You are on page 1of 1

#9 DBP VS TOMELDAN ▪ Upon a judgment

GR # 51269 ● Court agreed with this.

DATE: November 17, 1980 ● It has been held that mortgagee in both real and chattel mortgages has
By: Julpha Policina by law the right to claim for the deficiency resulting from the price
Petitioners: Development Bank of the Philippines obtained in sale of property at public auction and the outstanding
Respondents: Sps. Rufo Tomeldan and Soledad Castelo, Sps. Pedro Tomeldan and obligation at the time of the foreclosure proceedings.
Magdalena Caburian, Sps. Fernando Gabriana and Catalina Tomeldan, Gerardo ● Therefore, DBP has the right to claim payment of the deficiency after it
Tomeldan and CFI Pangasinan had foreclosed the property and that private respondents have the
Ponente: Abad Santos, J. corresponding obligation created by law to pay such deficiency
DOCTRINE: Obligation created by law has a prescriptive period of 10 years. ● Since obligation was created by law, Art. 1144 must apply – 10 year
FACTS: prescriptive period.
● June 23, 1963: DBP approved and released a loan to the private ● Respondent Judge ordered to continue its trial.
respondents which they promised to pay jointly and severally
● Secured by a real estate mortgage
● Sept. 15, 1967: Mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed since
respondents failed to pay
● March 14, 1977: There was still deficiency (unpaid balance) so DBP filed
action for the deficiency
● All respondents were declared in default
● Nov. 27, 1978: Lower court dismissed on the ground that the cause of
action has prescribed
o Cause of action of DBP is covered by the 5-year prescriptive
o Art. 1149 CC: all other actions whose periods are not fixed in
the code or in other laws must be brought within 5 years from
time the cause of action accrues
o Since deficiency payment accrued on Sept. 16, 1967 (day after
extrajudicial foreclosure and public auction), action should have
been filed within 5 years but DBP filed on March 14, 1977 (less
than 10 years after)
● Hence, this appeal
ISSUE: Whether or not the cause of action of DBP has already prescribed
● It is right that cause of action accrued on Sept. 16, 1967 and case filed on
March 14, 1977 which is less than 10 years after
● As DBP’s contention that the their cause of action must be governed by
Art. 1144 of CC since the obligation of the private respondents to pay the
deficiency is one created by law
o Art. 1144: The following actions must be brought within 10
years from the time the right of action accrues:
▪ Upon a written contract;
▪ Upon an obligation created by law;