Santiago v. Pioneer Savings
Santiago v. Pioneer Savings
Santiago v. Pioneer Savings
The evidence on record sufficiently defeats plaintiff-appellant's claim for relief from extrajudicial
foreclosure. Her Special Power of Attorney in favor of CRCP specifically included the authority to
mortgage the Disputed Property. The Real Estate Mortgage in favor of FINASIA explicitly
authorized foreclosure in the event of default. Indeed, foreclosure is but a necessary
consequence of non-payment of a mortgage indebtedness. Plaintiff-appellant, therefore, cannot
rightfully claim that FINASIA, as the assignee of the mortgagee, cannot extrajudicially foreclose
the mortgaged property. A mortgage directly and immediately subjects the property upon which
it is imposed to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was constituted. [Article
2126, Civil Code].
The assignment of receivables made by the original mortgagee, FINASIA, to Defendant Bank
was valid, since a mortgage credit may be alienated or assigned to a third person, in whole or in
part, with the formalities required by law. [Article 2128, ibid.] Said formalities were complied with
in this case. The assignment was made in a public instrument and proper recording in the
Registry of Property was made. [Article 1625, ibid.] While notice may not have been given to
plaintiff-appellant personally, the publication of the Notice of Sheriff's Sale, as required by law, is
notice to the whole world.