REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK VS.

SARMIENTO ET AL
FACTS: Respondents spouses Vivencio and Jesusa Sarmiento, their son, Jose, and the latters
spouse, Elizabeth executed a REM over two parcels of land. The mortgage secured the payment of
the principal loan of 80,000.00 and all other obligations, overdrafts and other credit accommodations
obtained and those that may be obtained in the future from Maybank formerly planters. Vivencio for
himself and as attorney-in-fact of his wife and son executed a PN in which he undertook to pay the
amount of 100,000.00. 0n the same month, all Four respondents executed an amendment to the real
estate mortgage changing the consideration of the mortgage from 80,000.00 to 100,000.00 but
adopting all the terms and conditions of the previous mortgage as integral parts of the later one.
Vivencio was the owner of V. Sarmiento Rattan Furniture, a sole proprietorship engaged in export
Business. On various occasions in 1981, he incurred loan obligations from Maybank by way of
export advances. As of 8 September 1982, the debts incurred under the export bills transactions
totaled 1m. Vivencio, Jose and Elizabeth executed a Suretyship Agreement, whereby they agreed to
be solidarily liable with V. Sarmiento Rattan Furniture for the payment of 100,000.00 plus all
obligations $which the latter incurred or wcould incur from Maybank.
Respondents defaulted in the payment of the export advances. Maybank instituted an extra
judicial foreclosure where the same was awarded the property. Maricel, sister of respondent Jose,
purchased a managers check from Maybank in the amount of 300,000.00. Then
respondent Jesusa deposited the amount 12,000.00. Maybank treated the total amount of 312,000.00
as a deposit and did not grant respondents request for certifcate of redemption releasing the
foreclosed property. Maybank consolidated its ownership over the land and sold the same to Fabra.
Respondents Vivencio and Jose instituted an action for specific performance against Maybank,
philmay and Fabra.
ISSUE: whether the deposits made by respondents constituted a valid tender of the redemption price
and whether the respondents paid the amount of indebtedness that respondents were legally obligated
to satisfy in order to consider the payment thereof as a valid redemption of the foreclosed property.
HELD: NO. Respondents outstanding obligation amounted to more than P1 million as of the date of
the foreclosure sale. Hence, the tender by respondents of an amount less than that did not constitute a
valid redemption of the foreclosed property. The crux of the controversy pertains not to the amount
of redemption price tendered by respondents but rather to the sufficiency of the amount tendered that
would warrant the redemption of the foreclosed property.
The real estate mortgage provides:
That, for and in consideration of certain loans, overdrafts and other credit accommodations obtained
from the Mortgagee, and to secure the payment of the same and those that may hereafter be
obtained, the principal of all of which is hereby fixed as EIGHTY THOUSAND ONLY Pesos
(P80,000.00), Philippine Currency, as well as those that the Mortgagee may extend to the
Mortgagor, including interest and expenses or any other obligation owing to the
Mortgagee, whether direct or indirect, principal or secondary, as appears in the accounts, books and
records of the Mortgagee, the Mortgagor does hereby transfer and convey by way of mortgage unto
the Mortgagee, its successor or assigns, the parcels of land which are described in the list inserted on
the back of this document, and/or appended hereto; x x x (Emphasis supplied)

FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (FEBTC) and/or BPI vs. SPOUSES PLAZA

FACTS: One Charlie Ang obtained from petitioners a loan using as collateral a piece of land
owned by respondent-spouses; hence the mortgage to petitioners. Ang later obtained more loans
from petitioners covered by promissory notes. When Ang failed to pay the loans upon maturity,
petitioners started proceedings to foreclose the mortgage. Respondent-spouses offered to pay the
mortgage indebtedness but petitioners refused to accept payment unless respondents assumed the
other obligations of Ang with petitioners.
Respondents filed a civil action against petitioner banks and Charlie Ang for release of the
real estate mortgage and damages with prayer for temporary restraining order and issuance of
writ of injunction. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction for non-payment of docket fees. Petitioners alleged that the action to enjoin
foreclosure of mortgage was a real action and there was no showing that the docket fees were
paid based on the assessed or estimated value of the real property involved.
The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining petitioners from foreclosing
the mortgage while the case before it was pending. The trial court also denied petitioners motion
for reconsideration.
In the meantime, the civil case before the trial court proceeded to the pre-trial stage where
petitioners expressed their willingness to await any written offer to pay by respondents.
Respondents sent a formal letter to petitioners offering to pay and asking the release of the real
estate mortgage. They enclosed a cashiers check. Petitioners accepted the check only as partial
payment without prejudice to the remaining balance of the loans. Respondents now insist that
they have already paid the loans in full and that petitioners should release the mortgage in view
of the payment.

ISSUE: whether the real estate mortgage is real action or personal action

HELD: An action to compel the mortgagee to accept payment and for the consequent
cancellation of a real estate mortgage is a personal action if the mortgagee has not foreclosed the
mortgage and the mortgagor is in possession of the premises since neither the mortgagors title to
nor possession of the property is in question.

Contrary to petitioners contention, respondents do not question the validity of the real estate
mortgage they entered into. In fact they uphold its validity since they are willing to pay their
obligation under the contract after which the contract should then be declared without legal
effect. Also, there is as yet no transfer of title from respondents to petitioners. Respondents
maintain that the title remains in their name and they are still in actual physical possession of the
property. There is no foreclosure yet of the mortgage. Hence, there is no title to the land to be
affected by the action.