G.R. No. 29416 , October 27, 1928
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GREGORIO NIEVA and MARIA A. DE NIEVA, defendants. MARIA A. DE NIEVA, appellant.

FACTS

The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint to recover a loan from spouses Gregorio Nieva and Maria A. de Nieva. The obligation was secured by a mortgage contract (Exhibit A) over a parcel of land owned by Maria A. de Nieva. A crucial clause in the mortgage contract expressly stated: *”It is the understanding that the responsibility of Maria A. de Nieva alone shall extend further than the value of the mortgaged property.”* The trial court rendered a judgment ordering both defendants to pay the debt. However, it also included a qualifying provision limiting Maria’s liability to the mortgaged property and stating that execution for any deficiency after the sale of the property would issue only against the property of Gregorio Nieva. Maria A. de Nieva appealed, arguing that she should not have been sentenced to pay the monetary debt personally, as her obligation was limited by the contract to the mortgaged property alone.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in sentencing Maria A. de Nieva to pay the sum of P164,000, despite the clear stipulation in the mortgage contract limiting her liability to the value of the mortgaged property?

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision but clarified its proper interpretation. While the dispositive portion of the judgment initially ordered both defendants to pay the debt, it was immediately qualified and explained by the subsequent clauses. The judgment explicitly stated: *”the liability of the defendant Maria A. de Nieva being limited to the land described in the mortgage deed, Exhibit A”* and that the writ of execution for any deficiency would be issued *”against the defendant Gregorio Nieva’s property only.”* Read in its entirety, the judgment correctly gave effect to the contractual limitation on Maria A. de Nieva’s liability. She could not be compelled to pay the debt from her other personal assets; her obligation was confined to the mortgaged property offered as security. The decision was therefore affirmed.