Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOTTO RESTAURANT CORPORATION v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179665 2013-04-03	SOLID BUILDERS v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Even assuming that SBI and MFII are correct in claiming their supposed right, it nonetheless disintegrates in the face of the ten promissory notes in the total amount of P218,540,648.00, exclusive of interest and penalties, issued by SBI in favor of CBC on March 1, 1999 which until now remain unpaid despite the maturity of the said notes on March 1, 2004 and CBC's repeated demands for payment.[37] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of nonpayment of mortgage indebtedness.[38] As this Court held in Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. OJ-Mark Trading, Inc.[39]: Where the parties stipulated in their credit agreements, mortgage contracts and promissory notes that the mortgagee is authorized to foreclose the mortgaged properties in case of default by the mortgagors, the mortgagee has a clear right to foreclosure in case of default, making the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction improper. x x x. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 159370 2012-10-03	PALM TREE ESTATES v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The right of PNB to extrajudicially foreclose on the real estate mortgage in the event of PTEI's default is provided under various contracts of the parties. Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of nonpayment of mortgage indebtedness.[58] In view of PTEI's failure to settle its outstanding obligations upon demand, it was proper for PNB to exercise its right to foreclose on the mortgaged properties. It then became incumbent on PTEI and BAGCCI, when they filed the complaint and sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, to establish that they have a clear and unmistakable right which requires immediate protection during the pendency of the action. The Order dated May 17, 2001 of the trial court granting the application for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction failed to show that PTEI and BAGCCI discharged that burden.
	GR No. 166970 2011-08-17	MA. ANA M. TAMONTE v. HONGKONG PERALTA, J.
Undeniably, respondent HSBC SRP has a clear right to foreclose the mortgaged property. In real estate mortgage, when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the creditor-mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage, sell the property, and apply the proceeds of the sale to the satisfaction of the unpaid loan.[16] Clearly, foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of mortgage indebtedness.[17]