The Supreme Court has affirmed that banks can pursue deficiency claims—the remaining debt after a foreclosure sale—but clarified that courts can reduce excessive penalties and attorney’s fees. This ruling balances the rights of lenders to recover debts with the need to protect borrowers from unfair contractual terms. It ensures that while banks are entitled to recover the full amount of the debt, including interest, the penalties and fees must be reasonable and proportionate to the actual damages incurred.

Foreclosure Fallout: Can Banks Still Demand More After Selling Your Property?

This case revolves around loans obtained by Chuy Lu Tan and Romeo Tanco from Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank), secured by a real estate mortgage and a surety agreement involving Sy Se Hiong and Tan Chu Hsiu Yen. After the borrowers defaulted, Metrobank foreclosed on the property, but claimed a deficiency balance remained. The central legal question is whether Metrobank could recover this deficiency, and if so, whether the stipulated interest, penalties, and fees were fair and enforceable.

Metrobank sought to collect P1,641,815.00, representing the deficiency after the foreclosure sale. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Metrobank, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, arguing that allowing Metrobank to recover the deficiency would be iniquitous and amount to unjust enrichment. Metrobank then appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting its right to collect the remaining balance, including stipulated interest and penalties.

The Supreme Court emphasized that creditors are generally entitled to recover any unpaid balance after a foreclosure sale. Citing Spouses Rabat v. Philippine National Bank, the Court reiterated the principle that a mortgagee can claim a deficiency unless expressly prohibited by law. The Court noted that Act No. 3135, which governs extrajudicial foreclosure, does not prohibit such recovery. This right exists even if the property is sold for less than its market value.

x x x it is settled that if the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to cover the debt in an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor. For when the legislature intends to deny the right of a creditor to sue for any deficiency resulting from foreclosure of security given to guarantee an obligation it expressly provides as in the case of pledges [Civil Code, Art. 2115] and in chattel mortgages of a thing sold on installment basis [Civil Code, Art. 1484(3)]. Act No. 3135, which governs the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages, while silent as to the mortgagee’s right to recover, does not, on the other hand, prohibit recovery of deficiency. Accordingly, it has been held that a deficiency claim arising from the extrajudicial foreclosure is allowed.

The respondents argued that the property’s value exceeded their outstanding debt, and therefore, no deficiency should be claimed. However, the Court clarified that a mortgage serves as security, not a satisfaction of debt. Borrowers have the option to redeem the property or sell their redemption rights. The Supreme Court referred to Suico Rattan & Buri Interiors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, highlighting that the inadequacy of the price at the foreclosure sale does not prevent the creditor from seeking the deficiency.

Hence, it is wrong for petitioners to conclude that when respondent bank supposedly bought the foreclosed properties at a very low price, the latter effectively prevented the former from satisfying their whole obligation. Petitioners still had the option of either redeeming the properties and, thereafter, selling the same for a price which corresponds to what they claim as the properties’ actual market value or by simply selling their right to redeem for a price which is equivalent to the difference between the supposed market value of the said properties and the price obtained during the foreclosure sale. In either case, petitioners will be able to recoup the loss they claim to have suffered by reason of the inadequate price obtained at the auction sale and, thus, enable them to settle their obligation with respondent bank. Moreover, petitioners are not justified in concluding that they should be considered as having paid their obligations in full since respondent bank was the one who acquired the mortgaged properties and that the price it paid was very inadequate. The fact that it is respondent bank, as the mortgagee, which eventually acquired the mortgaged properties and that the bid price was low is not a valid reason for petitioners to refuse to pay the remaining balance of their obligation. Settled is the rule that a mortgage is simply a security and not a satisfaction of indebtedness.

The Court also dismissed the CA’s reliance on equity to temper the respondents’ liability. Equity applies only when there is no specific law or rule, and in this case, the law and jurisprudence clearly allow for deficiency claims. Article 1159 of the Civil Code states that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law. The respondents voluntarily agreed to the terms of the loan and mortgage, and must honor their contractual obligations.

However, the Supreme Court did not fully endorse Metrobank’s claim for the stipulated penalties and attorney’s fees. While contracts are binding, they cannot contravene law, morals, good customs, or public policy. The Court examined the interest rates and penalty charges stipulated in the promissory notes. The interest rate of sixteen percent (16%) per annum was deemed fair, aligning with established jurisprudence.

Regarding the penalty charge, the Court acknowledged that it is a form of liquidated damages but emphasized that such damages can be reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable, as provided under Article 2227 of the Civil Code. Similarly, Article 1229 allows for the reduction of penalties when the principal obligation has been partly performed. Given that Metrobank recovered a substantial portion of the debt through foreclosure, the Court reduced the penalty charge from eighteen percent (18%) per annum to twelve percent (12%) per annum.

The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.

As for attorney’s fees, the Court recognized the contractual right to recover them but retained the power to reduce unreasonable fees. Taking into account that Metrobank had already recovered the principal amount and a significant portion of the interest and penalties, the Court deemed ten percent (10%) of the deficiency claim a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees. Finally, the Supreme Court ordered that the total monetary awards would earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision until fully satisfied, characterizing it as a judicial debt.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a bank could recover the deficiency balance after foreclosing on a property, and if so, whether the stipulated penalties and attorney’s fees were reasonable.
Can a bank claim a deficiency after foreclosure in the Philippines?	Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that a bank can generally claim a deficiency balance after a foreclosure sale if the proceeds from the sale do not fully cover the debt.
What happens if the property is sold for less than its market value?	The bank’s right to claim a deficiency is not affected by the property being sold at a lower price than its market value during the foreclosure sale.
Can courts reduce penalties and attorney’s fees?	Yes, courts have the power to reduce iniquitous or unconscionable penalties and unreasonable attorney’s fees, even if they are stipulated in the contract.
What interest rate did the court consider fair in this case?	The court considered the interest rate of sixteen percent (16%) per annum as fair, aligning with existing jurisprudence on what is considered unconscionable.
What penalty charge did the court find excessive and what was the reduced rate?	The court found the eighteen percent (18%) per annum penalty charge excessive and reduced it to twelve percent (12%) per annum, considering that the bank had already recovered a substantial portion of the debt.
How much was awarded for attorney’s fees?	The court awarded attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the deficiency claim, which amounted to P164,181.50 in this case.
What interest rate applies to the total monetary awards after the decision?	The total monetary awards will earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the Supreme Court’s decision until fully satisfied.

In conclusion, this case clarifies the rights and limitations of banks in pursuing deficiency claims after foreclosure. While lenders are entitled to recover the full amount of the debt, courts will scrutinize stipulated penalties and fees to ensure fairness and reasonableness. This decision provides a balanced approach that protects both lenders and borrowers in foreclosure scenarios.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Chuy Lu Tan, G.R. No. 202176, August 01, 2016