Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 251 views

    Metrobank v. SF Naguiat M

    Uploaded by

    Gab Sollano
    This case involves a dispute between Metrobank and S.F. Naguiat Enterprises over Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure of property mortgaged by S.F. Naguiat after S.F. Naguiat declared insolvency. The Court ruled that under the Insolvency Law, a secured creditor like Metrobank must obtain permission from the insolvency court before foreclosing on mortgaged property once insolvency proceedings have begun. This is because the insolvency court has exclusive jurisdiction over the insolvent debtor's estate. By foreclosing without permission, Metrobank violated the insolvency court's order forbidding transfer of S.F. Naguiat's properties

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Metrobank v. SF Naguiat M

    Uploaded by

    Gab Sollano
    251 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Metrobank and S.F. Naguiat Enterprises over Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure of property mortgaged by S.F. Naguiat after S.F. Naguiat declared insolvency. The Court ruled that under the Insolvency Law, a secured creditor like Metrobank must obtain permission from the insolvency court before foreclosing on mortgaged property once insolvency proceedings have begun. This is because the insolvency court has exclusive jurisdiction over the insolvent debtor's estate. By foreclosing without permission, Metrobank violated the insolvency court's order forbidding transfer of S.F. Naguiat's properties

    Original Description:

    digest lang

    Original Title

    Metrobank v. Sf Naguiat m

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Metrobank and S.F. Naguiat Enterprises over Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure of property mortgaged by S.F. Naguiat after S.F. Naguiat declared insolvency. The Court ruled that under the Insolvency Law, a secured creditor like Metrobank must obtain permission from the insolvency court before foreclosing on mortgaged property once insolvency proceedings have begun. This is because the insolvency court has exclusive jurisdiction over the insolvent debtor's estate. By foreclosing without permission, Metrobank violated the insolvency court's order forbidding transfer of S.F. Naguiat's properties

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    251 views2 pages

    Metrobank v. SF Naguiat M

    Uploaded by

    Gab Sollano
    This case involves a dispute between Metrobank and S.F. Naguiat Enterprises over Metrobank's extrajudicial foreclosure of property mortgaged by S.F. Naguiat after S.F. Naguiat declared insolvency. The Court ruled that under the Insolvency Law, a secured creditor like Metrobank must obtain permission from the insolvency court before foreclosing on mortgaged property once insolvency proceedings have begun. This is because the insolvency court has exclusive jurisdiction over the insolvent debtor's estate. By foreclosing without permission, Metrobank violated the insolvency court's order forbidding transfer of S.F. Naguiat's properties

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    METROBANK v. S.F.

    NAGUIAT ENTERPRISES
    FACTS:

    Spouses Naguiat and S.F. Naguiat Enterprises, Inc. (S.F. Naguiat) executed a real estate mortgage in
    favor of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) to secure certain credit accommodations

    obtained from the latter amounting to P17 million. The mortgage was constituted over 2 properties.
    S.F. Naguiat represented by Celestina T. Naguiat, Eugene T. Naguiat, and Anna N. Africa obtained a
    loan from Metrobank in the amount of P1,575,000.00. The loan was likewise secured by the old real

    estate mortgage by virtue of the Agreement on Existing Mortgage(s).


    S.F. Naguiat filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency with Application for the Appointment of a Receiver

    before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City.


    Among the assets declared in the Petition was the property was one of the mortgaged properties.
    Judge Buan issued the order declaring S.F. Naguiat insolvent; directing the Deputy Sheriff to take
    possession of all the properties of S.F. Naguiat until the appointment of a receiver/assignee; and

    forbidding payment of any debts due, delivery of properties, and transfer of any of its properties.
    Pending the appointment of a receiver, Judge Buan directed the creditors, including Metrobank, to file

    their respective Comments on the Petition.


    In lieu of a Comment, Metrobank filed a Manifestation and Motion informing the court of Metrobank's
    decision to withdraw from the insolvency proceedings because it intended to extrajudicially foreclose

    the mortgaged property to satisfy its claim against S.F. Naguiat.


    Subsequently, S.F. Naguiat defaulted in paying its loan.
    Metrobank instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding against the mortgaged property and sold
    the property at a public auction held on December 9, 2005 to Phoenix Global Energy, Inc., the highest

    bidder.21
    However, Executive Judge Gabitan-Erum issued theOrder denying approval of the Certificate of Sale in
    view of the Order issued by the insolvency court. Metrobank's subsequent MR was also denied.

    ISSUE: WON the CA erred in ruling that prior leave of the insolvency court is necessary before a
    secured creditor, like petitioner, can extrajudicially foreclose the mortgaged property NO
    RATIO:
    Act No. 1956 (Insolvency Law) impliedly requires a secured creditor to ask the permission of the
    insolvent court before said creditor can foreclose the mortgaged property. With the declaration of insolvency of
    the debtor, insolvency courts "obtain full and complete jurisdiction over all property of the insolvent and of all
    claims by and against [it.]" It follows that the insolvency court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the property
    of the insolvent. Consequently, after the mortgagor-debtor has been declared insolvent and the insolvency
    court has acquired control of his estate, a mortgagee may not, without the permission of the insolvency court,
    institute proceedings to enforce its lien.
    It is true that under Section 59 of Act No. 1956, the creditor is given the option to participate in the
    insolvency proceedings by proving the balance of his debt, after deducting the value of the mortgaged property
    as agreed upon with the receiver or determined by the court or by a sale of the property as directed by the
    court; or proving his whole debt, after releasing his claim to the receiver/sheriff before the election of an
    assignee, or to the assignee. However, Section 59 of Act No. 1956 proceeds to state that when "the property is

    not sold or released, and delivered up, or its value fixed, the creditor [is] not allowed to prove any part of his
    debt," but the assignee shall deliver to the creditor the mortgaged property. Hence, explicitly under Section 59
    and as a necessary consequence flowing from the exclusive jurisdiction of the insolvency court over the estate
    of the insolvent, the mortgaged property must first be formally delivered by the court or the assignee (if one has
    already been elected) before a mortgagee-creditor can initiate proceedings for foreclosure.
    Here, the foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property of the debtor, without leave of court,
    contravene the provisions of Act No. 1956 and violate the Order dated July 12, 2005 of the insolvency court
    which declared S.F. Naguiat insolvent and forbidden from making any transfer of any of its properties to any
    person.
    Petitioner should have waited for the insolvency court to act on its Manifestation and Motion before
    foreclosing the mortgaged property and its lien (assuming valid) would not be impaired or its claim in any way
    jeopardized by any reasonable delay. There are mechanisms within Act No. 1956 such as Section 59 that
    ensure that the interests of the secured creditor are adequately protected. Parenthetically, mortgage liens are
    retained in insolvency proceedings. What is merely suspended until court approval is obtained is the creditor's
    enforcement of such preference.
    On the other hand, to give the secured creditor a free hand in foreclosing its collateral upon the
    initiation of insolvency proceedings may frustrate the basic objectives of Act No. 1956 of maximizing the value
    of the estate of the insolvent or obtaining the highest return possible from its sale for the benefit of all the
    creditors (both secured and unsecured).

    You might also like