Lender’s Breach Prevents Foreclosure: A Borrower’s Guide

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Evelina Togle and Catherine Geraldine Togle, G.R. No. 224138, October 06, 2021

Imagine you’ve secured a loan to expand your business, relying on the bank’s commitment to provide the necessary funds. But what happens when the bank suddenly refuses to release the remaining amount, jeopardizing your entire project? Can they then foreclose on your property, claiming you’re in default? This was the central issue in the case of Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Evelina Togle and Catherine Geraldine Togle, a crucial ruling that clarifies the obligations of lenders and the rights of borrowers in loan agreements.

Understanding Loan Agreements and Lender Obligations

A loan agreement is a legally binding contract where one party (the lender) provides funds to another (the borrower), who agrees to repay the amount with interest over a specified period. The lender has a responsibility to adhere to the agreed-upon terms, including disbursing the loan amount as stipulated. Failure to do so can have significant legal ramifications.

The Civil Code of the Philippines outlines key principles governing contracts, including loan agreements. Article 1169 addresses the concept of delay (mora) in reciprocal obligations, stating that neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. This means that if a lender fails to fulfill its obligation to release the full loan amount, the borrower cannot be considered in default.

Furthermore, the parol evidence rule, as enshrined in Section 10, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence, prevents parties from introducing evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict, vary, or add to the terms of a written contract. This rule ensures that the written agreement serves as the final and complete expression of the parties’ intentions. Unless there is an ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement, its terms are controlling.

Example: Suppose Maria secures a loan from a bank to build a house. The loan agreement specifies that the bank will release funds in three tranches as construction progresses. If the bank refuses to release the second tranche without a valid reason, Maria cannot be considered in default if she fails to complete the house on time. The bank’s breach prevents them from demanding strict compliance from Maria.

The Togle Case: A Story of Broken Promises

Evelina Togle and her daughter, Catherine, sought a loan from DBP to establish a poultry grower project. Catherine submitted a feasibility study for constructing four poultry houses with a capacity of 20,000 broilers. DBP approved a P5,000,000.00 loan, secured by the Togle’s properties. Catherine received an initial drawdown of P3,000,000.00 and built four poultry houses.

However, when Catherine requested an additional P500,000.00, DBP denied it, claiming the Togles failed to meet loan specifications by not infusing enough equity for twelve poultry houses housing 60,000 broilers. The Togles argued that these requirements were never part of the original agreement. DBP then declared the Togles in default, foreclosed on their properties, and consolidated ownership.

The Togles sued DBP, seeking annulment of the foreclosure. The case navigated through the courts:

• Regional Trial Court (RTC): Ruled in favor of the Togles, nullifying the foreclosure, finding DBP had breached the loan agreement by unilaterally altering its terms.
• Court of Appeals (CA): Affirmed the RTC’s decision, emphasizing that the loan agreement did not specify the number of poultry houses or broilers. The CA stated, “…to deny the release of the remaining Php2,000,000.00 on the ground that Catherine had failed to put up 12 chicken houses to shelter 60,000 chickens is a clear breach of contract because such condition is not imposed under the Loan Agreement. Any attempt to impose such condition is an alteration of the Loan Agreement and violative of the parol evidence rule.“
• Supreme Court (SC): Upheld the CA’s ruling, stressing that DBP acted in bad faith. The SC stated, “Where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous, its meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic facts or aids. The intention of the parties must be gathered from that language and from that language alone.“

The Supreme Court found that DBP had no valid reason to withhold the additional drawdown and, therefore, no right to foreclose on the Togles’ properties. The Court also considered the fact that DBP itself prepared the loan agreement. Any ambiguity in the contract must be read against the party who drafted it.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

The Togle case underscores the importance of clearly defined terms in loan agreements and the lender’s obligation to adhere to those terms. Lenders cannot unilaterally impose new conditions or requirements after the agreement is signed. This ruling provides crucial protection for borrowers, particularly small businesses and individuals relying on loan proceeds for their ventures.

Key Lessons:

• Read the Fine Print: Always thoroughly review loan agreements before signing, ensuring all terms are clear and acceptable.
• Document Everything: Keep records of all communications and transactions with the lender.
• Seek Legal Advice: If you believe the lender is breaching the agreement, consult with a lawyer immediately.
• Parol Evidence Rule: Understand that the written agreement is the primary source of truth.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What happens if a lender breaches a loan agreement?

A: If a lender breaches a loan agreement, the borrower may have grounds to sue for damages, seek an injunction to prevent foreclosure, or rescind the contract.

Q: Can a bank foreclose on a property if the borrower is not in default?

A: No. Foreclosure is only permissible when the borrower has breached the loan agreement and is in default.

Q: What is the parol evidence rule, and how does it apply to loan agreements?

A: The parol evidence rule prevents parties from introducing evidence that contradicts the terms of a written agreement. It reinforces that the written loan agreement is the final expression of the parties’ intentions.

Q: What are my rights if a bank tries to impose new conditions on my loan after I’ve signed the agreement?

A: A bank cannot unilaterally impose new conditions. You have the right to demand adherence to the original terms of the agreement. If the bank refuses, seek legal advice.

Q: What is a contract of adhesion, and how does it affect loan agreements?

A: A contract of adhesion is a standardized contract drafted by one party (typically the lender) and offered to the other party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Ambiguities in such contracts are usually interpreted against the drafter.

Q: What kind of damages can I recover if a bank wrongfully forecloses on my property?

A: You may be able to recover actual damages (e.g., lost profits, property damage), moral damages (for emotional distress), exemplary damages (to punish the bank for its misconduct), and attorney’s fees.

ASG Law specializes in banking and finance law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.