DANILO D. MENDOZA, also doing business under the name and style of ATLANTIC EXCHAGE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, FERNANDO MARAMAG JR., RICARDO G. DECEPIDA, and BAYANI A. BAUTISTA, respondent.
[G.R. No. 116710. June 25, 2001]
Respondent was granted by respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) credit line and Letter of Credit/Trust Receipt (LC/TR) line. As security for the credit accommodations and for those which may thereinafter be granted, petitioner mortgaged to respondent PNB some of his properties. Petitioner later requested for loan restructuring and issued promissory notes, which he failed to comply. Respondent PNB extra-judicially foreclosed the real and chattel mortgages, and the mortgaged properties were sold at public auction to respondent PNB, as highest bidder. Petitioner filed a case in the RTC contending that foreclosure is illegal invoking promissory estoppel, and secured favorable judgment. The decision of RTC was reversed by the Court of Appeals.
Whether or not the foreclosure of petitioner’s real estate and chattel mortgages were legal and valid as opposed to promissory estoppel.
YES. First, there was no promissory estoppel as the promise (of respondent bank) must be plain and unambiguous and sufficiently specific. Second, there was no meeting of the minds leading to another contract, hence loan was not restructured. Third, promissory notes petitioner issued were valid. Fourth, stipulation in the mortgage, extending its scope and effect to after-acquired property is valid and binding after the correct and valid process of extra-judicial foreclosure. Finally, record showed that petitioner did not even attempt to tender any redemption price during the one-year redemption period.