FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review filed by Margarita Coscolluela, the respondent, against Far East Bank & Trust Co. (FEBTC), now Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), the petitioner. Margarita and her late husband, Oscar Coscolluela, obtained an agricultural sugar crop loan from FEBTC for crop years 1997 and 1998. However, FEBTC treated the loan account of the spouses as a single account amounting to P13,592,492.00. The loan was evidenced by 67 promissory notes executed from August 29, 1996, to January 23, 1998. On June 13, 1997, the spouses executed a real estate mortgage over their property as security for the loans. FEBTC sent a final demand letter to Margarita on March 10, 1999, demanding payment of the outstanding obligation, which she failed to settle.

The case involves a dispute between the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), the petitioner, and respondent Angela Goco-Coscolluela, regarding the collection of a loan. Respondent had obtained an agricultural sugar loan from FEBTC, which allowed her to make successive drawdowns against the loan as needed. Each drawdown was covered by a promissory note with specific maturity dates. The loan amount totaled P19,482,168.31 as of March 9, 1999. When respondent failed to settle her obligation, FEBTC filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property for a total amount of P4,687,006.68, excluding the remaining balance, interest, and penalty. While the foreclosure proceeding was pending, FEBTC also filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City to collect the outstanding principal amount of P8,794,492.00 plus interest and penalty, totaling P12,672,000.31. Respondent argued that FEBTC's complaint was barred by litis pendentia since there was already a pending foreclosure petition. Respondent claimed that there was only one loan account secured by the real estate mortgage, and FEBTC was barred from instituting a personal action for collection after filing the foreclosure petition.

The case involves a dispute between petitioner bank and respondent borrower over the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. Petitioner initially filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage covering 31 promissory notes executed by respondent and her deceased husband. Subsequently, petitioner also filed an ordinary action for collection of the debt based on another set of 36 promissory notes. The trial court denied respondent's demurrer to evidence, ruling that each promissory note constituted a separate loan obligation. Respondent filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that petitioner cannot simultaneously file actions for foreclosure and collection. The CA granted the petition, stating that the remedies of foreclosure and collection are alternative and not cumulative. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent's demurrer to evidence. The issues to be resolved in the case include whether the CA had jurisdiction to rule on the certiorari petition and whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its order.

The petitioner argues that it was proper to file a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage only for the loan account covered by the 36 promissory notes amounting to P7,755,733.64. They claim that they were not barred from filing a separate action for the collection of P12,672,000.31 against the respondent in the RTC for the drawdowns as evidenced by Promissory Note Nos. 34 to 67. The petitioner insists that they had separate loan obligations for each drawdown, as evidenced by the promissory notes. On the other hand, the respondent admits to having executed the promissory notes but argues that she and her husband only had one loan account with the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner should only have one cause of action against her. The respondent further argues that the real estate mortgage is a security for not only their P7,000,000.00 loan account but also for any other loans extended to them beyond that amount.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner can file separate collection suits for each drawdown evidenced by a promissory note.

2. Whether the creditor can bring separate actions for the collection of the debt and the foreclosure of the mortgage.

3. Whether the creditor can seek a deficiency judgment in case of an unsatisfied judgment in a foreclosure suit.

4. Whether the filing of a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage for only a portion of the loan amount operates as a waiver of the personal action for the collection of the remaining amount.

5. Whether the mortgagee can split the loan account by filing a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure for one set of promissory notes and a separate personal action for another set of promissory notes without violating the prohibition against splitting a single cause of action.

6. Whether the real estate mortgage served as continuing security for future advancements or obligations.

7. Whether the intent to secure future indebtedness or advancements can be gathered from the plain terms of the mortgage.

8. Whether the advancements in excess of the specific amount mentioned in the mortgage discharge the mortgage.

9. Whether the mortgagee is entitled to bring an action for the collection of the amounts still due and request the sale of the mortgaged property.

10. Whether the mortgage is discharged when the repayments on a particular day equal the amount of the mortgage but advancements may still be demanded and received.

RULING:

1. No, petitioner cannot split respondent's single loan account by filing separate collection suits for each drawdown. The petitioner only has one cause of action for the entire loan account against the respondent.

2. No, the creditor cannot bring separate actions for the collection of the debt and the foreclosure of the mortgage. The single cause of action consists of the nonpayment of the debt by the debtor. The mortgage is subsidiary to the debt and serves as a guarantee for its collection.

3. Yes, the creditor can seek a deficiency judgment in case of an unsatisfied judgment in a foreclosure suit. Pursuing either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage is an election of remedies. Choosing one remedy does not impair the creditor's cause of action, as each remedy is complete in itself. If the creditor waives the personal action and pursues the remedy against the mortgaged property, an unsatisfied judgment in the foreclosure suit allows the creditor to sue for a deficiency judgment, which can be satisfied by the other properties of the debtor.

4. Yes, the filing of a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage for only a portion of the loan amount operates as a waiver of the personal action for the collection of the remaining amount. By resorting to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage, the petitioner waived its personal action to recover the amount covered not only by the filed promissory notes but also of the rest of the promissory notes.

5. No, the mortgagee cannot split the loan account by filing a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure for one set of promissory notes and a separate personal action for another set of promissory notes without violating the prohibition against splitting a single cause of action.

6. Yes, the real estate mortgage served as continuing security for future advancements or obligations beyond the stated amount of P7,000,000.00.

7. Yes, the intent to secure future indebtedness or advancements can be gathered from the plain terms of the mortgage.

8. The advancements in excess of the specific amount mentioned in the mortgage do not discharge the mortgage, especially when the contract of advancement or mortgage contains a provision that the mortgage shall cover all "such other amounts as may be then due."

9. The mortgagee is entitled to bring an action for the collection of the amounts still due and to request the sale of the mortgaged property.

10. The mortgage is not discharged when the repayments on a particular day equal the amount of the mortgage but advancements may still be demanded and received.

PRINCIPLES:

• An order denying a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is generally interlocutory and not appealable. However, the denial may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if the trial court's denial is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

• The writ of certiorari is granted to relieve aggrieved parties from errors of law committed in proceedings affecting justiciable rights when no other means for an adequate and speedy relief is available.

• A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. Filing multiple suits based on the same cause of action may be ground for dismissal.

• The law does not permit the owner of a single cause of action to divide and split the cause of action into several actions. The entire cause must be determined in one action.

• The rule against splitting causes of action is based on principles of public policy and equity to prevent inconvenience and hardship in unnecessary litigation.

• The determination of whether a cause of action is single and entire or separate depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the amounts arise from the same act or contract or from distinct and different acts or contracts.

• Distinct and separate contracts give rise to separate causes of action that can be the subject of separate actions.

• An open or continuous running account between the same parties constitutes a single and indivisible demand, unless the parties regarded the different items of the account as separate transactions.

• In a mortgage credit transaction, the debt gives rise to a personal action for collection of the money, while the mortgage serves as a guarantee and gives rise to a mortgage foreclosure suit to collect from the property securing the debt.

• A mortgage creditor may choose to bring either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage, but not both. Each remedy is complete in itself, and the choice of one does not impair the cause of action. Pursuing a personal action allows the creditor to attach and execute all the properties of the debtor, including the mortgaged property. Pursuing a foreclosure suit allows the creditor to seek a deficiency judgment and satisfy it with the debtor's other properties. Bringing both actions simultaneously or successively would result in multiplicity of suits, which is offensive to justice and obnoxious to law and equity.

• A mortgagee who opts to foreclose a real estate mortgage waives the action for the collection of the debt, and vice versa.

• Allowing a creditor to file separate complaints simultaneously or successively, one to recover the credit and another to foreclose the mortgage, would authorize plural redress for a single breach of contract, causing increased costs to the court and vexation to the debtor.

• The mortgage agreement may provide that the unpaid balance of the principal, interest, penalties, and other charges become immediately due, payable, and defaulted in the event of a breach or violation of the terms and conditions.

• Splitting a single cause of action is prohibited. A creditor cannot file separate actions for different portions of the same claim.

• A mortgage may serve as security for future advancements or obligations beyond the stated amount if the intent to secure such advances is apparent from the four corners of the mortgage document.

• Literal accuracy in describing the amount due in a mortgage is not required, but the description of the debt must be correct and full enough to direct attention to the sources of correct information regarding it.

• When a mortgage is given for future advancements, the advancements and the repayments must be considered together in determining the amount due upon the mortgage at maturity.

• A provision in the contract of advancements or mortgage that the mortgage shall cover all "such other amounts as may be then due" includes advancements in excess of the amount mentioned in the mortgage.

• The series of loan advancements under a mortgage to secure the payment of future advancements cannot be compared to a credit line without a "dragnet" clause. In the absence of a specific provision, future debts would be deemed as a separate transaction from the past debts secured by the mortgage.

• When there is only one mortgage securing multiple loan advancements, there is only one cause of action for the recovery of the credit with execution of the security.

• Once extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings have been instituted, the mortgagee is barred from availing itself of a personal action for the collection of the indebtedness.