25Lastly, the RTC ruled that the shorter period ofredemption under Republic Act No. 879126cannot apply toPDCP considering that the REMs were executed prior tothe effectivity of said law. As such, the longer period ofredemption under Act No. 313527applies.28Aggrieved, BPI appealed to the CA.29Ruling of the CAIn its Decision30dated November 25, 2009, the CAreversed the RTC’s ruling on all points. The CA foundPDCP’s contentions incredible for the following reasons: (i)the fact that PDCP surrendered the titles to the mortgagedproperties to FEBTC only shows that PDCP intended tomortgage all of these properties; (ii) if it were true thatFEBTC 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 ANACTTOREGULATETHESALEOFPROPERTYUNDERSPECIALPOWERSINSERTEDINORANNEXEDTOREALESTATEMORTGAGES. Approved on March 26,1924.28 RTC Records, pp. 704-705.29 Id., at pp. 707A-708.30 Rollo, pp. 37-74.
5/7/2020SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 82611/31277VOL. 826, JUNE 7, 2017277Paradigm Development Corporation of the Philippines vs.Bank of the Philippine IslandsPDCP that it would be registering only one of the twoREMs in order to reduce registration expenses, then eachof the two REMs should have covered the four propertiesbut it was not. On the contrary, the four properties werespread out with one REM covering one of the fourproperties and the other REMs covering the remainingthree properties; and (iii) PDCP never complained toFEBTC regarding the registration of the two REMs evenafter it discovered the same.31Also, the CA ruled that novation could not have takenplace from FEBTC’s mere act of approving Sengkon’srequest to change account name from Sengkon to STI.32Moreover, it held that the fact that FEBTC failed tosubmit the original copies of the PNs that formed the basisof its Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgagecannot affect the validity of foreclosure because the validityof the obligations represented in those PNs was neverdenied by Sengkon nor by PDCP.33The CA added that even if the obligations of Sengkon incredit facilities (other than the Credit Line) were included,since the REMs contain a dragnet clause, these otherobligations were still covered by PDCP’s REMs.34Lastly,the CA ruled that the failure to send a notice ofextrajudicial foreclosure sale to PDCP did not affect thevalidity of the foreclosure sale because personal notice tothe mortgagor is not even generally required.35Hence, this present petition, where PDCP presented thefollowing 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
5/7/2020SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 82612/31278SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDParadigm Development Corporation of the Philippines vs.