Banco Filipino vs.

CA
FACTS:
insert facts in laptop
Real estate mortgages were foreclosed in favor of Banco Filipino for the amount of the
loan inclusive of the 17% interest per annum
Spouses Arcilla filed a complaint for annulment of loan contracts, foreclose sale with
prohibition and injunction
Lower court ordered Banco Filipino to refund the excess interest
Banco Filipino argues that the refund of the excess interest was without any legal basis
since Spouses Arcilla never raised the issue of interest nor prayed for any relief with
respect thereto
ISSUE:
insert issue in laptop
RULING:
insert ruling in laptop

Lorbes vs. CA
FACTS:
Petitioner Lorbes were registered owners of a land in Rizal. They mortgaged said land to
the Carloses.
Petitioner Lorbes asked their son-in-law Ricardo delos Reyes to help them in redeeming
said property. Thus, delos Reyes solicited the assistance of one Josefina Cruz, a family
friend and employee of LBP.
It was agreed that petitioner will sign a deed of sale of the said land in favor of Cruz, and
thereafter, Cruz will apply for a housing loan with LBP using the said land as collateral.
It was also agreed that part of the proceeds of the housing loan will be paid to the
Carloses
Later, when petitioners were ready to redeem the property, delos Reyes refused. Thus
petitioners filed a complaint for reformation of instrument and damages.
Lower court passed upon the issue that the said sale was an equitable mortgage, and not
an absolute deed of sale. It ordered delos Reyes to reconvey the subject property to
petitioners
ISSUE:
Whether the lower court is precluded from passing upon an issue not raised in the
complaint
RULING:
NO.

Effect of lack of a verification

Christine Chua vs. Torres
FACTS:
A complaint for damages was filed by petitioner Christine (a medical student),
impleading her brother Jonathan as a necessary co-plaintiff.
o Complaint alleged that Jonathan issued in favor of Caltex Service Center his
RCBC check as payment for purchases of diesel oil. Check was dishonored by
drawee bank. Beltran (Head of Caltex Sales Division) sent petitioner a demand
 letter. Petitioner ignored since she was not the one who issued the check. Beltran
instituted against Cristine a criminal action for violation of BP 22. This according
to Christine amounted to either malicious prosecution or serious defamation
Jonathan did not sign any verification or certification against forum-shopping
ISSUE:
Whether the absence of the signature in the required verification and certification against
forum shopping of a misjoined party-plaintiff is a valid ground for the complaint's
dismissal
RULING:
NO. Since the misjoined party plaintiff receives no recognition from the court as either
indispensable or necessary party-plaintiff, it then follows that whatever action or inaction the
misjoined party may take on the verification or certification against forum-shopping is
inconsequential.