Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Obligations & Contracts (SY2022-2023) - Research Work 1.SS

    Uploaded by

    Mirasol Bayking
    In Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in denying petitioner an injunctive relief to stop an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate that secured its loan obligations. While petitioner proposed to pay its debts through dacion en pago or deed of conveyance, this was not accepted by the respondent bank. As such, petitioner did not extinguish its obligations and the bank was well within its rights to foreclose on the property due to default. The Supreme Court affirmed that a clear legal right must be proven to obtain an injunction, which was not shown in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Obligations & Contracts (SY2022-2023) - Research Work 1.SS

    Uploaded by

    Mirasol Bayking
    16 views3 pages
    In Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in denying petitioner an injunctive relief to stop an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate that secured its loan obligations. While petitioner proposed to pay its debts through dacion en pago or deed of conveyance, this was not accepted by the respondent bank. As such, petitioner did not extinguish its obligations and the bank was well within its rights to foreclose on the property due to default. The Supreme Court affirmed that a clear legal right must be proven to obtain an injunction, which was not shown in this case.

    Original Title

    Obligations & Contracts (SY2022-2023) - Research Work 1.SS (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in denying petitioner an injunctive relief to stop an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate that secured its loan obligations. While petitioner proposed to pay its debts through dacion en pago or deed of conveyance, this was not accepted by the respondent bank. As such, petitioner did not extinguish its obligations and the bank was well within its rights to foreclose on the property due to default. The Supreme Court affirmed that a clear legal right must be proven to obtain an injunction, which was not shown in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views3 pages

    Obligations & Contracts (SY2022-2023) - Research Work 1.SS

    Uploaded by

    Mirasol Bayking
    In Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Philippine National Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in denying petitioner an injunctive relief to stop an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate that secured its loan obligations. While petitioner proposed to pay its debts through dacion en pago or deed of conveyance, this was not accepted by the respondent bank. As such, petitioner did not extinguish its obligations and the bank was well within its rights to foreclose on the property due to default. The Supreme Court affirmed that a clear legal right must be proven to obtain an injunction, which was not shown in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    OBLIGATIONS & CONTRACTS

    Research Work No. 1

    Please submit written reports/case digests on any twenty (20) of the following cases:

    1) Sps. Dumlao vs. Marlon Realty Corp., G.R. No. 131491, August 17, 2007.
    2) RCBC vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133107, March 25, 1999.
    3) SSS vs. Moonwalk Development and Housing Corporation, G.R. No. 73345,
    April 7, 1993
    4) Sicam, et. al. vs. Jorge, G.R. No. 159617, August 8, 2007.
    5) Unlad Resources Dev. Corp., et. al. vs. Renato Dragon, et. al., G.R. No.
    149338, July 28, 2008.
    6) Sps. Francisco vs. DEAC Construction, Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 171312,
    February 4, 2008.
    7) De Luna vs. Abrigo, G.R. No. 57455, January 18, 1990.
    8) Y-I Leisure Philippines, Inc., et. al. vs. James Yu, G.R. No. 207161,
    September 8, 2015
    9) Tomas P. Tan vs. Jose G. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016)
    10) Farida Yap Bitte and the Heirs of Benjamin D. Bitte vs. Spouses Fred and
    Rosa Elsa Serrano Jonas, G.R. No. 212256, December 9, 2015
    11) Joseph Poole-Blunden vs. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205838,
    November 29, 2017
    12) Eduardo M. Cojuango, Jr. vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180705,
    November 27, 2012
    13) Martinez vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, 15 Phil. 252
    14) Milagros C. Reyes vs. Felix P. Asuncion, G.R. No. 196083, November 11,
    2015
    15) Renee B. Tanchuling, et. al. vs. Sotero C. Cantela, G.R. No. 209284,
    November 10, 2015
    16) Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Philippine Deposit Insurance
    Corporation, G.R. No. 172983, July 22, 2015
    17) Sonley vs. Anchor Savings Bank, G.R. No. 205623, August 10, 2016
    18) Interport Resources Corp. vs. Securities Specialist, Inc., G.R. No. 154069,
    June 6, 2016
    19) Figuera vs. Ang, G.R. No. 204264, June 29, 2016
    20) Sueno vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174711, September 14,
    2008
    21) Reyes vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., 486 SCRA 276
    22) Iloilo Traders Finance, Inc. vs. Heirs of Soriano, Jr., 404 SCRA 67
    23) Philippine Trust Company vs. Floro Roxas and Eufemia Roxas, G.R. No.
    171897, October 14, 2015
    24) Dizon vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 140944, April 30, 2008
    25) Insular Life Assurance Company vs. Toyota Bel-Air, Inc., G.R. No. 137884,
    March 28, 2008
    26) Pasricha vs. Luis Dizon Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409, March 14, 2008
    27) Multi-International Business Data System, Inc. vs. Ruel Martinez, G.R. No.
    175378, November 11, 2015
    28) Allied Banking Corporation vs. Lim Sio Wan, MBTC and Producers Bank,
    G.R.
    No. 133179, March 27, 2008
    29) Technogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. Philippine National Bank,
    G.R. No. 161004, April 14, 2008
    30) Social Security System vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila,
    Inc.,
    G.R. No. 175952, April 30, 2008

    1
    Your report on each case must contain the following:

    a) Facts of the case. Please make sure that the facts cited are consistent with
    the legal issues to be resolved.
    b) Legal issues.
    c) Decision/ruling of the Supreme Court and the law and jurisprudence applied in
    the resolution of the issues.

    Please submit your reports/case digests in a sealed envelope addressed to:

    Atty. Rosalyn A. Caesar


    School of Law
    University of San Jose Recoletos
    Magallanes St., Cebu City

    The reports may be submitted personally or thru private courier service such as Maxim,
    LBC and JRS (no post office delivery, please) and must reach the School of Law not
    later than Friday, March 17, 2023.

    Thank you.

    TECNOGAS * PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL


    BANK, GR No. 161004, 2008-04-14
    Facts:
    On December 3, 1991, petitioner Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation
    (Tecnogas) obtained from respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) an Omnibus Line of
    P35 million and a 5-year Term Loan of P14 million. To secure the loan, Tecnogas executed a
    Real Estate Mortgage
    [5] (REM) over its parcel of land in Parañaque City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
    (TCT) No. 122533 [6] and registered in the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City.
    The REM authorized PNB to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage as the duly constituted
    attorney-in-fact of Tecnogas [7] in case Tecnogas defaults on its obligations. It also provided
    that the mortgage will stand as a security for any and all other... obligations of Tecnogas to
    PNB, for whatever kind or nature, and regardless of whether the obligations had been
    contracted before, during or after the constitution of the mortgage.
    Finally, when the loan matured, PNB sent collection letters [9] to Tecnogas, but the latter...
    only proposed to pay its obligations by way of dacion en pago conveying TCT No. 122533.
    [10] As of April 15, 2001, petitioner's loan obligation was P205,025,743.59, inclusive of
    interest and penalties. [11]
    PNB filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM in the RTC of Parañaque City.
    The auction sale was set on September 20, 2001.
    A day before the auction sale, Tecnogas filed with the Parañaque City RTC a complaint [12]
    for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure sale, with application for the issuance of a
    temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction docketed... as Civil Case
    No. 01-0330. On the same date, the RTC issued a TRO valid for 72 hours. [13] On
    September 21, 2001, the RTC granted extension of the TRO for 17 days. [14]... the Court of
    Appeals issued the assailed decision and ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of

    2
    discretion in enjoining the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. It held that Tecnogas' proposal to
    pay through dacion en pago did not constitute payment... as it was not accepted by PNB.
    Thus, injunction was not proper as the extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM was a necessary
    consequence of Tecnogas' default in its loan obligations. Tecnogas sought reconsideration,
    but it was denied. Hence, this petition.
    Tecnogas admits its liability and that its proposal to pay by way of dacion en pago was not
    accepted by PNB. But Tecnogas avers that its proposal constitutes a valid tender of payment
    Issues:
    Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that Tecnogas was not entitled to an injunctive relief?
    (2) Did the foreclosure sale render the petition moot?
    Ruling:
    A writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing by the applicant of
    the existence of the following: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be
    protected; (2) a violation of that right; and (3) an urgent and paramount necessity for... the
    writ to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the
    injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. [20]
    On the first issue, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that Tecnogas has no clear legal
    right to an injunctive relief because its proposal to pay by way of dacion en pago did not
    extinguish its obligation. Undeniably, Tecnogas' proposal to pay by way of dacion... en pago
    was not accepted by PNB. Thus, the unaccepted proposal neither novates the parties'
    mortgage contract nor suspends its execution as there was no meeting of the minds
    between the parties on whether the loan will be extinguished by way of dacion en pago.
    Necessarily, upon Tecnogas' default in its obligations, the foreclosure of the REM becomes a
    matter of right on the part of PNB, for such is the purpose of requiring security for the loans.
    Principles:

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy