This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-12-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| TMI's right to the refund accrued from the time PCILF received the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged equipment. However, since TMI never made a counterclaim or demand for refund due on the resulting overpayment after offsetting the proceeds of the sale against the remaining balance on the principal loan plus applicable interest, no interest applies on the amount of refund due. Nonetheless, in accord with prevailing jurisprudence,[34] the excess amount PCILF must refund to TMI is subject to interest at 12% per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid. | |||||
|
2010-12-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| 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.[26] 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.[27] | |||||