RSS

Tag Archives: chattel mortgage

Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals (359 SCRA 438)

DANILO D. MENDOZA, also doing business under the name and style of ATLANTIC EXCHAGE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, FERNANDO MARAMAG JR., RICARDO G. DECEPIDA, and BAYANI A. BAUTISTA, respondent.

[G.R. No. 116710.  June 25, 2001]

FACTS:

Respondent was granted by respondent Philippine National Bank  (PNB) credit line and Letter of Credit/Trust Receipt (LC/TR) line. As security for the credit accommodations and for those which may thereinafter be granted, petitioner mortgaged to respondent PNB some of his properties. Petitioner later requested for loan restructuring and issued promissory notes, which he failed to comply. Respondent PNB extra-judicially foreclosed the real and chattel mortgages, and the mortgaged properties were sold at public auction to respondent PNB, as highest bidder. Petitioner filed a case in the RTC contending that foreclosure is illegal invoking promissory estoppel, and secured favorable judgment. The decision of RTC was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the foreclosure of petitioner’s real estate and chattel mortgages were legal and valid as opposed to promissory estoppel.

RULING:

YES. First, there was no promissory estoppel as the promise (of respondent bank) must be plain and unambiguous and sufficiently specific. Second, there was no meeting of the minds leading to another contract, hence loan was not restructured. Third, promissory notes petitioner issued were valid. Fourth, stipulation in the mortgage, extending its scope and effect to after-acquired property is valid and binding after the correct and valid process of extra-judicial foreclosure. Finally, record showed that petitioner did not even attempt to tender any redemption price during the one-year redemption period.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2013 in Case Digests, Civil Law

 

Tags: , , ,

Aguilar vs. Citytrust Finance Corporation (474 SCRA 285)

FACTS:

Petitioners purchased a car from World Cars, Inc. at an agreed price of payable in 90 days and were being made to sign a promissory note, chattel mortgage, disclosures and other documents the dates of which were left blank and which showed that they would still be obliged to pay on installment in 12 months for the car if checks were not cleared. The chattel mortgage was executed in favor of World Cars which embodied a deed of assignment in favor of the respondent. Petitioner issued checks payable to a certain Joselito Perez, representative of World Cars, Inc. and World Cars, Inc. After some time, respondent contacted the petitioner about the latter’s overdue accounts. Petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of chattel mortgage plus damages against respondent and World Cars, Inc. in Quezon City RTC which ruled in favor of herein petitioner. The appellate court modified that of trial court giving effect to the promissory note and its derivative instruments.

ISSUE:

Whether or not World Cars, Inc. is liable to pay the unpaid obligations of petitioners if the latter will be able to prove that they already fully paid the price of the subject car.

RULING:

YES. Since the condition for the instruments to become effective was fulfilled, the obligation on the part of the [petitioners] to be bound thereby did not arise and World Cars did not thus acquire rights thereunder following Art. 1181 of the Civil Code. As no right against the [petitioner] was acquired by World Cars under the promissory note and chattel mortgage, it had nothing to assign to [respondent].  Consequently, [respondent] cannot enforce the instruments against the [petitioner], for an assignee cannot acquire greater rights than those pertaining to the assignor. World Cars, Inc. was ordered to pay the petitioner and the respondent relevant fees, damages and litigation expenses.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 10, 2012 in Case Digests, Civil Law

 

Tags: ,