PNB v. IAC

PNB v. IAC

G.R. No. 75223; March 14, 1990

Ponente: J. Paras

FACTS:

On March 20, 1968, Leticia de la Vina-Sepe executed a real estate mortgage in favor of PNB, San Carlos Branch, over a lot registered in her name to secure the payment of a sugar crop loan of P3,400. 


Later, Leticia Sepe, acting as attorney-in-fact for her brother-in-law, private respondent Romeo Alcedo, executed an amended real estate mortgage to include his (Alcedo's) Lot No. 1626 as additional collateral for Sepe's increased loan of P16,500. Leticia Sepe and private respondent Alcedo verbally agreed to split fifty-fifty (50-50) the proceeds of the loan but failing to receive his one-half share from her, Alcedo wrote a letter on May 12,1970 to the PNB, San Carlos Branch, revoking the Special Power of Attorney which he had given to Leticia Sepe to mortgage his Lot No. 1626.

Replying on May 22, 1970, the PNB Branch Manager, Jose T. Gellegani, advised Alcedo that his land had already been included as collateral for Sepe's 1970-71 sugar crop loan, which the latter had already availed of, nevertheless, he assured Alcedo that the bank would exclude his lot as collateral for Sepe's forthcoming (1971-72) sugar crop loan 

On the same day, May 22, 1970, PNB advised Sepe in writing to replace Lot No. 1402 with another collateral of equal or higher value.

Despite the above advice from PNB, Sepe was still able to obtain an additional loan from PNB increasing her debt of P16,500 to P56,638.69 on the security of Alcedo's property as collateral. On January 15,1974, Alcedo received two (2) letters from PNB: (1) informing him of Sepe's failure to pay her loan in the total amount of P56,638.69; and (2) giving him six (6) days to settle Sepe's outstanding obligation, as otherwise, foreclosure proceedings would be commenced against his property. Alcedo requested Sepe to pay her accounts to forestall foreclosure proceedings against his property, but to no avail.

On April 17, 1974, Alcedo sued Sepe and PNB in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for collection and injunction with damages.

PNB alleged that it had no knowledge of the agreement between Mrs. Sepe and Alcedo to split the crop loan proceeds between them. It required Sepe to put up other collaterals when it granted her an additional loan because Alcedo informed the Bank that he was revoking the Special Power of Attorney he gave Sepe.

ISSUE:
Whether PNB validly foreclosed the real estate mortgage on Alcedo's property despite notice of Alcedo's revocation of the Special Power of Attorney authorizing Leticia Sepe to mortgage his property as security for her sugar crop loans


HELD:

No, PNB did not validly foreclosed the real estate mortgage on Alcedo’s property.

The Supreme Court held that since PNB had promised to exclude Alcedo's property as collateral for Sepe's 1971-72 sugar crop loan, it should have released the property to Alcedo. The mortgage which Sepe gave to the bank on Alcedo's lot as collateral for her 1971-72 sugar crop loan was null and void for having been already disauthorized by Alcedo. Since Alcedo's property secured only P13,100.00 of Sepe's 1970-71 sugar crop loan of P16,500.00 (because P3,400 was secured by Sepe's own property), Alcedo's property may be held to answer for only the unpaid balance, if any, of Sepe's 1970-71 loan, but not the 1971-72 crop loan.



While Article 1358 of the New Civil Code requires that the revocation of Alcedo's Special Power of Attorney to mortgage his property should appear in a public instrument nevertheless, a revocation embodied in a private writing is valid and binding between the parties