Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. CA AND SPS. ALEJANDRO AND AMPARO CASAFRANCA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183987 2012-07-25	ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CARMELO H. TUBLE SERENO, J.
[33] Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 297 (1996).
	GR No. 177886 2008-11-27	SPS. LEOPOLDO S. VIOLA AND MERCEDITA VIOLA v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
A mortgage must "sufficiently describe the debt sought to be secured, which description must not be such as to mislead or deceive, and an obligation is not secured by a mortgage unless it comes fairly within the terms of the mortgage.[15]
	GR NO. 167724 2006-06-27	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. MARGARITA VDA. DE COSCOLLUELA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under a mortgage to secure the payment of future advancements, the mere fact that the repayments on a particular day equal the amount of the mortgage will not discharge the mortgage before maturity so long as advancements may be demanded and are being received. (Luengo & Martinez v. Moreno, supra)[57] Moreover, the series of loan advancements herein cannot be likened to the credit line discussed in Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[58] as petitioner posited in its reply[59] filed before this Court. In Caltex, unlike the instant case, the real estate mortgage executed did not contain a "dragnet" clause[60] that would subsume all past and future debts. The mortgage therein specifically secured only the loans extended prior to the mortgage. Thus, in the said case, the future debts were deemed as constituting a separate transaction from the past debts secured by the mortgage.
	GR NO. 168736 2006-04-19	SPS. ADELINA S.CUYCO AND FELICIANO U. CUYCO v. SPS. RENATO CUYCO AND FILIPINA CUYCO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While a real estate mortgage may exceptionally secure future loans or advancements, these future debts must be sufficiently described in the mortgage contract. An obligation is not secured by a mortgage unless it comes fairly within the terms of the mortgage contract.[34]
	GR NO. 162822 2005-08-25	JAIME GUINHAWA v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits. The fraudulent representation of the seller, in this case, that the van to be sold is brand new, is not the deceit contemplated in the law. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where a statement ascribes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic words will usually be limited to things of a similar nature with those particularly enumerated unless there be something in the context to the contrary.[43]
	GR No. 150197 2005-07-28	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. DON A. ALVIAR TINGA, J.
A "blanket mortgage clause," also known as a "dragnet clause" in American jurisprudence, is one which is specifically phrased to subsume all debts of past or future origins. Such clauses are "carefully scrutinized and strictly construed."[38] Mortgages of this character enable the parties to provide continuous dealings, the nature or extent of which may not be known or anticipated at the time, and they avoid the expense and inconvenience of executing a new security on each new transaction.[39] A "dragnet clause" operates as a convenience and accommodation to the borrowers as it makes available additional funds without their having to execute additional security documents, thereby saving time, travel, loan closing costs, costs of extra legal services, recording fees, et cetera.[40] Indeed, it has been settled in a long line of decisions that mortgages given to secure future advancements are valid and legal contracts,[41] and the amounts named as consideration in said contracts do not limit the amount for which the mortgage may stand as security if from the four corners of the instrument the intent to secure future and other indebtedness can be gathered.[42]