25 Lastly the RTC ruled that the shorter period of redemption under Republic

25 lastly the rtc ruled that the shorter period of

This preview shows page 10 - 13 out of 31 pages.

25 Lastly, the RTC ruled that the shorter period of redemption under Republic Act No. 8791 26 cannot apply to PDCP considering that the REMs were executed prior to the effectivity of said law. As such, the longer period of redemption under Act No. 3135 27 applies. 28 Aggrieved, BPI appealed to the CA. 29 Ruling of the CA In its Decision 30 dated November 25, 2009, the CA reversed the RTC’s ruling on all points. The CA found PDCP’s contentions incredible for the following reasons: (i) the fact that PDCP surrendered the titles to the mortgaged properties to FEBTC only shows that PDCP intended to mortgage all of these properties; (ii) if it were true that FEBTC assured _______________ 24 Id. , at p. 701. 25 Id. , at pp. 702-704. 26 The General Banking Law of 2000. Approved on May 23, 2000. 27 A N A CT TO R EGULATE THE S ALE OF P ROPERTY U NDER S PECIAL P OWERS I NSERTED IN OR A NNEXED TO R EAL E STATE M ORTGAGES . Approved on March 26, 1924. 28 RTC Records, pp. 704-705. 29 Id. , at pp. 707A-708. 30 Rollo , pp. 37-74.
Image of page 10
5/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826 11/31 277 VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017 277 Paradigm Development Corporation of the Philippines vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands PDCP that it would be registering only one of the two REMs in order to reduce registration expenses, then each of the two REMs should have covered the four properties but it was not. On the contrary, the four properties were spread out with one REM covering one of the four properties and the other REMs covering the remaining three properties; and (iii) PDCP never complained to FEBTC regarding the registration of the two REMs even after it discovered the same. 31 Also, the CA ruled that novation could not have taken place from FEBTC’s mere act of approving Sengkon’s request to change account name from Sengkon to STI. 32 Moreover, it held that the fact that FEBTC failed to submit the original copies of the PNs that formed the basis of its Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage cannot affect the validity of foreclosure because the validity of the obligations represented in those PNs was never denied by Sengkon nor by PDCP. 33 The CA added that even if the obligations of Sengkon in credit facilities (other than the Credit Line) were included, since the REMs contain a dragnet clause, these other obligations were still covered by PDCP’s REMs. 34 Lastly, the CA ruled that the failure to send a notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale to PDCP did not affect the validity of the foreclosure sale because personal notice to the mortgagor is not even generally required. 35 Hence, this present petition, where PDCP presented the following arguments: _______________ 31 Id. , at pp. 51-53. 32 Id. , at pp. 54-56. 33 Id. , at p. 60. 34 Id. , at pp. 61-65. 35 Id. , at pp. 65-66. 278
Image of page 11
5/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 826 12/31 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Paradigm Development Corporation of the Philippines vs.
Image of page 12
Image of page 13

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 31 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • FEBTC, PDCP

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture