Scribd
Upload
168 views2 pages

15 Celones vs. Metrobank Digest

The Spouses Celones obtained various loans from Metrobank secured by mortgages on their properties. When they defaulted, Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. The Spouses Celones then sought to redeem the properties and Metrobank agreed, setting a deadline of December 20, 2007 to pay P55 million. Unable to obtain financing by the deadline, the Spouses Celones obtained the P55 million from Atty. Dionido in exchange for subrogating him to Metrobank's rights over the loan and properties. Metrobank then issued payment slips to the Spouses Celones. However, Metrobank refused to issue certificates of redemption, arguing that Atty. Dionido now held their rights. The court ruled that the Sp

Uploaded by

Bay Nazareno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
168 views2 pages

15 Celones vs. Metrobank Digest

The Spouses Celones obtained various loans from Metrobank secured by mortgages on their properties. When they defaulted, Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. The Spouses Celones then sought to redeem the properties and Metrobank agreed, setting a deadline of December 20, 2007 to pay P55 million. Unable to obtain financing by the deadline, the Spouses Celones obtained the P55 million from Atty. Dionido in exchange for subrogating him to Metrobank's rights over the loan and properties. Metrobank then issued payment slips to the Spouses Celones. However, Metrobank refused to issue certificates of redemption, arguing that Atty. Dionido now held their rights. The court ruled that the Sp

Uploaded by

Bay Nazareno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 215691, November 21, 2018

SPOUSES FRANCIS N. CELONES AND FELICISIMA CELONES, Petitioners, v.


METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND ATTY. CRISOLITO O.
DIONIDO, Respondents.

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:

Nature: Declatory Relief with Injuction

Facts: The Spouses Celones together with their company, Processing Partners and
Packaging Corporation (PPPC), obtained various loans from Metrobank and for which
they mortgaged various properties.6 The total obligation of Spouses Celones with
Metrobank was P64,474,058.73.7

The Spouses Celones defaulted in paying their loan, as such, Metrobank foreclosed all
the mortgaged properties. During the foreclosure sale, Metrobank was declared as the
winning bidder. Sometime in 2007, the spouses Celones offered to redeem the
properties from Metrobank. The latter issued a Conditional Notice of Approval for
Redemption9 (CNAR) dated December 13, 2007 stating that the offer of Spouses
Celones to redeem the property in the amount of P55 Million has been approved to be
paid on or before December 20, 2007.10 Pressed for time, Spouses Celones sought the
help of banking and financing institutions who are willing to extend them a loan. Finally,
they found Atty. Dionido who agreed to loan them the said amount. Atty. Dionido then
issued two (2) manager's check, one amounting to P35 Million and another amounting
to P20 Million. In lieu of executing a loan agreement, Spouses Celones, PPPC,
Metrobank and Atty. Dionido executed a MOA, wherein the parties agreed for the
subrogation of Atty. Dionido to all the rights, interests of Metrobank over the loan
obligation of Spouses Celones and the foreclosed properties.

Upon receipt of the two manager's checks, Metrobank issued Payment Slips in favor of
Spouses Celones. On the belief that they have redeemed the foreclosed properties, the
Spouses Celones demanded from Metrobank the issuance of a Certificate of
Redemption. However, the latter refused to issue the same on the ground that all its
rights and interests over the foreclosed properties had been transferred to Atty. Dionido,
as such, he should be the one to issue the said certificate. Aggrieved, Spouses Celones
filed before the trial court a case for Declaratory Relief and Injunction to compel
Metrobank to issue the certificates of redemption and to deliver to them the certificates
of title over the foreclosed properties.
RTC issued an Order19 in favor of Spouses Celones; however, CA reversed RTC’s
ruling.

Issue: Whether the spouses are liable to pay Atty. Dionido.

Held: Yes, they are liable. Art. 1236. The creditor is not bound to accept payment or
performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation,
unless there is a stipulation to the contrary

Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if
he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only
insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor. (Emphasis ours)

Thus, Atty. Dionido has the right to demand payment of the amount of P55 Million from
Spouses Celones since it is undisputed that such amount came from Atty. Dionido. It is
unjust enrichment on the part of Spouses Celones to acquire the amount ofP55 Million
and not be required to pay the same. To save on the time and resources of this Court
and because of the possibility that this case will once again reach this Court, although
this case is not an action to recover a sum of money, we deem it proper to rule on the
propriety of Atty. Dionido's right to recover the said sum from Spouses Celones. Thus,
Spouses Celones should pay the amount of P55 Million to Atty. Dionido with legal
interest counted from the date of finality of this Decision.

You might also like