Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Cred Transaction Cases 1. Ruiz v.

Caneba (catchy phrase: Ruiz ruined when no interest was granted) Doctrine: Where the court judgment, which does not provide for interest is already final, there is no reason to add interest in the judgment. Interest was not demanded by the Ruizes when case was pending before lower court, hence no reason to grant claim. 2. Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA (catchy phrase: If you ship the goods to the warehouse, you have an obligation to make sure they are in good condition!) Doctrines: Common carriers; obligations; presumption of fault; When the goods shipped either are lost or arrive in damaged condition, a presumption arises against the carrier of its failure to observe that requisite of diligence, and there need not be an express finding of negligence to hold it liable Carrier (Eastern) and Arrastre operator solidarily liable for the proper delivery of the goods to the consignee Legal relationship between the consignee and the arrastre operator is akin to that of a depositor and warehouseman Relationship between consignee and common carrier is similar to above Since duty of Arrastre to care for the goods and deliver them in good condition to the consignee, such responsibility devolves upon the carrier THOUGH, this solidary liability of arrastre and carrier does not happen always but based on attendant facts Central Bank v. Morfe July 13, 1989 (catchy phrase: BANKs insolvency suspends future collection proceedings against insolvent bank) Doctrines: Bank deposits are SIMPLE LOANS, NOT preferred credits Suit for recovery of a bank deposit was filed AFTER Fidelity Savings Bank declared insolvent, a judgment in favor of depositor CANNOT be considered a preferred credit (diba not allowed? fraudulent preference of other more preferred creditors) Atok Finance Corporation v. CA (catchy phrase: finance corps. sure na may surety yan) Doctrine: While a contract of suretyship or guarantee is an accessory contract, it may be readily entered into warranty debts to be incurred or created in the future yet; A surety may be valid and binding even before the principal obligation intended to be secured thereby is born A bank or financing company which anticipates entering into a series or credit transactions commonly requires the principal debtor to execute a continuing surety agreement

o o o o o 3.

4.

5.

Banzon v. CA (catchy phrase: Kawawang Banzon, building demolished at yung surety niya was the proximate cause of the damage) Doctrine: General rule that a guarantor must first pay the outstanding amounts before it can exact payment from the principal debtor; Since Associated had not paid nor compelled private respondent to pay the bank, it had no right in law or equity to execute judgment against the indemnitor.

6.

Integrated Realty Corp. v. CA (catchy phrase: REAL intention was a pledge NOT an absolute deed of assignment) Doctrines: Pledge; Deed of Assignment; The deed of assignment in the instant case is actually a pledge If intended to secure payment of money, it must be construed as a pledge; Though transfer appears to be absolute, it may still be qualified as a deposit of property as collateral security Especially if DEBT continues in existence and NOT discharged by transfer Requisites of a contract of pledge: SAD Constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation Pledgor is the absolute owner of the thing pledged Person constituting the pledge have free disposal of property (absence thereof legal authority) *** Further requirement: Thing pledged in the possession of the creditor or third person by common agreement

o o o

7. DBP v. CA (Oct. 16, 1995) Doctrine: Fact that the annulment of the sale will also result in the invalidity of the mortgage does not have an effect on the validity and efficacy of the principal obligation, for even an obligation that is unsupported by any security of the debtor may also be enforced by means of ordinary action. Where a mortgage is not valid, as where it is executed by one who is not the owner of the property, or the consideration of the contract is simulated or false, the principal obligation, which it guarantees is not thereby rendered null and void. That obligation matures and becomes demandable in accordance with the stipulations pertaining to it. 8. Robles v. CA FACTS: An action for quieting of title was filed by petitioner against Santos. The subject land was inherited from their father. Their brother was able to mortgage the land and upon failure to pay, the REM was foreclosed. They later knew about the REM and foreclosure and subsequent sale to Santos.

HELD: A co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of other co-owners absent any clear indication of repudiation of co-ownership. An action to quiet title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud or doubt or uncertainty on the title to real property. Doctrine relating to Mortgages: In a real estate mortgage contract, it is essential that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the property to be mortgaged; otherwise the mortgage is void. In the present case, it is apparent that Hilario Robles was not the absolute owner of the entire subject property and that the Rural Bank of Cardona Inc. in not fully ascertaining his title thereto, failed to observe due diligence and, as such, was a mortgagee in bad faith. 9. BA Finance Corp v. CA (catchy phrase: BAkit ang daming doctrine ng chattel mortgage) Doctrines: Madami Replevin may be filed to regain possession of personal chattels wrongfully detained Chattel mortgage; Where the right of the plaintiff to the possession of the specific property is so conceded or evident, the action need only be maintained against him who so possesses the property Mortgagee, upon the mortgagors default, is constituted an atty-in-fact of the mortgagor enabling such mortgagee to for and in behalf of the owner and the fact that the defendant is not privy to the chattel mortgage is inconsequential A chattel mortgagee, unlike a pledgee, need not be in, nor entitled to, the possession of the property unless and until the mortgagor defaults and the mortgagee thereupon seeks to foreclose thereon

10. DBP v. NLRC Doctrine: Mortgages; Assignments: An assignment to guarantee an obligation is in effect a MORTGAGE (NOT an absolute conveyance of title, which confers ownership on the assignee)

11. Philippine Veterans Bank v. Monillas March 28, 2008 Issue: Whether the prior registered mortgage and the already concluded foreclosure proceedings should prevail over the subsequent annotation of the notices of lis pendens on the lot titles. Held: YES, it should prevail.

Doctrine: Prior registered mortgage of PVB and the foreclosure proceedings already conducted prevail over respondents subsequent annotation of the notices of lis pendens on the titles to the property. Settled in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that a prior registration of a lien creates a preference; 17 hence, the subsequent

annotation of an adverse claim cannot defeat the rights of the mortgagee, or the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered. A contrary rule will make a prior registration of a mortgage or any lien nugatory or meaningless. 18 It may not be amiss to point out, at this juncture, that the doctrine applies with greater force in this case considering that the annotation of the notice of lis pendens was made not only after the registration of the mortgage, but also, and much later, after the conclusion of the foreclosure sale. Furthermore, the mortgagee itself, PVB, is the purchaser of the subject properties in the foreclosure sale. The Court also notes that PVB is an innocent mortgagee for value. When the lots were mortgaged to it by Ireneo, the titles thereto were in the latters name, and they showed neither vice nor infirmity. 19 In accepting the mortgage, petitioner was not required to make any further investigation of the titles to the properties being given as security,20 and could rely entirely on what is stated in the aforesaid titles.21 The public interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of the lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title. 22

12. Guanco v. Antolo July 31, 2006 Held: Deed of Absolute Sale was null and void because Sheriff failed to comply with the law (no notice required). TCT should not have been issued in favor of Luisa Guanco. Petition denied. Doctrine: Posting of a notice of the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage in at least 3 of the most conspicuous public places not only in the municipality but also in the barrio where the land mortgaged is situation during the 60-day period immediately preceding the public land auction is mandatory. (Sec. 5, RA 720, as amended by RA 7939). Exemption: Foreclosure of mortgages covering loans granted by rural banks shall be exempt from the publication in newspapers now required by law where the total amount of the loan, including interests due and unpaid, does not exceed PhP3000. Proof of publication as required herein shall be accomplished by affidavit of the sheriff or officer conducting the foreclosure sale and shall be attached with the records of the case. Unless it was made to appear that a sale at a public auction was conducted and that the requisite redemption period had lapsed, no Torrens title over the property can be issued by the Registry of Deeds

13. Pascual v. Universal Motors Doctrine: Chattel mortgage; Foreclosure of chattel mortgage precludes any further action against the debtor and his guarantor. The next contention is that what article 1484 withholds form the vendor is the right to recover any deficiency from the purchaser after the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and not a recourse to the additional security put up by a third party to guarantee the purchasers performance of his obligation.

14. International Harvester Macleod Inc. v. Medina Jr. Brief facts: Intl Harvester Macleods primary business is selling automotive products and machineries. Medina Jr. purchased 24 truck engines on installments which petitioner selffinanced (meaning instead of going to the bank to finance his purchase, it was the seller-petitioner itself who financed it) Petitioner stopped receiving payment from Medina so they filed a suit in court Sabi ni judge, they violated RA 5980, and did financing without authority from SEC! Issue: whether by imposing and collecting finance charges in connection with the installment sale of its trucks, IHMI, which is admittedly not a financing company, violated R.A. 5980 by engaging in the business of a financing company without requisite authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Held: NO; The transaction between IHMI and Medina did not involve any discounting, factoring or assignment of IHMI's credit against Medina to a finance company. No need for SEC authority Ratio: Petitioners transaction with Medina differs from a financing transaction under R.A. 5980, in that there were only two parties in its transaction with Medina, namely: IHMI and Medina, while in a financing transaction under R.A. 3765, there are three (3) parties involved, namely: (1) the installment buyer, (2) the seller, and (3) the financing company. The buyer executes a note or notes for the unpaid balance of the price of the thing purchased by him on installment. The seller assigns the notes or discounts them with a financing company, which is subrogated in the place of the seller, as creditor of the installment buyer. Difference between Truth in Lending Act and Financing Company Act: R.A. 3765 deals with requirements for the full disclosure of the cost of credit. R.A. 5980, on the other hand, regulates the business of financing companies. An implied repeal of the earlier statute by the later one is not favored, and may not be presumed, in the absence of absolute incompatibility or inconsistency between them Side ruling: The use of the words "finance charge," "financing" or "finance operation" in the documents prepared, and letters sent, by IHMI to Medina, was in compliance with R.A. 3765 (Truth in Lending Act) which requires a creditor (or seller) to fully disclose to the debtor (or buyer) the true cost of credit "with a view of preventing the uninformed use of credit to the detriment of the national economy." 15. State Investment House v. Citibank Doctrine: Insolvency law; the law grants to a juridical person as well as to natural persons for the adjudication of bankruptcy of any natural or juridical, provided it is a

resident corporation Foreign banking corporations licensed to do business in the Philippines are in effect RESIDENT foreign corporations in the Philippines; Hence, they may be considered as residents of the Philippine Islands within the meaning of Sec. 20 of Insolvency Law as amended by FRIA