Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ucpb V
Ucpb V
Ucpb V
- Ganzon obtained 5 loans from UCPB, they started to default in paying its
amortizations, but both parties agreed to restructure the loan by permitting
Ganzon to obtain a short-term loan to pay the maturing loan obligations. A year
later, Ganzon was still unable to pay, which lead to entering a MOA to convey
parcels of land owned by Ganzon to pay for its obligations to UCPB. After
foreclosure of the properties and deducting interest, charges and expenses;
Ganzon still had unpaid indebtedness, leading to UCPB to demand additional
properties to liquidate the remaining unpaid balance. Ganzon, feeling doubtful,
asserted that it had already overpaid its loan obligations and claimed that UCPB
was “padding” its account. Ganzon filed suit against UCPB, claiming that it was a
victim of fraud by UCPB in the collection of its loans, the RTC ruled in favor of
Ganzon, claiming that it has fully paid its obligations. Upon appeal to the CA, it
only modified the ruling of the RTC but still ruled in favor of Ganzon, with the
modification being costs for excessive proceeds from the foreclosure sale it held
for the properties of Ganzon. Upon review of the SC,
Premier Dev Bank V. Central Surety
- Central Surety obtained a loan from Premiere Bank, which was secured by a
deed of assignment with pledge covering the membership share in a gold and
country club. Sometime later, Central Surety obtained another loan with Premiere
Bank which was secured by a real estate mortgage of a condominium.
Thereafter, Premiere Bank sent a letter to Central Surety demanding payment of
the first loan that Central Surety obtained. To which, Central Surety issued a
check for the first loan. However, Premiere Bank returned the check and
demanded not only for the payment of the 1st loan but also the 2nd loan, with them
threatening to foreclose the securities of the loan should they fail to pay within
the stipulated date. On the same day, a separate check was tendered to
Premiere Bank as payment for the clients of Central Surety for a personal loan
secured by membership shares to the Manila Polo Club. Premiere Bank. They
accepted the check and applied it not to the loan of Central Surety but under
another loan under the
Espina V. CA
- Espina executed a provisional deed of sale, selling a condominium unit to Diaz.
With the contract stipulating that Diaz would pay an initial amount upon execution
of the contract and the balance through postdated checks. However, after initial
down payment, the checks issued by Diaz bounced and were dishonored due to
a closed bank account. Espina cancelled the provisional deed of sale through a
notarial notice of cancellation, despite this, Diaz continued to occupy the
premises but failed to pay the rentals due. However, Espina received the initial
down payment from Diaz, but still demanded and gave notice to Diaz to vacate
the premises and pay back the rentals, which Diaz failed to do. Espina filed an
action for unlawful detainer against Diaz to which the MTC ruled in favor of Diaz