24
One characteristic of a fortuitous event, in a
legal sense and consequently in relations to
contract, is that its occurrence must be such as
to render it impossible for a party
obligation in a normal manner.
Respondent’s claims that because of a
fortuitous event, it was not able to exercise its
right to foreclose the mortgage on petitioners’
property; and that since it was banned from
pursuing its business and was placed under
receivership from April 25, 1985 until August
1992, it could not foreclose the mortgage on
petitioners’ property within such period since
foreclosure is embraced in the phrase “doing
business,” are without merit.
While it is true that foreclosure falls within
the broad definition of “doing business,” that is:
“. . . a continuity of commercial dealings and
arrangements and contemplates to that extent, the
performance of acts or words or the exercise of some
of the functions normally incident to and in
progressive prosecution of the purpose and object of
its organization.”
22 National Power Corporation vs. Philipp Brothers
Oceanic Inc., G.R. No. 126204, November 20, 2001, 369
SCRA 629, 643.
23 Provident Savings Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
97218, May 17, 1993, 222 SCRA 125, 131, citing
Mentholatum Co., Inc., et al. vs. Mangaliman, et al., 72
Phil. 524 (1941).
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 1, 2004 43
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/24
it should not be considered included, however,
in the actsprohibited whenever banks are
“prohibited from doing business” during
receivership and liquidation proceedings.
This we made clear in Banco Filipino Savings
& Mortgage Bank vs. Monetary
Board, Central
Bank of the Philippines where we explained
“Section 29 of the Republic Act No. 265, as amended
known as the Central Bank Act, provides that when
a bank is forbidden to do business in the Philippines
and placed under receivership, the person designated
as receiver shall immediately take charge of the
bank’s assets and liabilities, as expeditiously as
possible, collect and gather all the assets and
administer the same for the benefit of its creditors,
and represent the bank personally or through counsel
as he may retain in all actions or proceedings for or
against the institution, exercising all the powers
necessary for these purposes including, but not
limited to, bringing and foreclosing mortgages in the
name of the bank.”
This is consistent with the purpose of
receivership proceedings, i.e., to receive
collectibles and preserve the assets of the bank
in substitution of its former management, and
prevent the dissipation of its assets 26
detriment of the creditors of the bank.
When a bank is declared insolvent and
placed under receivership, the Central Bank,
through the Monetary Board, determines
whether to proceed with the liquidation or
reorganization of the financially distressed
bank. A receiver, who concurrently represents
the bank, then takes control and possession of
its assets for the benefit of the bank’s creditors.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/24
A liquidator meanwhile assumes the role of the
receiver upon the determination by the
Monetary Board that the bank can
24 G.R. No. 70054, December 11, 1991, 204 SCRA 767.
25 Id., p. 788.
26 Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs.
Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No.
70054, December 11, 1991, 204 SCRA 767, 789­790.
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
no longer resume business. His task is to
dispose of all the assets of the bank and effect
partial payments of the bank’s obligations in
accordance with legal priority. In both
receivership and liquidation proceedings, the
bank retains its juridical personality
notwithstanding the closure of its business and
may even be sued as its corporate existence is
assumed by the receiver or liquidator. The
receiver or liquidator meanwhile acts not only
of the bank, but for its creditors
In Provident
Savings Bank vs. Court of
Appeals, we further stated that:
“When a bank is prohibited from continuing to do
business by the Central Bank and a receiver is
appointed for such bank, that bank would not be
able to do new business, i.e., to grant new loans or to
accept new deposits. However, the receiver of the
bank is in fact obliged to collect debts owing to
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/24
the bank, which debts form part of the assets
of the bank. The receiver must assemble the
assets and pay the obligation of the bank
under receivership, and take steps to prevent
dissipation of such assets. Accordingly, the
receiver of the bank is obliged to collect pre­
existing debts due to the bank, and in
connection therewith, to foreclose mortgages
securing such debts.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is true that we also held in said case that the
period during which the bank was placed under
receivership was deemed fuerza mayor which 30
validly interrupted the prescriptive period.
This is being invoked by the respondent and
was used as basis by the trial court in its
decision. Contrary to the position of the
respondent and court a quo however, such
ruling does not find application in the case at
27 Philippine Veterans Bank vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130439, October 26, 1999,
317 SCRA 510, 519.
28 G.R. No. 97218, May 17, 1993, 222 SCRA 125.
29 Id., pp. 131­132.
30 Id., p. 132.
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 1, 2004 45
A close scrutiny of the Provident case, shows
that the Court arrived at said conclusion,
which is an exception to the general rule, due
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/24
to the peculiar circumstances of Provident
Savings Bank at the time. In said case, we
“Having arrived at the conclusion that a foreclosure
is part of a bank’s business activity which could
not have been pursued by the receiver then
because of the circumstances discussed in the
Central Bank case, we are thus convinced that the
prescriptive period was legally interrupted by fuerza
mayor in 1972 on account of the prohibition imposed
by the Monetary Board against petitioner from
transacting business, until
the directive of the Board
was nullified in 1981.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Further examination of the Central Bank case
reveals that the circumstances of Provident
Savings Bank at the time were peculiar
because after the Monetary Board issued MB
Resolution No. 1766 on September 15, 1972,
prohibiting it from doing business in the
Philippines, the bank’s majority stockholders
immediately went to the Court of First
Instance of Manila, which prompted the trial
court to issue its judgment dated February 20,
1974, declaring null and void the resolution
and ordering the Central Bank to desist from
liquidating Provident. The decision was
appealed to and affirmed by this Court in 1981.
Thus, the Superintendent of Banks, which was
instructed to take charge of the assets of the
bank in the name of the Monetary Board, had
no power to act as a receiver of the bank and
carry out the obligations
specified in Sec. 29 of
the Central Bank Act.
In this case, it is not disputed that
Philippine Veterans Bank was placed under
receivership by the Monetary Board of the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/24
Central Bank by virtue of Resolution No. 364
32 Central Bank vs. Court of Appeals, Nos. L­50031­32,
July 27, 1981, 106 SCRA 143, 149­157.
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
25, 1985, pursuant to Section 29 33of the Central
Bank Act on insolvency of banks.
Unlike Provident Savings Bank, there was
no legal prohibition imposed upon herein
respondent to deter its receiver and liquidator
from performing their obligations under the
law. Thus, the ruling laid down in the
Provident case cannot apply in the case at bar.
There is also no truth to respondent’s claim
that it could not continue doing business from
the period of April 1985 to August 1992, the
time it was under receivership. As correctly
pointed out by petitioner, respondent was even
able to send petitioners a demand letter,
through Francisco Go, on August 23, 1985 for
“accounts receivable in the total amount of
P6,345.00 as of August 15, 1984” for the
insurance premiums advanced by respondent
bank over the mortgaged property of
petitioners. How it could send a demand letter
on unpaid insurance premiums and not
foreclose the mortgage during the time it was
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/24
“prohibited from doing business” was not
adequately explained by respondent.
Settled is the principle that a bank is bound
by the acts, or failure to act of its receiver. As
we held35
in Philippine Veterans Bank vs.
NLRC, a labor case which also involved
respondent bank,
“. . . all the acts of the receiver and liquidator pertain
to petitioner, both having assumed petitioner’s
MOLJNA’s just wages was committed 36
liquidators during the liquidation period.”
33 Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. 73162, October 23, 1989, 178 SCRA 645,
34 Philippine Trust Co. vs. HSBC, 67 Phil. 204 (1939).
35 G.R. No. 130439, October 26, 1999, 317 SCRA 510.
36 Id., p. 520.
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 1, 2004 47
However, the bank may go after the receiver
who is liable to it for any culpable or negligent
failure to collect the 37assets of such bank and to
Having reached the conclusion that the
period within which respondent bank was
placed under receivership and liquidation
proceedings does not constitute a fortuitous
event which interrupted the prescriptive period
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/24
in bringing actions, we now turn to the second
issue on whether or not the extrajudicial
demand made by respondent bank, through
Francisco Go, on August 23, 1985 for the
amount of P6,345.00, which pertained to the
insurance premiums advanced by the bank
over the mortgaged property, constitutes a
valid extrajudicial demand which interrupted
the running of the prescriptive period. Again,
Prescription of actions is interrupted when
they are filed before the court, when there is a
written extrajudicial demand by the creditors,
and when there is any written
Respondent’s claim that while its first
demand letter dated August 23, 1985 pertained
to the insurance premium it advanced over the
formed part of the latter’s total loan obligation
with respondent under the mortgage
instrument, and therefore, constitutes a valid
extrajudicial demand which interrupted the
running of the prescriptive period, is not
The real estate mortgage signed by the
petitioners expressly states that:
“This mortgage is constituted by the Mortgagor to
secure the payment of the loan and/or credit
accommodation granted to the spouses Cesar A.
Larrobis, Jr. and Virginia S. Larrobis in the amount
of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND
(P135,000.00) PESOS ONLY Philippine Currency in
favor of the herein Mortgagee.”
37 Philippine Trust Co. vs. HSBC, 67 Phil. 204 (1939).
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/24
38 Civil Code, Art. 1155.
39 Records, p. 13.
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
The promissory note, executed by the
petitioners, also states that:
. . . FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I/WE, JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY, PROMISE TO PAY THE
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, OR ORDER, AT
ITS OFFICE AT CEBU CITY THE SUM OF ONE
HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P135,000.00), PHILIPPINE CURRENCY WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF FOURTEEN PER
CENT (14%) PER ANNUM FROM THIS DATE
Considering that the mortgage contract and the
promissory note refer only to the loan of
petitioners in the amount of P135,000.00, we
have no reason to hold that the insurance
premiums, in the amount of P6,345.00, which
was the subject of the August 1985 demand
letter, should be considered as pertaining to the
entire obligation of petitioners.
In Quirino Gonzales41
Logging Concessionaire
vs. Court of Appeals, we held that the notices
of foreclosure sent by the mortgagee to the
mortgagor cannot be considered tantamount to
written extrajudicial demands, which may
validly interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period, where it does not appear
from the records that 42 the notes are covered by
the mortgage contract.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/24
In this case, it is clear that the advanced
payment of the insurance premiums is not part
of the mortgage contract and the promissory
note signed by petitioners. They pertain only to
the amount of P135,000.00 which is the
principal loan of petitioners plus interest. The
arguments of respondent bank on this point
must therefore fail.
As to petitioners’ claim for damages,
however, we find no sufficient basis to award
the same. For moral damages to be awarded,
the claimant must satisfactorily prove the
40 Id., p. 11.
41 G.R. No. 126568, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 181.
42 Id., p. 191
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 1, 2004 49
of the factual basis of the damage 43
causal relation to defendant’s acts. Exemplary
damages meanwhile, which are imposed as a
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to
curb socially deleterious actions, may be
awarded only after the claimant has proven
that he is entitled to moral,
temperate or
compensatory damages. Finally, as to
attorney’s fees, it is demanded that there be
factual,45 legal and equitable justification for its
award. Since the bases for these claims were
not adequately proven by the petitioners, we
find no reason to grant the same.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/24
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 24, dated April
17, 1998, and the order denying petitioners’
motion for reconsideration dated August 25,
1998 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate
mortgage on October 18, 1995, is hereby
declared null and void and respondent is
ordered to return to petitioners their owner’s
Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr. and
Tinga, JJ., concur.
Chico­Nazario, J., On Leave.
Assailed decision and order reversed and set
Note.—A bank which has been ordered
closed by the monetary board retains it's
juridical personality which can sue or be sued
through its liquidator. (Manalo vs. Court of
Appeals, 366 SCRA 752 [2001])
43 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Emerald
Resort Hotel Corp., G.R. No. 125838. June 10, 2003, 403
SCRA 460.
44 Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118325,
January 29, 1997, 267 SCRA 158, 172.
45 Id., p. 173.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/24
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000164634ba61e23147202003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/24
Documents Similar To 22. Larrobis v Phil Veterans Bank GR No. 135706
Epifanio Cruz case
6 156339-1925-Reyes_v._Rosenstock20180410-1159-6z1bw7
Company Profile Red.doc
Edwin Cutanda