1.

SANTOS

RIGHT OF PERSON TO DEMAND COMPLIANCE WITH AN OBLIGATION MUST

COME FROM A SOURCE

Astrid A. Van de Brug vs. Philippine National Bank

G.R. No. 207004; June 06, 2018
Caguioa, J.

FACTS:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 seeking for the restitution of excess
payment made to Philippine National Bank (PNB).

Spouses Aguilar, petitioners, used to be the borrowing clients of Philippine

National Bank (PNB), respondent, by virtue of the sugar crop loans extended by
PNB. Due to the corresponding failure of Spouses Aguilar to comply with their
obligation, the real estate mortgage was foreclosed by PNB. With the
enactment of R.A. 7202, Spouses Aguilar asked PNB for reconsideration of their
account based on the Sugar Restitution Law. PNB required the Spouses to
comply with certain requirements for the granting of the reconsideration. After
the subsequent issuance of the Memorandum of Valuation, the Spouses
requested to commence restructuring of the loan account.

The PNB later refused to allow the restructuring of the account since the Spouses
did not formally signify their conformity to PNB's re-computation of the account.
The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff justifying the reconveyance of the lot. On
appeal, the CA reversed the decision, ruling that the Aguilars were not entitled
to restitution absent any excess payment after recomputation. Spouses Aguilar
insisted that PNB should likewise grant them the accommodation made to
Spouses Pfleider since they are similarly situated. On its part, PNB argued that R.A.
7202 only allows restitution if there is an excess payment on the loan account.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the PNB have an obligation to accord the Aguilars the same
treatment as it accorded the spouses Pfleider?

RULING:

No. The Aguilars and the Spouses Pfleider are not similarly situated.
The sources of obligations under Article 1157 of the Civil Code are: (1) law; (2)
contracts; (3) quasi-contracts; (4) acts or omissions punished by law; and (5)
quasi-delicts. Immediately, sources (2), (3) and (4) are inapplicable in this case.
The Aguilars are not privies to the Compromise Agreement between PNB and
the spouses Pfleider. Regarding law, as PNB's source of obligation, the Aguilars
are not entitled to restitution under RA 7202. Thus, RA 7202 cannot be invoked as
the statutory basis to compel PNB to treat the Aguilars similarly with the spouses
Pfleider. PNB has explained that there are differences in the circumstances of its
two sugar crop loan debtors which, to PNB, justify the different accommodations
that it accorded to them. The settlement agreement between PNB and the
spouses Pfleider was to the effect that PNB would credit as payment the CARP
proceeds of the foreclosed agricultural properties in the Compromise
Agreement provided that the case filed against PNB was withdrawn. The
Aguilars, on the other hand, did not signify their conformity to the recomputation
as audited and certified by the COA and refused to sign the restructuring
agreement because they insisted that the CARP proceeds be first considered as
loan payments and should be deducted from their loan accounts.

From the Compromise Agreement between the spouses Pfleider and PNB the
accounts of the former to the latter were crop loans and, thus, covered by RA
7202 unlike the accounts of the Aguilars which included non-RA 7202 accounts.
Since the Aguilars were delinquent in their accounts, PNB had no option but to
foreclose the mortgage.

FORMAT:
Century Gothic, 12 font size
1x1x1x1 margin