Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

BPI Investment Corporation vs.

Court of Appeals ISSUES:

Facts: 1. Whether or not Contract of loan is a consensual
Frank Roa obtained a load from Ayala Investment and 2. Whether or not BPI should be held liable for
Development Corporation (AIDC), the predecessor of damages and attorneys fees
petitioner BPIIC, for the construction of a house on his
lot. Said house and lot were mortgaged to AIDC to HELD:
secure the loan.
1. No, it is a real contract. It is perfected only upon the
Roa sold the house and lot to Private respondent ALS
delivery of the object of the contract. It is an accepted
and Litonjua for P850,000
promise to deliver something by way of simple loan.
They paid P350,000 and assumed P500,000 balance
of Roas indebtedness with AIDC. A simple loan is perfected upon the delivery of the
AIDC was not willing to extend the old interest rate to object of the contract, hence a real contract. In this
Private respondents and proposed to grant them a new case, the loan contract was signed March 1981, it was
loan. perfected only by Sept. 1982, when full loan was
March 1981 - Private respondents agreed and released to private respondents. A contract of loan
executed mortgage deed for payment monthly involves a reciprocal obligation, wherein the obligation
amortization commenced on May 1, 1981. or promise of each party is the consideration for that of
ALS and Litonjua paid BPIIC sum of P190,601.35 the other. The promise of BPIIC to extend and deliver
reduced Roas principal balance. the loan is upon the consideration that ALS and
September 1982 BPIIC released P7,146.87 (full Litonjua shall pay monthly amortization. Principle in
payment of Roas loan) reciprocal obligations that neither party incurs in delay,
BPIIC instituted foreclosure proceedings against if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in
private respondents on the ground that they failed to a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him.
pay the mortgage indebtedness which from May 1, Only when a party has performed his part of the
1981 June 30, 1984 (P475,585.31) contract can he demand that the other party also fulfills
ALS and Litonjua filed a civil case against BPIIC. his own obligation and if the latter fails, default sets in.
Alleged that they were in arrears in their payment, but 2. Yes, BPIIC was negligent in relying merely on the
in fact made an overpayment as of June 30,1984. entries found in the Deed of mortgage, without
Trial Court rendered in favor of ALS and Litonjua checking and correspondingly adjusting its records on
CA affirmed judgment of TC the amount actually released to Private respondents
and the date when it was released. Award Nominal
damages for P25,000.
Decision of CA affirmed with modification as to award of