Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    989 Sps. Loquellano Vs HSBC

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    1) Rosalina Loquellano took out a housing loan from HSBC-SRP and mortgaged her property as collateral. She was later terminated from her job for participating in an illegal strike and failed to pay monthly installments. 2) HSBC-SRP sent demand letters to Rosalina to pay the full amount due but continued accepting monthly installment payments until June 1996. 3) HSBC-SRP filed for extrajudicial foreclosure on the property. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing was not valid because the doctrine of estoppel prevents HSBC-SRP from enforcing foreclosure after accepting late payments for almost a year without protest.

    Copyright:

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

    989 Sps. Loquellano Vs HSBC

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    88 views2 pages
    1) Rosalina Loquellano took out a housing loan from HSBC-SRP and mortgaged her property as collateral. She was later terminated from her job for participating in an illegal strike and failed to pay monthly installments. 2) HSBC-SRP sent demand letters to Rosalina to pay the full amount due but continued accepting monthly installment payments until June 1996. 3) HSBC-SRP filed for extrajudicial foreclosure on the property. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing was not valid because the doctrine of estoppel prevents HSBC-SRP from enforcing foreclosure after accepting late payments for almost a year without protest.

    Original Description:

    989 Sps. Loquellano vs HSBC

    Original Title

    989 Sps. Loquellano vs HSBC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Rosalina Loquellano took out a housing loan from HSBC-SRP and mortgaged her property as collateral. She was later terminated from her job for participating in an illegal strike and failed to pay monthly installments. 2) HSBC-SRP sent demand letters to Rosalina to pay the full amount due but continued accepting monthly installment payments until June 1996. 3) HSBC-SRP filed for extrajudicial foreclosure on the property. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing was not valid because the doctrine of estoppel prevents HSBC-SRP from enforcing foreclosure after accepting late payments for almost a year without protest.

    Copyright:

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

    989 Sps. Loquellano Vs HSBC

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    1) Rosalina Loquellano took out a housing loan from HSBC-SRP and mortgaged her property as collateral. She was later terminated from her job for participating in an illegal strike and failed to pay monthly installments. 2) HSBC-SRP sent demand letters to Rosalina to pay the full amount due but continued accepting monthly installment payments until June 1996. 3) HSBC-SRP filed for extrajudicial foreclosure on the property. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing was not valid because the doctrine of estoppel prevents HSBC-SRP from enforcing foreclosure after accepting late payments for almost a year without protest.

    Copyright:

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

    REMEDIAL LAW; DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL

    Question: As a regular employee and consequently, an automatic member of HSBC-


    Staff Retirement Plan, Rosalina Loquellano and her spouse entered into a contract of
    real estate mortgage with Manuel S. Estacion, the managing trustee for and in behalf of
    the respondent HSBC-SRP. The spouses constituted a mortgage over their house and
    lot to secure the payment of their housing loan.
    When Rosalina was terminated from employment due to her participation in an illegal
    strike. The spouses failed to pay the monthly amortizations of their housing loan. Thus,
    respondent HSBC-SRP sent demand letters to petitioner Rosalina asking her to pay the
    outstanding housing loan obligation in full. HSBC-SRP continuously sent out monthly
    Installment Due Reminders to petitioner Rosalina despite its demand letter dated
    September 25, 1995 to pay the full amount of the loan obligation within 3 days from
    receipt of the letter. She continuously made deposits to her salary savings account with
    the respondent bank for the payment of her monthly amortizations. Respondent bank
    debited petitioner Rosalina's savings account and credited the payments to the balance
    of the installment and the interest due on the housing loan up to June 1996.
    HSBC-SRP filed an extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and the petitioner’s mortgaged
    property was sold at the public auction. Is the filing of the extrajudicial foreclosure
    proceeding valid?
    Answer: NO. Estoppel is a doctrine that prevents a person from adopting an
    inconsistent position, attitude, or action if it will result in injury to another. One who, by
    his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak
    out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain
    facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, can no longer deny
    the existence of such fact as it will prejudice the latter.
    To stress, respondent HSBC-SRP continuously sent out monthly Installment Due
    Reminders to petitioner Rosalina despite its demand letter dated September 25, 1995 to
    pay the full amount of the loan obligation within 3 days from receipt of the letter. It,
    likewise, continuously accepted petitioner Rosalina's subsequent monthly amortization
    payments until June 1996; thus, making their default immaterial. Moreover, there was
    no more demand for the payment of the full obligation afterwards. Consequently,
    petitioners were made to believe that respondent HSBC-SRP was applying their
    payments to their monthly loan obligations as it had done before. It is now estopped
    from enforcing its right to foreclose by reason of its acceptance of the delayed
    payments.

    Also, Article 1235 of the Civil Code provides that when the creditor accepts
    performance, knowing its incompleteness and irregularity without protest or objection,
    the obligation is deemed complied with. Respondent HSBC-SRP accepted Rosalina's
    payment of her housing loan account for almost one year without any objection. (Sps.
    Loquellano vs HSBC, G.R. No. 200553, December 10, 2018, Peralta, J. )

    You might also like