Sps. Estanislao vs. East West Bank Feb.

11, 2008

FACTS: Petitioners Sps. Estanislao obtained a loan from the respondent East West Bank the said loan was secured by two deeds of chattel mortgage. Upon Petitioners defaulted in the amortizations and the entire obligation respondent bank filed a suit for replevin praying that the e!uipment covered by the first deed of chattel mortgage be seized and delivered to it. "ncluding the prayer petitioner ordered to pay the outstanding principal amount. Subse!uently respondent moved for suspension of the proceedings attempt to arrive at an amicable settlement of the case. #uring the course of negotiations a deed of assignment was drafted assigning Petitioners three units of heavy e!uipment$ two dump truck and a bulldozer to the respondent. Petitioner affi%ed their signatures on the deed of assignment. &owever for some unknown reason respondent bank's duly authorized representative failed to sign the deed. (hereafter Petitioners completed the delivery of the heavy e!uipment mentioned in the deed of assignment to respondent which accepted the same without protest or ob)ection. ISSUE: #id the deed of assignment * which e%pressly provides that the transfer and conveyance to respondent of the three units of heavy e!uipment and its acceptance thereof e%tinguish petitioners total outstanding obligation. HE !: (he court find merit to the petitioner the deed of assignment was a perfected agreement which e%tinguished petitioners' total outstanding obligation to the respondent. (he deed e%plicitly provides that the assignor +petitioners, -in full payment. of its obligation shall deliver the three units of heavy e!uipment to the assignee +respondent, which -accepts the assignment in full payment of the above* mentioned debt.. (his could only mean that should petitioners complete the delivery of the three units of heavy e!uipment covered by the deed respondent's credit would have been satisfied in full and petitioners' aggregate indebtedness would then be considered to have been paid in full as well. (he nature of the assignment was a dation in payment whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money. Such transaction is governed by the law on sales even if we were to consider the agreement as a compromise agreement there was no need for respondent's signature on the same because with the delivery of the heavy e!uipment which the latter accepted the agreement was consummated. /espondent's approval may be inferred from its un!ualified acceptance of the heavy e!uipment

"#B vs #epo$%&eno "'o(%&tions )*+ S&'a +0, FACTS: Petitioner P0B granted respondents 1 million pesos of credit line to finance a movie pro)ect. (he loan was secured by mortgages on respondents' real and personal properties. /espondents defaulted in their obligation. Petitioner sought foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. (he auction sale was re*scheduled several times without need of republication of the notice of sale. Subse!uently the respondents filed an action for annulment of the foreclosure sale claiming that such was void because among others there was lack of publication of the notice of foreclosure sale. (he trail court ordered the annulment and set aside the foreclosure proceedings. Upon appeal the 23 affirmed the lower court. ISSUE: Whether or not publication of foreclosure sale can be validly waived by agreement of the parties. HE !: 0egative 3ct. 0o. 4546 as amended governing e%tra)udicial foreclosure of mortgages on real property is specific with regard to the posting and publication re!uirements of the notice of sale to wit7 8Sec. 4. 0otice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than twenty days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is situated and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city.8 "t is well settled that what 3ct 0o. 4546 re!uires is7 +5, the posting of notices of sale in three public places$ and +9, the publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation. :ailure to publish the notice of sale constitutes a )urisdictional defect which invalidates the sale. Petitioner however insists that the posting and publication re!uirements can be dispensed with since the parties agreed in writing that the auction sale may proceed without need of re*publication and re*posting of the notice of sale. (he Supreme 2ourt is not convinced. Petitioner and respondents have absolutely no right to waive the posting and publication re!uirements of 3ct 0o. 4546.

While it is established that rights may be waived 3rticle ; of the 2ivil 2ode e%plicitly provides that such waiver is sub)ect to the condition that it is not contrary to law public order public policy morals or good customs or pre)udicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

(he principal ob)ect of a notice of sale in a foreclosure of mortgage is not so much to notify the mortgagor as to inform the public generally of the nature and condition of the property to be sold and of the time place and terms of the sale. 0otices are given to secure bidders and prevent a sacrifice of the property. 2learly the statutory re!uirements of posting and publication are mandated not for the mortgagor's benefit but for the public or third persons. "n fact personal notice to the mortgagor in e%tra)udicial foreclosure proceedings is not even necessary unless stipulated. 3s such it is imbued with public policy considerations and any waiver thereon would be inconsistent with the intent and letter of 3ct 0o. 4546.