2018 Mercantile Law, Q13

YBC Bank extended a loan of PhP 50 million to Mr. Yamato secured by a real estate mortgage (REM) on a large tract of land. The covering Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of the property mortgaged did not indicate any encumbrance or lien on it, and the bank was able to obtain a certified true copy of the TCT from the Register of Deeds showing that the owner’s copy submitted to the bank was a genuine title. The Loan Agreement provided an escalation clause which stated that, at the anniversary date of the loan, YBC Bank was granted the option to increase the interest rate whenever there would be an increase in the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ prevailing rates. Three years later, Mr. Yamato received a formal notice from YBC Bank raising the interest rate of the loan based on the escalation clause provided for in the Loan Agreement. Mr. Yamato refused to pay based on the increased interest rate that was effected without his consent. YBC Bank insists on the binding effect of the escalation clause appearing on their Loan Agreement.
Mr. Yamato subsequently defaulted on the loan and vanished. Thus, YBC Bank extrajudicially foreclosed on the REM, and was the highest bidder at the public auction sale. It was only then that the bank determined that there were actually two separate TCTs issued for the property and one of which was in the name of Mr. Yamsuan who occupied the property after having bought it earlier from Mr. Yamato.
(a) Can YBC Bank unilaterally increase the interest rates on the loan? (2.5%)
(b) Is YBC Bank a mortgagee buyer in good faith? Is it preferred over Mr. Yamsuan? (2.5%)

Quick check

Why is an escalation clause allowing a bank to unilaterally increase interest rates void under Article 1308 of the Civil Code?

What standard of diligence is required of banks before accepting real property as mortgage collateral?

Is a bank considered a mortgagee in good faith if it fails to conduct an ocular inspection of property occupied by a prior buyer?

What is the legal effect of a bank's unilateral interest rate increase effected without the borrower's written consent?

Choices available with full access.

Which legal code contains the provisions governing mutuality of contracts and real estate mortgage obligations in the Philippines?

Choices available with full access.

Unlock the full Commercial and Tax Law answers

Learn more about these topics

1. Mutuality of Contracts
Under Article 1308 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act Number 386), the contract must bind both contracting parties, and its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them. An escalation clause in a loan agreement that grants a bank the unbridled right to unilaterally adjust interest rates without the written agreement or consent of the borrower violates the principle of mutuality of contracts. Any unilateral increase in interest rates effected by a financial institution without borrower assent is completely void and legally non-binding.

2. Mortgagee Good Faith
Under Philippine banking jurisprudence, a mortgagee in good faith is one who takes a mortgage on real property without notice of any defect or encumbrance in the title and exercises reasonable care to verify ownership. However, banks and financial institutions are held to a higher standard of diligence than private individuals because their business is imbued with public interest. A bank cannot claim to be a mortgagee in good faith if it relies solely on the certificate of title without conducting an actual ocular inspection of the mortgaged property.

3. Bank Extraordinary Diligence
Before approving a loan secured by a real estate mortgage, a commercial bank is legally obligated to exercise extraordinary diligence by investigating the physical condition, location, and actual possession of the land offered as collateral. Where a simple ocular inspection would have revealed that the property was actually occupied by a third-party buyer holding an earlier certificate of title, the bank's failure to conduct such inspection constitutes gross negligence. Consequently, a negligent bank is not a mortgagee-buyer in good faith and cannot prevail over the prior occupant.

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026