Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BANK OF COMMERCE v. SPS. PRUDENCIO SAN PABLO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 189477 2014-02-26	HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS v. ASUNCION P. FELONIA PEREZ, J.
Arguably, HSLB was initially a mortgagee in good faith. In Bank of Commerce v. San Pablo, Jr.,[17] the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith was explained:There is, however, a situation where, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, his title being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale arising there from are given effect by reason of public policy. This is the doctrine of "the mortgagee in good faith" based on the rule that all persons dealing with property covered by the Torrens Certificates of Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public interest in upholding indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title.
	GR No. 171464 2013-11-27	SPS. ELISEO R. BAUTISTA AND EMPERATRIZ C. BAUTISTA v. SPS. MILA JALANDONI AND ANTONIO JALANDONI AND MANILA CREDIT CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
Generally, the law does not require a person dealing with registered land to go beyond the certificate of title to determine the liabilities attaching to the property.[40] In the absence of suspicion, a purchaser or mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificates of title of the mortgagor and is not obligated to undertake further investigation.[41] For indeed the Court in several cases declared that a void title may be the source of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.[42]
	GR No. 196577 2013-02-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BARBARA SAMPAGA POBLETE CARPIO, J.
Based on the evidence, Land Bank processed Maniego's loan application upon his presentation of OCT No. P-12026, which was still under the name of Poblete. Land Bank even ignored the fact that Kapantay previously used Poblete's title as collateral in its loan account with Land Bank.[33] In Bank of Commerce v. San Pablo, Jr.,[34] we held that when "the person applying for the loan is other than the registered owner of the real property being mortgaged, [such fact] should have already raised a red flag and which should have induced the Bank x x x to make inquiries into and confirm x x x [the] authority to mortgage x x x. A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is not an innocent purchaser for value."
	GR No. 181842 2010-02-05	METROPOLITAN BANK v. BERNARDITA H. PEREZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court notes that respondent's witness-attorney-in-fact testified only on the existence of the lease agreement and unrealized income due to pre-termination. Since an award of moral damages is predicated on a categorical showing from the claimant that emotional and mental sufferings were actually experienced, absent any evidence thereon in the present case,[15] the award must be disallowed. And so too must the award of attorney's fees, absent an indication in the trial court's Decision of the factual basis thereof, the award having been merely stated in the dispositive portion.[16] Parenthetically, while respondent prayed in her complaint for the award of attorney's fees and testified during the trial that: Q: Now, in connection with the filing of this case and hiring your lawyer, do you have agreement with your counsel with respect to attorney's fees?
	GR No. 170540 2009-10-28	BALATICO v. RODRIGUEZ PERALTA, J.
In any case, the Court finds no error in the findings of both the RTC and the CA that PNB is indeed an innocent mortgagee for value. When the lots were mortgaged to PNB by Lim, the titles thereto were in the latter's name, and they showed neither vice nor infirmity. In accepting the mortgage, PNB was not required to make any further investigation of the titles to the properties being given as security, and could rely entirely on what was stated in the aforesaid title. The public interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of the lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relies upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title.[25]
	GR No. 177598 2008-10-16	ROBERT SAN PEDRO v. WILLY ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the more recent case of Bank of Commerce v. San Pablo, Jr.,[36] the Court elucidated:The Bank of Commerce clearly failed to observe the required degree of caution in ascertaining the genuineness and extent of the authority of Santos to mortgage the subject property. It should not have simply relied on the face of the documents submitted by Santos, as its undertaking to lend a considerable amount of money required of it a greater degree of diligence. That the person applying for the loan is other than the registered owner of the real property being mortgaged should have already raised a red flag and which should have induced the Bank of Commerce to make inquiries into and confirm Santos' authority to mortgage the Spouses San Pablo's property. A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is not an innocent purchaser for value (Emphasis ours.)
	GR No. 160898 2008-06-27	DAVID SIA TIO v. LORENZO ABAYATA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[D]efendant Rural Bank was not a mortgagee in good faith because of its failure to examine more closely the title of the mortgagors despite the first-hand knowledge that other persons, and not the would-be mortgagors, were in possession of the property. The very fact that the lot was not in the possession of the Lasolas should have put the defendant bank on guard and prompted it to make a more thorough inquiry into the ownership of the lot. x x x the defendant Rural Bank relied on the representation of Banjamin Lasola that the residents on the lot were squatters. There is no showing that it inquired from the residents themselves as to who the real owners were, something it would have done if it were reasonably diligent and prudent in verifying the true ownership of the lot. Instead, as testified to by Mrs. Lechido, the bank relied merely on the declarations of Benjamin Lasola and one resident on the lot that the houses were built and occupied by squatters. x x x[21] As a banking institution, it is expected to exercise due diligence before entering into a mortgage contract. The ascertainment of the status or condition of a property offered to it as security for a loan must be a standard and indispensable part of its operations.[22]