Case Digest Central Bank of the Philippines v CA

Central Bank of the Philippines v. CA (1985) Ponente: Makasiar, C.J. Topic: Delay (Art. 1169) Facts: April 28, 1965 - Island Savings Bank (ISB) approved the loan application for P80,000 of Sulpicio Tolentino, who, as a security for the loan, also executed a real estate mortgage over his 100-ha land. The approved loan application called for P80,000 loan, repayable in semi-annual installments for a period of 3 years, with 12% interest. May 22, 1965 – a mere P17,000 partial release of the loan was made by ISB, and Tolentino and his wife Edita signed a promissory note for P17,000 at 12% annual interest, payable within 3 years from the date of execution of the contract at semi-annual installments of P3,459. An advance interest for the P80,000 loan covering a 6-mo period amounting to P4,800was deducted from the partial release of P17,000, but this was refunded to Tolentino on July 23, 1965, after being informed by ISB that there was no fund yet available for the release of the P63,000 balance. Aug. 13, 1965 – the Monetary Board of the Central Bank issued Resolution No. 1049, which prohibited ISB from making new loans and investments, after finding that it was suffering liquidity problems. June 14, 1968 – the Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 967, which prohibited ISB from doing business in the Philippines, after finding that it failed to put up the required capital to restore its solvency. Aug. 1, 1968 – ISB, in view of non-payment of the P17,000 covered by the promissory note, filed an application for the extra-judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage covering the 100-ha land; and the sheriff scheduled auction. Tolentino filed a petition with the CFI for injunction, specific performance or rescission and damages with preliminary injunction, alleging that since ISB failed to deliver the P63,000 remaining balance of the loan, he is entitled to specific performance by ordering ISB to deliver it with interest of 12% per annum from April 28, 1965, and if said balance cannot be delivered, to rescind the real estate mortgage. CFI issued a TRO enjoining ISB from continuing with the foreclosure of the mortgage, however, after finding Tolentino’s petition unmeritorious, ordered the latter to pay ISB P17,000 plus legal interest and legal charges and lifting the TRO so the sheriff may proceed with the foreclosure. CA, on appeal by Tolentino, modified CFI’s decision by affirming dismissal of Tolentino’s petition for specific performance, but ruled that ISB can neither foreclose the mortgage nor collect the P17,000 loan. SC: The parties, in the P80,000 loan agreement, undertook reciprocal obligations, wherein the obligation/promise of each party is the consideration for that of the other; and when one party has performed or is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the other party who has not performed or is not ready and willing to perform incurs in delay (Art. 1169, CC). When Tolentino executed a real estate mortgage, he signified his willingness to pay the P80,000 loan, and from such date, the obligation of ISB to furnish the loan accrued. Thus, ISB’s delay started on April 28, 1965 and lasted 3 years

or when Resolution No. 967 was issued prohibiting ISB from doing further business, which made it legally impossible from ISB to furnish the P63,000 of the loan. Resolution No. 1049 cannot interrupt the default of ISB in complying with its obligation to release the P63,000 balance because it merely prohibited ISB from making new loans and investments, not from releasing the balance of loan agreements previously contracted. The mere pecuniary inability to fulfill an engagement does not discharge the obligation of the contract, nor does it constitute any defense to a decree of specific performance; and the mere fact of insolvency of a debtor is never an excuse for the nonfulfillment of an obligation, but instead, is taken as a breach of contract. The fact that Tolentino demanded and accepted the refund of the pre-deducted interest cannot be taken as a waiver of his right to collect the P63,000 balance. The act of ISB in asking for the advance interest was improper considering that only P17,000 out of the P80,000 loan was released. The alleged discovery by ISB of the overvaluation of the loan collateral cannot exempt it from complying with its obligation to furnish the entire P80,000 loan because bank officials/employees have the obligation to investigate the existence and valuation of the properties being offered as a loan security before approving the loan application. Issues/Held/Ratio 1) WON the action of Tolenitno for specific performance can prosper.  NO. Since ISB was in default under the agreement, Tolentino may choose between specific performance or rescission, but since ISB is now prohibited from doing further business, the only remedy left is Rescission only for the P63,000 balance of the loan.

2) WON Tolentino is liable to pay the P17,000 debt covered by the promissory note.  YES. The bank was deemed to have complied with its reciprocal obligation to furnish a P17,000 loan. The promissory note gave rise to Tolentino’s reciprocal obligation to pay such loan when it falls due and his failure to pay the overdue amortizations under the promissory note made him a party in default, hence not entitled to rescission (Art. 1191, CC). ISB has the right to rescind the promissory note, being the aggrieved party. Since both parties were in default in the performance of their reciprocal obligations, both are liable for damages. In case both parties have committed a breach of their reciprocal obligations, the liability of the first infractor shall be equirably tempered by the courts (Art. 1192, CC). The liability of ISB for damages in not furnishing the entire loan is offset by the liability of Tolentino for damages (penalties and surcharges) for not paying his overdue P17,000 debt. Since Tolentino derived some benefit for his use of the P17,000, he should account for the interest thereon (interest was not included in the offsetting).

3) WON Tolentino’s real estate mortgage can be foreclosed to satisfy the P17,000 if his liability to pay therefor subsists.  NO.

The fact that when Tolentino executed his real estate mortgage, no consideration was then in existence, as there was no debt yet because ISB had not made any release on the loan, does not make the real estate mortgage void for lack of consideration. It is not necessary that any consideration should pass at the time of the execution of the contract of real mortgage. When the consideration is subsequent to the mortgage, the latter can take effect only when the debt secured by it is created as a binding contract to pay. And when there is partial failure of consideration, the mortgage becomes unenforceable to the extent of such failure. Where the indebtedness actually owing to the holder of the mortgage is less than the sum named in the mortgage, the mortgage cannot be enforced for more than the actual sum due. Since ISB failed to furnish the P63,000 balance, the real estate mortgage of Tolentino became unenforceable to such extent. P63,000 is 78.75% of P80,000, hence the mortgage covering 100 ha is unenforceable to the extent of 78.75 ha. The mortgage covering the remainder of 21.25 ha subsists as a security for the P17,000 debt. Judgment: 1) Tolentino is ordered to pay ISB P17,000 plus P41, 210 (12% interest per annum) 2) In case Tolentino fails to pay, his real estate mortgage covering 21.25 ha shall be foreclosed to satisfy his total indebtedness 3) The real estate mortgage covering 78.75 ha is unenforceable and ordered released in favor of Tolentino