Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the
obligation
to
pay
is
Facts
Issue:
Whether or not the interest should be limited to
the 1st six months as contained in the MOA?
Ruling:
No. SC ruled in favour of Respondent.
SONCUYA V. AZARRAGA
ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v CO
FACTS:
-
OUTRIGHT SALE
o Co accepted the invoice of the
ballet shoes and he even noted
down in his own handwriting the
partial payments that he made.
o If the sale has been on
consignment, a stipulation as to
the period of time for the return of
the unsold shoes should have been
made, however, this was not done
NOT BOUND BY THE INTEREST
o He did not sign the invoice slip the
stipulated interest was 20%, hence,
not binding
o However, he is bound by the legal
interest of 6%
Hence, Co was ordered to pay the balance
of the purchase price for the ballet shoes
+ legal interest
Issue:
1) Whether or not the Purchase Agreement
entered into by the Parties is a debt
instrument?
2) If so, Is Basilio liable as surety?
3) Whether or not Lirag is liable for the
interest as liquidated damages?
Held:
1) YES, the Purchase Agreement is a debt
instrument. The terms and conditions of the
Agreement show that parties intended the
repurchase of preferred shares on the
respective scheduled dates to be an absolute
obligation, which does not depend on the
financial ability of the corporation.
o This absolute obligation on the part of the
Petitioner corporation is made manifest by
the fact that a surety was required to see
to it that the obligation is fulfilled in the
event the principal debtors inability to do
so.
o It cannot be said that SSS is a preferred
stockholder. The rights given by the
Purchase Agreement to SSS are not rights
enjoyed by ordinary stockholders. Since
there was a condition that failure to
repurchase the stocks on the scheduled
dates renders the entire obligation due
and demandable with interest.
These
features clearly show that intent of the
parties to be bound therein as debtor and
creditor and not as a corporation and
stockholder.
no
USURY LAW
G.R. No. 128990
September 21, 2000
INVESTORS FINANCE
CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
AUTOWORLD SALES CORPORATION, and PIO
BARRETTO REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,respondents.
FACTS:
10
Solangon vs Salazar
G.R. No. 125944
Facts:
This action was initiated by the Petitionerspouses to prevent the foreclosure of the
mortgaged property.
11
Issue:
Whether or not the 6% monthly interest is
unconscionable?
Ruling:
Yes. The SC ruled that this is unconscionable.
5% month is
unreasonable,
12
REFORMINA V. TOMOL
EASTERN SHIPPING v CA
FACTS:
-
Facts:
1) On April 9, 1981, private respondent
Vicente Tan insured his building in
Dumaguete City against fire with
petitioner Eastern Assurance and Surety
Corporation (EASCO) for P250,000.00.
2) On June 26, 1981, the building was
destroyed by fire. As his claim for
indemnity was refused, private respondent
filed a complaint for breach of contract
with damages against petitioner. The RTC
Court, decided in favour of Vicente Tan. In
its ruling, the RTC court imposed the rate
of interest at 12% per annum, and
decided that EASCO to pay immediately to
Vicente Tan the unpaid balance of interest
of the principal amount of P250,000.00
equivalent to 6% per annum from June 26,
1981 to September 30,1994.
3) Petitioner EASCO appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which, on July 30, 1993, affirmed
the decision of the trial court. The CA, on
the authority of prior case, Eastern
Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
that the interest rate on the amount due
should be 6% per annum from June 26,
1981 to August 24, 1993, and 12% per
annum beginning August 25, 1993 until
the money judgment is paid.
13
14
Facts:
FACTS:
Province of Isabela issued several checks
drawn against its account with PNB (P) in
favor of Ibarrola (R), as payments for the
purchase of medicines.
PNB v CA
15
Issue: Whether
irregularities?
or
not
Sheriff
is
guilty
of
Held:
Yes, Baliwag is guilty of malfeasance, not
irregularities. The determination of the amount
due under the writ properly pertained to the
Judge. Yet, respondent assumed the task. For
doing so instead of pointing out to the court the
deficiency of the writ, he should be sanctioned.
He should not have arrogated unto himself
judicial functions that were to be performed only
by the judge.
RCBC vs ALFA
Facts:
Alfa on separate instances was
granted by RCBC 4 letters of credit to facilitate
the purchase of raw materials for their garments
business. Alfa executed 4 trust receipts and made
comprehensive surety agreements wherein the
signatory officers of Alfa agreed in joint/several
capacity to pay RCBC in case the company
defaulted. RCBC filed a case versus Alfa for a sum
of money. The CA awarded only P3M (minimum
amount) to RCBC instead of P18M as stipulated in
their contract.
Issue:
W/N the CA can deviate from the
provisions of the contract between the parties?
Ruling:
No.
Contracting
parties
may
establish agreements terms, deemed advisable
provided they are not contrary to law/public
policy. A contract is a law between the parties. In
this case its valid because it was not excessive
under the Usury Law.
*Atty. Aguinaldo assigned this case because he
just wanted to show us how to compute for the
interest in long term deals. He even made a
diagram on the board. Di ko na ilalagay un sa
16
FACTS:
Respondent Abellas son Mike rented for
residential
purposes
the
house
of
Petitioner Calibo.
Respondent left a tractor in his sons
garage for safekeeping
Petitioner Mike had not paid rentals,
electric and water bills
Mike reassured Calibo that the tractor
would stand as guarantee for its payment
Respondent wanted to take possession of
his tractor but Petitioner said that the Mike
had left the tractor with him as security for
the payment of Mikes obligation to him.
Respondent issued postdated checks but
Petitioner will only accept check if
Respondent executes Promissory Note to
cover payment for unpaid electric and
water bills.
Petitioner instituted an action for replevin
claiming ownership of the tractor and
seeking to recover possession thereof
from petitioner. Likewise, he asserts that
the tractor was left with him, in the
concept of an innkeeper, on deposit and
that he may validly hold on thereto until
Mike Abella pays his obligations.
TC and CA Mike could not have validly
pledged the tractor because he was not
the owner. NO DEPOSIT
ISSUE: WON there was a valid deposit?
HELD: NO
In a contract of deposit, a person receives
an object belonging to another with the
obligation of safely keeping it and of
returning the same. Petitioner himself
17
CA Agro-Industrial vs CA
G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993
Issues:
1. Whether or not the disputed contract is an
ordinary contract of lease?
Facts
18
19
20
Issue:
Defendant in reply to the demand for the cattle,
in which he seeks to excuse himself for the loss of
the missing animals.
As a second defense it is claimed that the thirtythree cows either died of disease or were
drowned in a flood. The defendant's witnesses
swore that of the cows that perished, six died
from overfeeding, and they failed to make clear
the happening of any flood sufficient to destroy
the others.
HELD: If we consider the contract as one of
deposit, then under article 1183 of the Civil Code,
the burden of explanation of the loss rested upon
the depositary and under article 1769 the fault is
presumed to be his. The defendant has not
succeeded in showing that the loss occurred
either without fault on his part or by reason of
caso fortuito.
If, however, the contract be not one strictly of
deposit but one according to a local custom for
the pasturing of cattle, the obligations of the
parties remain the same.
21
Ruling:
No. There is no breach of trust from
a banks failure to return the subject matter of
the deposit. Bank deposits are in the nature of
irregular deposits. All kinds of bank deposits are
to be treated as loans and are to be covered by
the law on loans Art.1980. In reality the depositor
is the creditor while the bank is the debtor. Failure
of the respondent bank to honor the time deposit
is failure to pay its obligation as a debtor.
SESBRENO V. CA
Facts: Sesbreno entered into a money market,
giving 300k to Philfinance. As an exchange,
Philfinance gave checks and confirmation of sale
of Delta Motor Corp certificates. Checks bounced.
Sesbreno is running after Philipinas Bank (payee)
(Holder of security of primissory note) and Delta
(maker). Delta contends that it is not liable
because there was "reconstruction" of debt of
Delta to Philfinance, the promissory note is not
valid anymore. It also contends that the
document cannot be assigned because its non
negotiable. RTC ruled that Philfinance is liable
because Philfinance already knows that the
liability was already waived and it still issued the
certificate. However, since Philfinance was not
impleaded, judgment cannot be made against
Philfinance. The issue related in this case is
regarding
trasferrability
and
assignability.
Issue: WoN the non-negotiable instrument is non
transferrable/assignable
Ruling: Assignable is different from tranferrability.
Negotiable instruments can be indorsed. Non
negotiable
instrumets
can
be
assigned.
Therefore, non negotiable instrument can be
assigned.
DE LOS SANTOS vs TAN KHEY
O.G.No.26695-R, July 30, 1962
Facts:
Tan Khey was the owner of International
Hotel located in Iloilo city. Romeo de los Santos
lodged in Tna Kheys hotel. After arrival, he left
the hotel, depositing his revolver and his bag with
22
Notice
The Court ruled that there was no doubt
that the person in charge had knowledge of his
revolver, the bag, and pants of the guest, De los
Santos.
The requirement of notice being evidently
for the purpose of closing the door to fraudulent
claims for non-existent articles, the lack thereof
was fatal to De los Santos claim for reparation
for the loss of his eyeglass, ring, and cash.
Precautions
While an innkeeper cannot free himself
from responsibility by posting notices, there can
be no doubt of the innkeepers right to make such
regulations in the management of his inn as will
more effectually secure the property of his guest
and operate as protection to himself, and that it
is incumbent upon the guest, if he means to hold
the inkeeper ho his responsibility, to comply with
any regulation that is just and reasonable, when
he is requested to do so.
However, in this case, the notice requiring
actual deposit of the effects with the manager
was an unreasonable regulation.
It was
unreasonable to require the guest to deposit his
bag ,pants and revolver to the manager. De los
Santos had exercised the necessary diligence
with respect to the care and vigilance of his
effects.
23
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, petitioner,
vs.
HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE
COMPANY, respondent.
FACTS:
The petitioner, a corporation duly organized in
accordance with law, is operating a sugar central
in the City of Silay, Occidental Negros. It produces
centrifugal sugar from sugarcane supplied by
planters. The processed sugar is divided between
the planters and the petitioner in the proportion
stipulated in the milling contracts, and thereafter
is deposited in the warehouses of the latter. (Pp.
4-5, t.s.n.) For the sugar deposited by the
planters, the petitioner issues the corresponding
warehouse receipts of "quedans". It does not
collect storage charges on the sugar deposited in
its warehouse during the first 90 days period
counted from the time it is extracted from the
sugarcane. Upon the lapse of the first ninety days
and up to the beginning of the next milling
season, it collects a fee of P0.30 per picul a
24
YES.
Respondent
disclaims
liability
under
the
provisions quoted above, alleging that it is not
engaged the business of storing its planters'
sugar for profit; that the maintenance of its
warehouses is merely incidental to its business of
manufacturing sugar and in compliance with its
obligation to its planters. We find this to be
without merit.
Gonzalez vs Go Tiong
Facts:
25
ISSUE:
Whether or not Plaintiffs claim is governed by the
Bonded Warehouse Act due to Go Tiongs act of
issuing to the former ordinary receipts, not
warehouse receipts?
RULING:
YES. SC ruled in favor Plaintiff.
26
ISSSUE:
Whether or not the warehouse receipts issued are
negotiable?
HELD:
Yes,
a
warehouseman
who
deposited
merchandise in his own warehouse, issued a
warehouse receipts therefore and thereafter
negotiated the receipts by endorsement. The
receipt recites that the goods were deposited
por orden of the depositor, the warehouseman,
but contained no statement that the goods were
to be delivered to the bearer of the receipts or to
a specified person. It is in the form of a
warehouse
receipts
and
was
not
mark
nonnegotiable.
Therefore the receipts was negotiable warehouse
receipts and the words por orden must be
construed to mean to the order.
27
28
Issue:
Whether or not Consolidated is liable to DMG?
Held:
CONSOLIDATED vs ARTEX
Facts:
Consolidated Terminals Inc (CTI)
operated a customs warehouse in Manila. It
received 193 bales of high density compressed
raw cotton worth P99k. It was understood that CTI
would keep the cotton on behalf of Luzon
Brokerage until the consignee Paramount Textile
had opened the corresponding letter of credit in
favor of Adolph Hanslik Cotton. By virtue of
forged permits, Artex was able to obtain the bales
of cotton and paid P15k.
Issue:
W/N CTI as warehouseman was
entitled to the possession of the bales of cotton?
Ruling: No. CTI had no cause of action. It was not
the owner of the cotton. It was not a real party of
interest in the case. CTI was not sued for
damages by the real party in interest.
LUA KIAN VS. MANILA RAILROAD
29
Facts:
U. de Poli was a debtor of American
Foreign Banking Corporation. He issued a
warehouse receipt, commonly known as quedan.
The warehouse receipt of the mercahndise
covered thereby was described as Cagayan
tabacco en rama. It was indorsed in blank by U.
De Poli to American Foreign Banking Corporation
As security for an overdraft. U. De Poli became
insolvent and the bank presented its claim for the
delivery of the tobacco covered in the warehouse
receipt.
However, it was found that the tobacco
had come from Isabela and not from Cagayan,
and the banks claim was disputed by other
creditors of the insolvent on the ground that,
among others, that the tobacco claimed, being
Isabela tobacco, was not correctly described in
the warehouse receipt and that, therefore, the
receipt was ineffective as against the general
creditors.
Issue: Whether the use of the word Cagayan
instead of Isabela in describing the tobacco in
the quedan renders the quedan null and void as
negotiable warehouse receipt for the tobacco
intended to be covered by it.
Ruling:
The identity of the tobacco was sufficiently
established by the evidence. In the warehouse,
there was no other tobacco stored nut only the
Isabela tobacco. The debtor also said that Isabela
tobacco was the tobacco which he transsfered to
American Foreign Banking Corporation. Aside
from that, when the subaccountant of the bank
went to the warehouse to check which tobacco
was covered by the warehouse receipt, the
assignee and one of his accountants pointed to
him the Isabela tobacco.
30
MARTINEZ V. PNB
Siy Cong Bien vs HSBC
FACTS
31
ISSUE
HELD
It may be noted,
o
32
of
RNS
Merchandising
and
St.
Therese
Merchandising, in breach of trust, fraud or
conversion against Noah's Ark.
PNB v SAYO, JR.
FACTS
-
33
34
DOCTRINE:
By guaranty a person, called the
guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill
the obligation of the principal debtor in case the
latter should fail to do so; if the person binds
himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the
contract is called suretyship.
35
SEVERINO v SEVERINO
F: upon the death of x, who left considerable
property, a litigation ensued between c, xs
widow, and other heirs of x. a compromise was
effected by which d, a son of x, took over the
property pertaining to the estate of x at the same
time agreeing to pay P100k to c, payable, first in
P40k cash upon the execution of the document of
compromise and the balance, in three equal
installments. G. affixed his name as guarantor
Upon ds failure to pay the balance, c instituted
an action against d and g, the latter contending
that he received nothing for affixing his signature
as guarantor to the contract and that in effect the
contract was lacking in consideration as to him.
Issue: is there a consideration for the guaranty?
Ruling: a guarantor or surety is bound by the
same consideration that makes the contract
effective between the principal parties thereto.
The compromise and dismissal of lawsuit is
recognized in law as a valuable consideration;
and the dismissal of the action which c instituted
against d was an adequate consideration to
support the promise on the part of d to pay the
sums stipulated in the contract subject of the
action
It is neither necessary that the guarantor or
surety should receive any part of the benefit, if
such there be accruing to his principal. The true
consideration of this contract was the detriment
suffered by c in the former action in dismissing
the proceeding and it is immaterial that no
benefit may have accrued either to the principal
or his guarantor
LEE v CA
FACTS: PBCOM was furnished by a board
resolution stating that they authorize President,
Mr. Charles Lee, and the Vice-President and
General Manager, Mr. Mariano A. Sio to apply for,
negotiate and secure the approval of commercial
loans
and
other
banking
facilities
and
accommodations, from the Philippine Bank of
Communications, in such sums as they shall
deem advantageous, the principal of all of which
shall not exceed the total amount of TEN MILLION
PESOS (P10,000,000.00), Philippine Currency,
plus any interests.
Mico availed of the loans and as security for the
loans, MICO through its Vice-President and
General Manager, Mariano Sio, executed on May
36
Philippine
American
Construction Company with a capital of
P14k.
P10k of which were taken by way of loan
from Paulino Candelaria. The partnership
and the co-partners undertook and bound
themselves to pay jointly and severally
the indebtedness.
Upon default, Paulino filed civil case
against Phil-Am Construction Company
and co-partners for the recovery of loan
TC ordered all Defendants to pay jointly
and severally; CA affirmed
Upon filing of complaint, Paulino obtained
a writ of attachment against Defendants.
The Sheriff attached properties of 3
partners. Partnership offered to post a
bond of P10k.
Phil-Am
Construction
Company
as
principal then represented by the partner
Antonio Abad, Santiago Lucero and
Meliton Carlos as guarantors executed a
bond of P10k in favour of Paulino for the
lifting of the attachment.
After issuance of writ of execution, Sheriff
found no property of the judgment
debtors. Paulino moved for the issuance of
writ of execution against the guarantors of
Defendants.
Guarantor-Plaintiff
and
co-guarantor
Meliton Carlos later paid the creditor and
were able to recover from Antonio Abad a
sum of P3800, which they divided equally.
It appeared that the payment made by the
plaintiff to Paulino was reduced to the sum
of P3665. Plaintiff now demands from
Anastacio Santos the return of the
aforesaid sum but Anastacio refused.
37
38
HELD:
No. The contract was not only considered not
consummated but cancelled.
It ceased to be valid when it was cancelled
Neither the appellant nor his sureties were bound
to comply with the terms of their respective
contracts of fishing privilege and suretyship.
This is so particularly with respect to the sureties,
because suretyship cannot exist without a valid
obligation.
Guaranty is not presumed.
The elimination of the obligation for which said
sureties desired to answer with their bond also
rendered the bond also eliminated.
SMITH BELL v PNB
Issue:
FACTS
Rulings:
39
RCBC v ARRO
HELD:
40
FACTS:
- Inter Resin opened a Letter of Credit with
Manila Banking Corp. with security of
Continuing Surety Agreement signed by
Inter
Resin
and
Investment
and
Underwriting Corp (IUCP) wherein they
bound themselves solidarily for the.
- Later Inter Resin together with Willex (P)
executed a continuing guaranty in favor of
IUCP, stating that Inter Resin and P are
solidarily liable. Due to this, IUCP paid
Manila Bank P4M (Letter of Credit)
- IUCP then demanded payment of the
amount, however, Inter Resin and P failed
to do so. Hence, this case
- P contends that it should not be liable
since P is merely a guarantor
ISSUE: WoN P ma be held jointly and severally
liable with Inter Resin for the amount paid by
Interbank to Manila Bank
SC: YES
- The amount had been paid by InterBank to
Manila bank
41
42
43
FACTS:
Properties, rights, obligations, and
contracts of the Philippine Relief and Trade
Rehabilitation Administration (PRATRA) had been
transferred to the Price Stabilization Corporation
(PRISCO) and subsequently all rights and
contracts of the PRISCO involving real estate,
fixed assets and stock in trade had been assumed
by herein plaintiff, the NAMARCO.
Marquez secured from the PRATRA one tractor
and one rice thresher, with a total value of
P20,000.00 for which the said defendant paid
thereon the sum of P8,000.00 as down payment,
thereby leaving a balance of P12,000.00.
Marquez executed a promissory note in the
amount of P12,000.00 payable in installments
commencing from June 24, 1951 to June 25,
1952, with interest thereon at the rate of 7% per
annum from June 24, 1950 until finally paid.
To
guarantee
full
compliance
with
the
aforementioned obligation, defendant Marquez,
as principal, and defendant Plaridel Surety &
Insurance
Company,
as
surety,
executed
Guaranty Bond P. S. & I. No. 4220 in favor of the
PRATRA, wherein they bound themselves, jointly
and severally, to pay the said amount of
P12,000.00 (Exhibit C).
In this guaranty bond, the surety expressly
waives its right to demand payment and notice of
non-payment and agrees that the liabilities of this
guaranty shall be direct and immediate and not
contingent upon the exhaustion by the PRATRA of
whatever remedies it may have against the
principal, and that the same shall be valid and
continuous until the obligation so guaranteed is
paid in full.
After making partial payment, Marquez defaulted
in the payment of the other installments. Plaintiff
demanded from defendants Marquez and Plaridel
Surety & Insurance Company, payment of their
outstanding obligation. The claim, therefore, of
defendant Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company
that they never received a demand for payment
from plaintiff must necessarily fail, considering
that it is clearly shown in registry return receipts
that the same had been received by the
addressee.
ISSUES: Whether the surety's liability can exceed
the sum of P12,000.00.
RULING: Yes
While the guarantee was for the original amount
of the debt of Gabino Marquez, the amount of the
judgment by the trial court in no way violates the
rights of the surety. The judgment on the principal
was only for P10,000.00, while the remaining
44
45
HELD: NO.
Under the present Civil Code (Article 1311), as
well as under the Civil Code of 1889 (Article
1257), the rule is that
Contracts take effect only as between the
parties, their assigns and heirs, except in the
case where the rights and obligations arising from
the contract are not transmissible by their
nature, or by stipulation or by provision of
law.
Under our law, therefore, the general rule is that
a partys contractual rights and obligations are
transmissible to the successors.
Of the three exceptions fixed by Article 1311, the
nature of the obligation of the surety or guarantor
does not warrant the conclusion that his peculiar
individual qualities are contemplated as a
principal inducement for the contract. What did
the creditor Luzon Surety Co. expect of K. H.
Hemady when it accepted the latter as surety in
the
counterbonds?
Nothing
but
the
reimbursement of the moneys that the Luzon
Surety Co. might have to disburse on account of
the obligations of the principal debtors. This
reimbursement is a payment of a sum of money,
resulting from an obligation to give; and to the
Luzon Surety Co., it was indifferent that the
reimbursement should be made by Hemady
himself or by some one else in his behalf, so long
as the money was paid to it.
The second exception of Article 1311, p. 1, is
intransmissibility by stipulation of the parties.
Being exceptional and contrary to the general
rule, this intransmissibility should not be easily
implied, but must be expressly established, or at
the very least, clearly inferable from the
provisions of the contract itself, and the text of
the agreements sued upon nowhere indicate that
they are non-transferable.
Because under the law (Article 1311), a person
who enters into a contract is deemed to have
contracted for himself and his heirs and assigns,
it is unnecessary for him to expressly stipulate to
that effect; hence, his failure to do so is no sign
that he intended his bargain to terminate upon
his death. Similarly, that the Luzon Surety Co., did
not require bondsman Hemady to execute a
mortgage indicates nothing more than the
companys faith and confidence in the financial
stability of the surety, but not that his obligation
was strictly personal.
The third exception to the transmissibility of
obligations under Article 1311 exists when they
are not transmissible by operation of law. The
provision makes reference to those cases where
the law expresses that the rights or obligations
are extinguished by death, as is the case in legal
support (Article 300), parental authority (Article
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Tanglao is liable?
RULING
46
NO.
FACTS:
SAAVEDRA v PRICE
47
FACTS:
BITANGA v PYRAMID
48
49
50
51
Rodriguezs liability
Petitioner Rodriguez posits that he is merely a
guarantor, and that his liability arises only when
the person with whom he guarantees the credit,
Autocorp Group in this case, fails to pay the
obligation. Petitioner Rodriguez invokes Article
2079 of the Civil Code on Extinguishment of
Guaranty, which states:
Art. 2079. An extension granted to the debtor by
the creditor without the consent of the guarantor
extinguishes the guaranty. The mere failure on
the part of the creditor to demand payment after
the debt has become due does not of itself
constitute any extension of time referred to
herein.
The use of the term guarantee in a contract does
not ipso facto mean that the contract is one of
guaranty. It thus ruled that both petitioners
assumed liability as a regular party and obligated
themselves as original promissors, i.e., sureties.
The provisions of the Civil Code on Guarantee,
other than the benefit of excussion, are
applicable and available to the surety.[22] The
Court finds no reason why the provisions of
Article 2079 would not apply to a surety.
This, however, would not cause a reversal of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals was correct that even granting arguendo
that there was a modification as to the effectivity
of the bonds, petitioners would still not be
absolved from liability since they had authorized
ISAC to consent to the granting of any extension,
modification, alteration and/or renewal of the
subject bonds
SAENZ v YAP CHUAN
FACTS:
Engracio Palanca a judicial administrator
gave bond to guarantee his administration
of the estate of Margarita Jose
The bond was executed by Engracio,
Plaintiff Saenz and two others in favour of
the government for the sum of P60k
52
53
Issue:
the
54
55
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
56
Facts:
57
58
59
ESTATE
MORTGAGE
60
FACTS:
1) Eduarda Belo owned an agricultural land with
an area of 661,288 square meters in Panitan,
Capiz, which she leased a portion to respondents
spouses Eslabon, for a period of 7 years at the
rate of P7,000.00 per year.
2) Respondents spouses Eslabon obtained a loan
from PNB secured by a real estate mortgage on
their own 4 residential houses located in Roxas
City, as well as on the agricultural land owned by
Eduarda Belo. The assent of Eduarda Belo to the
mortgage was acquired through a special power
of attorney which was executed in favor of
respondent Marcos Eslabon on June 15, 1982.
3) The spouses Eslabon failed to pay their loan
obligation, and so extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings against the mortgaged properties
were instituted by PNB and was the highest
bidder
of
the
foreclosed
properties
at
P447,632.00.
4) Meanwhile, Eduarda Belo sold her right of
redemption to petitioners spouses Enrique and
Florencia Belo under a deed of absolute sale of
proprietary and redemption rights. Before the
expiration of the redemption period, petitioners
spouses Belo tendered payment for the
redemption of the agricultural land which
includes the bid price of respondent PNB, plus
interest and expenses.
5) However, PNB rejected the tender of payment
of petitioners spouses Belo contending that the
redemption price should be the total claim of the
bank on the date of the auction sale and custody
of property plus charges accrued and interests
amounting to P2,779,978.72 to which the
spouses disagreed and refused to pay the said
total claim of respondent PNB. Thereafter the\
spouses Belo filed in the RTC an action for
declaration of nullity of mortgage, with an
alternative cause of action, in the event that the
accommodation mortgage be held to be valid, to
compel respondent PNB to accept the redemption
price tendered by petitioners spouses Belo which
is based on the winning bid price of respondent
61
BUSTAMANTE v ROSEL
ALCANTARA v ALINEA
Facts:
Issue:
1) WON there was a valid mortgage?
2) WON the defendants should deliver
property to Alcantara?
the
Held:
62
Ruling: No.
Tuason is entitled to retain and
appropriate to himself the merchandise received
in pledge is null and indefensible, because he can
only recover his credit, according to law, from the
proceeds of the sale of the same. Art. 2088.
LANUZA v DE LEON
Spouses lanuza executed a deed of sale with a
right to repurchase to Reyes. Upon expiration of
term to repurchase, the time was extended
without the wife of lanuza signing the document.
A stipulation to the effect that the ownership will
only be passed to the vendee if the vendor fails
to repurchase the property was included. The
spouses then mortgage the property to
respondent to secure a debt. The debt was
unpaid and respondent filed a case to foreclose
the mortgage which was granted. Reyes filed a
case for consolidation, claiming she has the right
to the property. Reyes claims the ownership in the
property automatically passes immediately to
him after the sale and not after the end of the
period to repurchase.
Issue: won reyes contention valid
Ruling: yes. a stipulation in a purported pacto de
retro sale that the ownership over the property
sold would automatically pass to the vendee in
case no redemption was effected within the
stipulated period is contrary to the nature of a
true pacto de retro sale, under which the vendee
acquires ownership of the thing sold immediately
YU v PCIB
63
FACTS:
On October 25, 1995, Dylanco and SLGT each
entered into a contract to sell with ASB for the
purchase of a unit (Unit 1106 for Dylanco and
Unit 1211 for SLGT) at BSA Towers then being
developed by the latter. As stipulated, ASB will
deliver the units thus sold upon completion of the
construction or before December 1999. Relying
on this and other undertakings, Dylanco and
64
65
YULIONGSIU v PNB
FACTS: Yulongsiu owned 2 vessels and equity in
FS-203, which were purchased by him from the
Philippine Shipping Commission, by installment.
Plaintiff obtained a loan from defendant and to
guarantee payment, plaintiff pledged the 2
vessels and the equity on FS-203, as evidenced
by a pledge contract. Plaintiff made a partial
payment and the remaining balance was renewed
by the execution of 2 promissory notes in the
banks favor. These two notes were never paid at
all by plaintiff on their respective due dates.
66
FACTS:
67
FACTS:
Laureano Atendido (LA) obtained from PNB (P) a
loan payable in 120 days with interest. To
guarantee its payment LA pledge to the bank
2,000 cavans of palay which were deposited in a
warehouse and to that effect endorsed in favor of
the bank the corresponding WH receipt. Before
the maturity of the loan, the cavans of rice
dissappeared from the WH. LA failed to pay the
loan upon matrity and so the present action was
instituted. LA set up the defense that the quedan
covering the palay which was given as security
having been endorsed in blank in favor of the
bank and the palay having been lost or
disappeared, he thereby became relieved of
liability.
ISSUE: WoN LA is relieved from liability
SC: NO!
The surrender of the warehouse receipt fiven as
security, endorsed in blank was NOT that of a
final transfer or that WH receipt but merely as a
guaranty to the fulfillment of the obligation of
P3k. This being so, the ownership remains with
the pledgor subject only to foreclosure in case of
nonfulfillment
of
obligation.
The
pledgor,
continuing to be the owner of the goods pledged
during the pendency of the obligation in case of
the loss of the property, the loss is borne by him.
OCEJO PEREZ v INTERNATIONAL BANK
FACTS:
1) On March 7, 1914, Chua Teng Chong, executed
to the International Banking Corporation a
promissory note, payable one month after date,
for the sum of P20,000 which note was also
attached to another private document, signed by
Chua, which stated that he had deposited with
68
SARMIENTO v JAVELLANA
69
Issues:
1) WON Villasenor can still redeem the jewels?
2) WON the right to redeem has already expired?
Held:
1) Yes. As the jewels in question were in the
possession of the defendant to secure the
payment of a loan of 1,500 with interest
thereon
and
for
having
subsequently
extended the term of the loan indefinitely,
and so long as the value of the jewels pledged
was sufficient to secure the payment of the
capital and the accrued interest, the
defendant is bound to return the jewels or
their value to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs
have the right to demand the same upon the
payment by them of the sum of 1,500 plus
interest.
2) An action for recovery of the goods which
were pledged to secure the payment of a loan
evidenced by a document is an action on a
written contract which has a prescriptive
period of 10 years from the date on which the
debtor may have paid the debt and
demanded the return of the goods pledged.
In this case, the expiration of the contract was
in 1912 and the action to recover was filed in
1920, therefore, the action has not yet
prescribed.
PARAY v RODRIGUEZ
Facts: Respondents were the owners, in their
respective personal capacities, of shares of stock
in a corporation known as the Quirino-LeonorRodriguez Realty Inc.1 Sometime during the years
1979 to 1980, respondents secured by way of
pledge of some of their shares of stock to
petitioners
Bonifacio
and
Faustina
Paray
("Parays")
the
payment of certain loan
obligations. When the Parays attempted to
foreclose the pledges on account of respondents
failure to pay their loans, respondents filed
complaints with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Cebu City and , sought the declaration of nullity
of the pledge agreements. However the RTC, in
its decision3 dated 14 October 1988, dismissed
the complaint and gave "due course to the
foreclosure and sale at public auction of the
various pledges. Respondents then received
Notices of Sale which indicated that the pledged
shares were to be sold at public auction.
70
71
72
HELD:
The alleged nullity is claimed to arise from the
fact that the real estate and chattel mortgage
executed by respondents to secure their credit
accommodation with the petitioner bank was
indivisible, and that consequently, the bank had
no legal right to extra judicially foreclose only the
real estate mortgage and leave out the chattel
mortgage, and then sue respondents for a
supposed deficiency judgement; and for this
reason, respondents assert that the judgement in
the bank's favor for such deficiency in Civil Case
No. 29752 is a nullity.
The argument is fallacious because the mere
embodiment of the real estate mortgage and the
chattel mortgage in one document does not fuse
both securities into an indivisible whole. Both
remain distinct agreements, differing not only in
the subject-matter of the contract but in the but
in the governing legal provisions. Petitioner bank,
therefore, had every right to foreclose the real
estate mortgage and waive the chattel mortgage,
and maintain instead a personal action for the
recovery of the unpaid balance of its credit (De la
Rama vs. Sajo, 45 Phil., 703;
Salomon vs. Dantees, 63 Phil., 522; Brancharch
Motor Co. vs. Rangal, et al., 68 Phil., 287, 290).
This petitioner did by filing civil Case No. 29752
for the collection of the unpaid balance of
respondents' indebtedness; and the validity and
correctness of the action was admitted by
respondents themselves when they confessed
judgement thereto. The court in fact decision
pursuant to such confession of judgement, and
the decision has long since been final and
executory.
PRUDENTIAL BANK v PANIS
Facts:
HOME BANKERS v CA
Private respondents entered into a
Contract
to
Sell
Agreement
with
TransAmerican through Engr. Garcia over
portions of land with one unit three-storey
townhouse to be built on each portion.
ISSUES:
1. WON HLURB has jurisdiction over the
case?
2. WON the mortgage is valid?
3. WON petitioner is a mortgagee in good
faith and since the titles on their face were
free
from
any
claims,
liens
and
encumbrances at the time of the
mortgage, it is not obliged under the law
to go beyond the certificates of title
registered under the Torrens system and
73
MCCULLOUGH v VELOSO
74
SANTIAGO v DIONISIO
DOCTRINE:
All persons having or claiming an
interest in the mortgaged premises subordinate
in right to that of the holder of the mortgage
should be made defendants in the action for the
foreclosure of the mortgage. Intervening as a
subordinate lienholder in a foreclosure case
merely to oppose the confirmation of the sale
upon learning that such a sale had been made, is
no the same as being a party to the suit to the
extent of being bound by the judgement in the
foreclosure suit.
The effect of the failure to implead a
subordinate lienholder or subsequent purchaser
or both is to render the foreclosure ineffective as
against them, with the result that there remains
in their favor the unforeclosed equity of
redemption.
Facts:
PADERES v CA
75
76
77
78
of the assignment or
secured by mortgage,
of the Mortgage Law, is
that it may be effectual
BPI v CONCEPCION
TADY-Y v PNB
FACTS:
- Spouses Litonjua (P) obtained a loan from
L & R Corporation (R) Aug 6, 1974
(P200k) and Mar 27, 1978 (P200k) which
are secured by a mortgage on 2 parcels of
land owned by P
- However, P sold to Phil White House Auto
Supply (PWHAS) the subject parcels of
land, without prior written consent of R,
pursuant to the Mortgage agreement that
they have.
- Upon default of P, R initiated an
extrajudicial sale and won the bidding.
LOPEZ v ALVAREZ
FACTS: Appellee Evaristo holds a lien over the
estate of one Vicente Lopez as the latter
executed a mortgage deed in favor of Evaristo.
On April 5, 1904, Evaristo assigned his lien on the
estate to appellant Manuel Lopez through a public
instrument but the same was not registered in
the Registry of Deeds. Appellee Grindrod is a
creditor of Evaristo, to whom the latter promised
to pay his obligation through the sugar yielded by
the hacienda, said agreement was entered into
79
FACTS:
1) A real estate mortgage was executed on
December 1991 by spouses Dario (hereafter
mortgagors) in favor of UNIONBANK to secure a
P3 million loan which covered a Quezon City
property in Leopoldo Dario's name and was
annotated on the title. For non-payment of the
principal obligation, UNIONBANK extrajudicially
foreclosed the property mortgaged on August
1993 and sold the same at public auction, with
itself posting the highest bid.
2) One week before the one-year redemption
period expired, private respondents filed a
complaint with the RTC against the mortgagors,
UNIONBANK and the Register of Deeds annulment
of sale and real estate mortgage reconveyance
and prayer for restraining notice of lis pendens
was annotated on the title.
3) On October 1994, the RTC issued a TRO
enjoining the redemption of property within the
statutory period and its consolidation under
UNIONBANK's name.
4) Without notifying private respondents,
UNIONBANK consolidated its title over the
foreclosed property on October 1994,
UNIONBANK's name was issued in the new TCT.
5) Private respondents filed an amended
complaint, alleging that they, not the mortgagors,
are the true owners of the property mortgaged
and insisting on the invalidity of both the
mortgage and its subsequent extrajudicial
foreclosure. They claimed that the original title,
was entrusted to a certain Atty. Reynaldo Singson
preparatory to its administrative reconstitution
after a fire gutted the Quezon City Hall building.
Mortgagor Leopoldo, private respondent
Fermina's son, obtained the property from Atty.
Singson, had the title reconstituted under his
name without private respondents' knowledge,
executed an ante-dated deed of sale in his favor
and mortgaged the property to UNIONBANK.
6) On December 1994, the RTC admitted the
aforementioned amended complaint. UNIONBANK
filed its answer ad cautelam asserting its status
as an innocent mortgagee for value whose right
or lien upon the property mortgaged must be
respected even if, the mortgagor obtained his
title through fraud. It also averred that the action
had become "moot and academic by the
consolidation of the foreclosed property on 24
October 1994" in its name.
7) On appeal, the CA nullified the consolidation of
ownership, which was the prior judgment in the
80
DOCTRINE:
All persons having or claiming an
interest in the mortgaged premises subordinate
in right to that of the holder of the mortgage
should be made defendants in the action for the
foreclosure of the mortgage. Intervening as a
subordinate lienholder in a foreclosure case
merely to oppose the confirmation of the sale
upon learning that such a sale had been made, is
no the same as being a party to the suit to the
extent of being bound by the judgement in the
foreclosure suit.
The effect of the failure to implead a
subordinate lienholder or subsequent purchaser
or both is to render the foreclosure ineffective as
against them, with the result that there remains
in their favor the unforeclosed equity of
redemption.
DBP v GO
Facts:
81
82
99-10-05-0,
as
implemented
under
Circular
No.
7-2002,
requires
that
petitioner furnish evidence of its special
authority to cause the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the condominium unit.
LANGKAAN REALTY v UCPB
BOHANAN v CA
METROBANK v WONG
FACTS: Mindanao Grains, Inc. applied for a credit
accommodation with petitioner. As security for
such credit accommodation, respondent Wong
executed a real estate mortgage in favor of
petitioner. Due to MGIs failure to pay the
obligation, petitioner filed an application for
extrajudicial foreclosure which was published in
Pagadian Times once, for three consecutive
weeks setting the date for the auction sale. No
notice was posted in the municipality or city
where the mortgaged property was situated. The
auction sale proceeded and petitioner was
adjudged as the sole and highest bidder. After the
expiration of the one year redemption period,
ownership
was
consolidated
and
TCT
correspondingly issued in the name of petitioner.
Respondent
unaware
of
the
foregoing
developments,
applied
for
a
credit
accommodation with another bank, only to find
out that his property was already foreclosed by
petitioner. Respondent filed a case assailing the
validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure on the
ground that petitioner did not comply with the
procedural requirements of law.
ISSUE:
1.
WON
PERSONAL
NOTICE
TO
RESPONDENT IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON TO
THE
VALIDITY
OF
THE
FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS?
2. WON PETITIONERS NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH THE POSTING REQUIREMENT IS FATAL TO
THE
VALIDITY
OF
THE
FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS?
83
HELD:
1. Section 3 of Act no. 3135 only requires: (1)
the posting of notices of sale in three
public places, and (2) the publication of
the same in a newspaper of general
circulation.
Personal
notice
to
the
mortgagor is not necessary. Nevertheless,
the parties are not precluded from
exacting additional requirements. In the
case at bar, it was stipulated that notice
should be served to the mortgagor. When
petitioner failed to send the notice of
foreclosure sale to respondent, he
committed a contractual breach sufficient
to render the foreclosure sale null and
void.
2. The general rule is that non-compliance
with the posting requirement is fatal to the
validity of the foreclosure proceedings.
The Olizon case was an exception due to
the unusual nature of the attendant facts
and
peculiarity
of
the
confluent
circumstances which are not present in
the instant case. While the law recognizes
the right of the bank to foreclose a
mortgage upon the mortgagors failure to
pay his obligation, it is important that such
right be exercised according to its clear
mandate. Each and every requirement of
the law must be complied with
PNB v CA
PNB v NEPOMUCENO PRODUCTIONS, INC.
FACTS:
PNB granted respondents (R) a credit line to
finance the filming of the movie Pacific
Connection. The loan was secured by mortgages
on Rs real and personal properties (Malugay
property, Forbes Park Property and motion picture
equipments). However, R defaulted in their
obligation. PNB sought foreclosure of the
mortgaged properties where pNB was the highest
bidder. R filed for annulment of foreclosure sale
since it is null and void for lack of publication of
the notice of sale. LC annulled foreclosure.
ISSUE: WoN the foreclosure sale was valid despite
lack of publication
SC: NO!
- Act 3135, governing EJF of mortgages on
real property is specific with regard to the
posting and publication requirements of
the notice of sale, which requires:
o Posting of notices of sale in 3 public
places
FACTS:
84
HELD:
Issue:
1) WON the writ of possession should be issued?
2) WON PBC may unilaterally apply the excess
proceeds to petitioners remaining unsecured
obligations?
Held:
1) Yes. A writ of possession is an order enforcing
a judgment to allow a persons recovery of
possession of real or personal property. This
writ may be issued either 1) within the oneyear redemption period, upon filing of the
bond, 2) after the lapse of the redemption
period, without the need of a bond.
In this case, the issuance of RTC of a writ of
possession in favor of PBC is proper since the
redemption period has already expired. The
duty of the trial court to grant a writ of
possession in such instances is ministerial,
and the court may not exercise discretion or
judgment. Even if the excess proceeds were
not returned to the petitioner, the writ is still
valid.
85
86
LANDRITO v CA
FACTS:
P obtained a loan of P350k from R and
secured payment by executing a deed of
real estate mortgage of their parcel of
land at Muntinlupa;
obtained again
another loan P 1mill and was granted by R
with an amendment of real estate
mortgage
P defaulted and refused to comply with
their obligation despite repeated demands
R filed a petition for the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the mortgage. Mortgaged
87
RAMIREZ v CA
FACTS: One Ronnie Garcia executed a first
mortgage over a parcel of land in favor of PNB as
a security for a loan granted by PNB. The deed
was registered with the Register of Deeds and
annotated in the title of the mortgaged property.
During the subsistence of the first mortgage,
Ronnie executed a second mortgage over the
same property in favor of private respondent
Marmeto which was also recorded on the title. For
failure to pay his loan, PNB extra-judicially
foreclosed the mortgage and a Certificate of Sale
was issued in its favor on Nov. 8, 1977. The
second mortgage was also extra-judicially
foreclosed and a Certificate of Sale was issued in
favor of Marmeto on June 27, 1978.
88
FACTS:
The mortgagors (P) obtained 2 loans for the
construction of the Cabuyao Commercial Complex
for P58M as evidenced by promissory notes from
Metrobank (R). To secure the loans, Spouses
Oliveros and Nevalga executed a Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage in favor of Metrobank over the 3
parcels of land together with all the buildings and
improvements existing thereon. Due to the failure
of mortgagors to pay their loan, Metrobank
instituted an EJF over the Real Estate Mortgage.
Metrobank won the bid. Mortgagors failed to
redeem
the
property
hence,
Metrobank
consolidated its title to the subject property.
Metrobank demanded P to turn over the actual
possession of the property but the mortgagors
failed and refused to do so. Metrobank filed a writ
of possession which the Petitioner Spouses
opposed claiming thata pending case was in
another court for nullification of foreclosure
proceedings.
HELD:
SC: YES!
- Metrobank purchased the properties at a
public auction following the EJF of the
subject properties. Certificate of sale over
the properties were issued in favor of
Metrobank and registered with RD. P as
mortgagors failed to redeem the
properties within the 1 year period of
redemption hence Metrobank consolidated
its ownership over the subject properties.
- Metrobank having consolidated its title to
the mortgaged properties is even more
entitled now to possession thereof and
makes more unmistakable its right to file
an ex parte motion for the issuance of a
writ of possession.
- The issuance of the writ of possession
becomes a mere ministerial duty on the
part of the judge, regardless of WoN there
is a pending action for nullification of the
sale at public auction or foreclosure itself
FACTS:
89
Facts:
Held:
90
91
PERALTA v QUIMPO
51 OG No. 3 p. 1383, Sept 1954
NO COPY AVAILABLE
VILLANUEVA v IPONDO
CHATTEL MORTGAGE
ALEMAN v CATERA
ALLIED BANK v SALAS
FACTS: Petitioner-bank (through petitioners
predecessor) granted Gencor Marketing, Inc. a
time loan and was secured by a Deed of Chattel
Mortgage over certain printing machineries and
equipments; said deed was recorded in the
Chattel Mortgage Registry in Feb. 7, 1974. Gencor
failed to pay prompting petitioner to extra
judicially foreclose the mortgage and requested
the Sheriff of Quezon City to effect the said
foreclosure. Upon issuance of the Notice of
Sheriffs sale, private respondent filed a motion in
court to enjoin the public auction alleging that the
properties have been previously levied and
attached by the Sheriff of Rizal.
Metrobank is a creditor of Gencors president and
claims the properties as the exclusive property of
the president doing business under the firm name
of Gencor Printing and as such may not be
foreclosed and sold at auction. During the trial it
was admitted by petitioner that the properties
belonged to the president and not to Gencor.
ISSUE: WHO between the two claimants has a
better right over the property.
HELD: Petitioner has the better right. Even
though petitioner admitted that it was the
president and not gencor who owned the
properties, the Court nevertheless finds that the
chattel mortgage over the printing machineries
and equipment was ratified and approved by
Clarencio Yujuico. As earlier stated and as pointed
out by petitioner, it was Clarencio Yujuico as
president of Gencor Marketing, Inc., who signed
the promissory note evidencing the time loan
granted by petitioner's predecessor General Bank
and Trust Company in favor of Gencor Marketing,
Inc.
Finding the chattel mortgage to be valid, the
Court takes special note of the fact that said
chattel mortgage was registered and duly
recorded in the Chattel Mortgage Registry of
Quezon City on February 7, 1974, prior to April
22, 1977, the date the writ of attachment of the
properties in question was issued. This is a
significant factor in determining who of two
contending claimants should be given preference
over the same properties in question.
The registration of the chattel mortgage more
than three years prior to the writ of attachment
issued by respondent judge is an effective and
binding notice to other creditors of its existence
and creates a real right or a lien, which being
recorded, follows the chattel wherever it goes. 7
92
93
CERNA v CA
MAGNA FINANCIAL v COLARINA
Facts:
94
Issue:
1) WON MFS can avail of the two remedies,
payment of unpaid balance and foreclosure of
chattel mortgage?
2) WON there was actual foreclosure?
Held:
1) No. Article 1484, paragraph 3, provides that if
the vendor has availed himself of the right to
foreclose the chattel mortgage, he shall have
no further action against the purchaser to
recover any unpaid balance of the purchase
price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be
void. In other words, in all proceedings for the
foreclosure of chattel mortgages executed on
chattels which have been sold on the
installment plan, the mortgagee is limited to
the property included in the mortgage.
Petitioner resolutely declared that it has opted
for the remedy provided under Article 1484(3)
of the Civil Code, that is, to foreclose the
chattel mortgage. The petitioners prayer
contains two remedies, payment of unpaid
balance and foreclosure of chattel mortgage.
Such a scheme is not only irregular but is a
flagrant circumvention of the prohibition of
the law. By praying for the foreclosure of the
chattel, Magna Financial Services Group, Inc.
renounced whatever claim it may have under
the promissory note.
2) No. In the case at bar, there is no dispute that
the subject vehicle is already in the
possession of the petitioner, Magna Financial
Services
Group,
Inc.
However,
actual
foreclosure
has
not
been
pursued,
commenced or concluded by it. Where the
mortgagee elects a remedy of foreclosure, the
law requires the actual foreclosure of the
mortgaged chattel. It is the actual sale of the
mortgaged chattel that would bar the creditor
(who chooses to foreclose) from recovering
any unpaid balance. And it is deemed that
there has been foreclosure of the mortgage
when all the proceedings of the foreclosure,
including the sale of the property at public
auction, have been accomplished.
Be that as it may, although no actual
foreclosure as contemplated under the law
has taken place in this case, since the vehicle
is already in the possession of Magna
Financial Services Group, Inc. and it has
persistently and consistently avowed that it
elects the remedy of foreclosure, the Court of
Appeals, thus, ruled correctly in directing the
foreclosure of the said vehicle without more.
BA FINANCE v CA
BICOL SAVINGS v GUINHAWA
F: Victorio Depositario together with private
respondent Jaime Guinhawa, acting as solidary
co-maker, took a loan from petitioner Bicol
Savings and Loan Association (BISLA) payable
every 19th day of each month. To secure the
payment of the foregoing loan obligation, the
principal borrower Victorio Depositario put up as
security a chattel mortgage which was a Yamaha
Motorcycle. Said motorcycle was eventually
foreclosed by reason of the failure of Depositario
and private respondent Guinhawa to pay the
loan. There was a deficiency in the amount of
P5,158.06 where BISLA made a demand to pay
the same. Petitioner BISLA (plaintiff therein) filed
a complaint for the recovery of a sum of money
constituting the deficiency after foreclosure of the
chattel mortgage put up by the principal borrower
Depositario against the latter and his solidary comaker Guinhawa (herein private respondent) as
defendants. Eventually, a stipulation of facts was
entered into between BISLA and Guinhawa. They
agreed to drop Depositario, as "his whereabouts
being unknown now and he could not be served
with summons". The creditor claims that he can
maintain an action for deficiency and claim P5k
balance.
Issue: WoN creditor can claim remaining balance
Ruling: Yes! The creditor may maintain an action
for deficiency although the chattel mortgage law
Is silent on this point. The reason is tat a chattel
mortgage is only given as a security and not as
95
PAMECA WOOD v CA
FACTS: On April 17, 1980, petitioner PAMECA
Wood Treatment Plant, Inc. (PAMECA) obtained a
loan of US$267,881.67, or the equivalent of
P2,000,000.00 from respondent Bank. By virtue of
this loan, petitioner PAMECA, through its
President, petitioner Herminio C. Teves, executed
a promissory note for the said amount, promising
to pay the loan by installment.
SUPERLINES v ICC
FACTS:
Superlines decided to acquire five (5) new
buses
from
the
Diamond
Motors
Corporation for the price of P10k.
However, Superlines lacked financial
resources for the purpose so by virtue of a
board
resolution,
it
authorized
its
President and Gen Mgr Lavides to look for
a loan for the purchase of said buses.
Lavides negotiated with ICC Leasing. ICC
agreed to finance the purchase of the new
buses via a loan and proposed a 3-yr term
for the payment. The new buses to be
purchased were to be used by Superlines
as security for the loan.
Diamond Motors sold to Superlines 5 new
buses and was registered under the name
of Superlines.
Superlines executed 2 docus Deed of
Chattel Mortgage over said buses a
security for the purchase price of buses in
P13mill loaned by ICC to Superlines; a
Continuing Guaranty to pay jointly and
severally in favour of ICC the amount of
P13mill
After paying only 7 monthly amortizations,
Superlines defaulted in the payment of its
obligation to ICC.
ICC filed a complaint for collection of sum
of money with a prayer for a writ of
replevin
TC dismissed; ICC and Superlines forged a
consumer loan agreement and not an
amortized commercial loan.
CA reversed;
- ICC and Superlines entered into an
amortized commercial loan agreement
with ICC as creditor-mortgagee and
Superlines as debtor-mortgagor, and
ordered Superlines and Lavides to pay
jointly and severally the sum of P5mill
as deficiency
- It was Diamond Motors Corporation
and not ICC which sold the subject
96
SERVICEWIDE v CA
FACTS:
Respondents executed a promissory note
and a chattel mortgage over a vehicle
they bought from the mortgagee itself, C.
R. Tecson Enterprises, for the payment in
installments of the vehicle. C. R. Tecson
Enterprises, on the same date, assigned in
favor of Filinvest Credit Corporation. The
respondents were aware that the new
mortagee is Filinvest.
97
ISSUE:
1. WON the assignment of credit by the
creditor-mortgagee quires the notice and
consent of the debtor- mortgagor?
2. WON the assignment of credit by the
debtor- mortgagor requires the notice and
consent of the creditor-mortgagee?
HELD:
1. Only notice to the debtor-mortgagor of
the assignment of credit is required. His
consent is not required.
2. In contrast, consent of the creditormortgagee to the alienation of the
mortgaged property is necessary in order
to bind said creditor. Since the assignee of
the credit steps into the shoes of the
creditor-mortgagee to whom the chattel
was mortgaged, it follows that the
assignee's consent is necessary in order to
bind him of the alienation of the
mortgaged thing by the debtor-mortgagor.
This is tantamount to a novation. As the
new assignee, petitioner's consent is
necessary before respondent spouses'
alienation of the vehicle can be considered
as binding against third persons. Petitioner
is considered a third person with respect
to the sale with mortgage between
respondent spouses and third party
defendant Conrado Tecson.
DE BARRETTO v VILLANUEVA
SAMPAGUITA PICTURES v JALWINDOR
FACTS:
- Sampaguita (P) is the owner of a building
which its roofdeck was leased to Capitol
300 (Capitol), wherein it was agreed that
whatever
improvements
introduced
therein by Capitol will later be owned by P.
- Capitol purchased on credit from Jalwindor
(R) glass and wooden jalousies which were
DELIVERED and INSTALLED in the leased
premises by R, replacing the existing
windows of P.
- Capitol failed to pay and R filed an action
for collection of sum of money against
Capitol.
- R made a levy on the glass and wooden
jalousies in question, which P intervened
98
CORDOVA v REYES
CENTRAL BANK v MORFE
Facts:
99
100