SUICO RATTAN & BURI INTERIORS, INC. and SPOUSES ESMERALDO and ELIZABETH D.

SUICO vs. COURT OF APPEALS and METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST CO., INC.,
G.R. No. 138145 June 15, 2006

FACTS:

Suico Rattan & Buri Interiors, Inc. (SRBII) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business
of export of rattan and buri products. Spouses Esmeraldo and Elizabeth Suico (Suico
spouses) are officers of SRBII. On the other hand, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Inc.
(Metrobank) is a commercial banking corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the Philippines.

RBII applied for a credit line with Metrobank. On September 5, 1991, SRBII and Metrobank,
Mandaue branch, entered into a Credit Line Agreement (Agreement) wherein the latter
granted the former a discounting line amounting to P7,000,000.00 and an export bills
purchase or draft against payment line (EBP/DP line) P10,000,000.00 for a maximum
aggregate principal amount of P17,000,000.00. Drawings on the credit line are secured by a
Continuing Surety Agreement for the sum of P17,500,000.00 executed by the Suico spouses
and a Real Estate Mortgage. Previous to the execution of the Agreement, the Suico spouses
had already incurred loan obligations from Metrobank which are secured by separate Real
Estate Mortgages executed on May 8, 1986,7 March 23, 19878 and August 24, 19879 over
the same properties which are the subject of the Real Estate Mortgage executed on
September 5, 1991. SRBII and the Suico spouses were unable to pay their obligations
prompting Metrobank to extra-judicially foreclose the four mortgages constituted over the
subject properties. Metrobank, being the lone and highest bidder, acquired the said
properties during the auction sale. On November 5, 1992, Metrobank filed an action for the
recovery of a sum of money arising from the obligations of SRBII and the Suico spouses on
their export bills purchases incurred between June and July, 1991.RBII and the Suico
spouses filed their Answer contending that their indebtedness are secured by a real estate
mortgage and that the value of the mortgaged properties is more than enough to answer for
all their obligations to Metrobank.

RTC: dismissed the complaint and held that all obligations of defendants to plaintiffs
incurred by the former either as principal, surety or guarantor, which matured and had
become due and demandable on the date of the foreclosure of the Real Estate Mortgage are
hereby declared already fully paid by the mortgage security.

Aggrieved by the decision of the RTC, Metrobank filed an appeal with the CA. On appeal CA,
reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled that since the proceeds from the foreclosure sale
of the mortgaged properties amounted only to P10,383,141.63, the same is not sufficient to
answer for the entire obligation of petitioners to Metrobank and that the latter may still
recover the deficiency of P16,585,286.27 representing the value of the export bills
purchased by herein petitioners. Hence this action.

Petitioners claim that the Real Estate Mortgage executed on September 5, 1991 answered
for all their obligations to Metrobank. Petitioners contend that the language of the subject
mortgage contract is explicit in that it shall secure all other obligations of petitioners of
whatever kind or nature, whether direct or indirect, principal or secondary and whether
said obligations have been contracted before, during or after the execution of the said
mortgage contract.

ISSUES:
A. Whether or not the mortgage contract executed on September 5, 1991 serves as
security for all the obligations of petitioners to respondent bank;

B. Whether the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties precludes respondent bank

RULING:

A. YES.

Pertinent portions of the Real Estate Mortgage executed on the same date as the Agreement
provide as follows:

That for and in consideration of certain loans and other credit accommodations obtained
from the Mortgagee amounting to SIX MILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
(P6,250,000.00) PESOS ONLY Philippine Currency, and to secure the payment of the same
and those others that the Mortgagee may heretofore have extended or hereafter extend to
the Mortgagor. Xxxx . and all other obligations of the Mortgagor/Borrower to the
Mortgagee of whatever kind or nature, whether direct or indirect, principal or
secondary, as appear in the accounts, books and records of the Mortgagee, whether
such obligations have been contracted before, during or after the constitution of this
mortgage, xxxxx.

From the language of the contract, it is clear that the mortgaged properties were intended
to secure all loans, credit accommodations and all other obligations of herein petitioners to
Metrobank, whether such obligations have been contracted before, during or after the
constitution of the mortgage.
either is the Court persuaded by respondent bank’s contention that petitioners’ obligations
arising from their purchase of export bills is separate and distinct from their other loan
obligations with respondent bank because the export bills purchases were availed by
petitioners through the bank’s Cebu Downtown Center/Plaridel branch while the other loan
obligations of petitioners were obtained from its Mandaue City branch.

The Court quotes, with approval, the trial court’s ratiocination on this matter:

It matters not that the EBP/DP line was availed of by defendants with the Plaridel branch,
because the Credit Line Agreement and the Real Estate Mortgages clearly indicate that
defendants were indebted to plaintiff bank and not to its Mandaue or Plaridel branch. This
is clearly evident in the opening paragraph of the Credit Line Agreement and the Real Estate
Mortgages when plaintiff defines itself as a "Commercial Banking Corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with
principal offices and places of business at Metrobank Plaza, Gil. J. Puyat Avenue, Makati,
Metro Manila." Clearly therefore, defendants were deemed to be indebted to plaintiff with
main office in Makati and not with its Mandaue or Plaridel branch.

B. NO.

The rule is settled that a mortgage creditor may, in the recovery of a debt secured by
a real estate mortgage, institute against the mortgage debtor either a personal action
for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. These remedies available to the
mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative. An election of one
remedy operates as a waiver of the other. In sustaining the rule that prohibits mortgage
creditors from pursuing both the remedies of a personal action for debt or a real action to
foreclose the mortgage, the Court held in the case of Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Esteban
Icarangal, et al. that a rule which would authorize the plaintiff to bring a personal action
against the debtor and simultaneously or successively another action against the mortgaged
property, would result not only in multiplicity of suits so offensive to justice and obnoxious
to law and equity, but also in subjecting the defendant to the vexation of being sued in the
place of his residence or of the residence of the plaintiff, and then again in the place where
the property lies.

However,

Given the fact that the proceeds of the auction sale were not sufficient to answer for the
entire obligation of petitioners to respondent bank, the latter still has the right to recover
the balance due it after applying the proceeds of the sale. We agree with the CA that where
the mortgage creditor chooses the remedy of foreclosure and the proceeds of the
foreclosure sale are insufficient to cover the debt, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the
deficiency from the debtor. The law gives the mortgagee the right to claim for the
deficiency resulting from the price obtained in the sale of the property at public
auction and the outstanding obligation at the time of the foreclosure proceedings.
This rule is based on the principle earlier mentioned that the mortgage is only a
security and not a satisfaction of the mortgagor’s entire obligation. Moreover, unlike in
pledge and chattel mortgage on a thing sold on installment,where the Civil Code expressly
forecloses the right of creditors to sue for any deficiency resulting from the sale of the
property given as a security for the obligation, there is nothing in Act. No. 3135, the law
governing extrajudicial foreclosures, which expressly or impliedly prohibits the recovery of
such deficiency. If the legislature had intended to deny the creditor the right to sue for any
deficiency resulting from the foreclosure of a security given to guarantee an obligation, the
law would expressly so provide. Absent such a provision in Act. No. 3135, as amended, the
creditor is not precluded from taking action to recover any unpaid balance on the principal
obligation simply because he chose to extrajudicially foreclose the real estate mortgage.47
Hence, in the present case, the Court’s dismissal of the complaint should be without
prejudice to the filing of another action for the recovery of the balance left in petitioners’
obligation after the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged properties.