Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
cases)
1. Canlas vs. CA, 326 SCRA 415
2. Republic vs. CA and Cuaycong, 65
SCRA 186
3. YHT Realty et. al. Vs. CA, et. al,
451 SCRA 186
4. Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRA 292
5. Cebu International Finance Corp.
vs. CA 316 SCRA 488
1. Canlas vs. CA
FACTS:
HELD:
The mortgage is invalid.
Settled is the rule that a contract of mortgage must be
constituted only by the absolute owner on the property
mortgaged; a mortgage, constituted by an impostor is
void. Considering that it was established indubitably
that the contract of mortgage sued upon was entered
into and signed by impostors who misrepresented
themselves as the spouses Canlas, the Court is of the
ineluctible conclusion and finding that subject contract
of mortgage is a complete nullity.
The bank did not exercise due diligence.
Art. 1173 of the Civil Code, provides:
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
consist in the omission of that diligence which
is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place. When
HELD:
No. The Government can still bring an action
against Cuaycong.
In the case of Republic vs. Grijaldo the
Supreme Court held that the statute of
limitations does not operate against the
Government as to bar it from collecting the sums
owing to the Bank of Taiwan during the last war for, in
recovering these loans, the Government is merely
acting "in the exercise of its sovereign functions to
protect the interests of the State over a public
property.
Yes. Cuaycongs indebtedness to the Bank of
Taiwan may be set off.
The Court of Appeals is correct in allowing a set-off of
Cuaycong's indebtedness to the Bank of Taiwan
against his money-deposit with the same bank. No
record of Cuaycong's deposit is available but the
inference drawn by the Court of Appeals as to the
existence and extent of such deposit cannot be flawed.
The fact is clear that all the proceeds derived from the
sale or confiscation of the sugar stocks belonging to
the planters in Negros Occidental were retained as
deposits by the Bank of Taiwan and made part of the
"Farmers Rehabilitation Fund." Planters like Cuaycong
were allowed to borrow money from the Fund but only
to the extent of their deposits with the Bank of Taiwan
or, as the military directive adverted to states, "Within
the limit of the proceeds of sugar sale of each planter."
The conclusion is logical and inevitable that the sums
FACTS:
HELD:
4. Almeda vs. CA
FACTS:
On various dates in 1981, the Philippine National Bank
granted to herein petitioners, the spouses Almeda
obligations,
respondent
bank
was
demanding
P58,377,487.00 over and above those amounts
already previously paid by the spouses.
Escalation clauses are not basically wrong or
legally objectionable so long as they are not
solely potestative but based on reasonable and
valid grounds. Here, as clearly demonstrated above,
not only the increases of the interest rates on the basis
of the escalation clause patently unreasonable and
unconscionable, but also there are no valid and
reasonable standards upon which the increases are
anchored.
5. Cebu International Corp. vs. CA
FACTS:
Petitioner
is
a
quasi-banking
institution
involved in money market transactions. Alegre
invested with petitioner P500,000. Petitioner issued
then a promissory note, which would mature
approximately after a month. The note covered for
Alegres placement plus interest. On the maturity of
the note, petitioner issued a check payable to Alegre,
covering the whole amount due. It was drawn from
petitioners current account in BPI. When the wife of
Alegre tried to deposit the check, the bank
dishonored the check.
Petitioner was notified of this matter and Alegre
demanded the immediate payment in cash.
In turn, petitioner promised to replace the check on
the impossible premise that the first issued be
returned to them. This prompted Alegre to file a
complaint against petitioner and petitioner in turn,
filed a case against BPI for allegedly unlawfully
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Negotiable Instruments Law is
applicable to the money market transaction
held between petitioner and Alegre?
HELD:
Considering the nature of the money
market transaction, Article 1249 of the
CC is the applicable provision should be applied. A
money market has been defined to be a market
dealing
in
standardized
short-term
credit
instruments where lenders and borrowers dont
deal directly with each other but through a
middleman or dealer in the open market. In a money
market transaction, the investor is the lender who