Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1) The appellee has no cause of action against 2. IS the transaction regarding the land in the second cause of
appellant since the transaction was with Taiwan action a simple loan or an equitable mortgage? It was an
Bank. equitable mortgage.
2) That if the appellee has a cause of action at all, it
had prescribed 3. Should the Valdehuezas pay the interest? No
3) The lower court erred in ordering the appellant to
Ratio:
pay P2,377.23
3. No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly
Issue:
stipulated in writing.
Can RP still collect from Grijaldo?
Jardenil vs Solas
Held: Yes
Facts:
Ratio: The obligation of the contract was not to deliver a
determinate thing, it was a generic thing – the amount of An action for foreclosure of mortgage. Solas agreed to pay
money representing the total sum of his loans. The interest only up to the date of maturity. The contract is silent
destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish as to whether after the date of maturity, in the event of non-
the obligation. The loss of the crops did not extinguish his payment, the debtor would continue to pay interest.
obligation to pay because the account could still be paid from
Issue:
other sources aside from the mortgaged crops. Also,
prescription does not run against the State.
IS Solas bound to pay the stipulated interest only up to the
date of maturity as fixed in the promissory note, or up to the
Tan vs Valdehueza
date payment is effected?
Plaintiff was the highest bidder in the public auction
Held: It was only up to the date of maturity
sale of a parcel of land which is the subject of the
first cause of action. Ratio:
Defendants Arador and Rediculo Valdehueva
executed two documents of deed of pacto de retro Interest shall be due only when it has been expressly
sale with right to repurchase in favor of the plaintiff stipulated. The court must not impose an obligation that the
of two portions of a parcel of land described in the parties have not chosen to agree upon. The act of the
second cause of action. This was not registered in mortgagee of granting to the mortgagor on the deed of
the Register of Deeds. mortgage an extension of one year from the date of maturity
to make the payment without making any mention of any
interest which the mortgagor should pay during the additional
period indicates the true intention of the parties that not purchase the property. The second 6 months was for the
interest should be paid during the period of grace. petitioner to pay the P2M in the event that respondent
decide not to buy the property, in which case interest will be
Frias vs San Diego-Sison charged for the “last six months only” So that means, no
interest shall be charged for the first six month period while
Facts: appellee was making up her mind whether to buy the
property.
Frias is the owner of a house acquired from Island
Masters Realty and Development Corp. She entered Arwood Industries vs DM Consunji, Inc
into a MOA with respondent San Diego-Sison.
In the MOA Petitioner and respondent entered into an
o they had agreed that the petitioner would agreement for the construction of petitioner’s
receive from respondent P3M condominium. The contract price was P20,800,000
o that respondent has a period of 6 months After the condo was completed, there was still an
from the date of execution of the contract unpaid amount.
to notify petitioner of her intention to Respondent files a complaint for the recovery of the
purchase the parcel of land at the price of balance with interest of 2% per month or a fraction
6.4M Upon notice, there is another six from November 1990 up to the time of payment and
months to pay the remaining balance. other costs
o Prior to the six months given to the TC orders petitioner to pay respondent.
respondent, petitioner may still offer the Petitioner opposes the payment of 2% per month
property to other persons provided that the interest.
first P3M be returned to respondent CA affirms
including interest based on prevailing
compounded bank interest plus amount of Issue: Was the imposition of the 2% interest correct? Yes
sale in excess of P7M
o In case there are no other buyers, no Ratio:
interest shall be charged by the respondent
on the P3M, but in the event that on the 6th The agreement is the formal expression of the parties’ rights,
month, respondent would decide not to duties and obligation. IT was provided in the agreement that
purchase, the petitioner has a period of in case of delay in monthly payments, the respondent may
another 6 months to pay P3M provided that either suspend work until payment is remitted or continue
the said amount shall earn compounded the work but the owner shall pay the interest of 2% per
bank interest for the last six months only. month. The project was already completed, the 2% interest
Petitioner received P2M in cash and P1M in a post- cannot be disregarded. Also in the case of State Investment
dated check dated February 28, 1990 instead of 1991 House Inc vs CA, the court explained that “the appropriate
which rendered the check stale. measure for damages in case of delay in discharging an
Defendant decided not to purchase the property so obligation consisting of the payment of a sum of money is the
what happened was that the P3M would be payment of penalty interest at the rate agreed upon.
considered as a loan payable within six months.
Petitioner failed to pay the P2M
Royal Shirt Factory vs Co
Defendant filed with the RTC a complaint for sum of
Facts:
money.
RTC rules in favor or defendant. Orders the payment An action for the recovery of money by Royal Shirt Factory
of P2M plus interest at 32% interest per annum from Co Bon Tic the sum of P1,422 to represent the balance
Petitioner appeals to CA, CA affirms RTC decision of the price of 350 pairs of “Balleteenas” shoes at P7 a pair
with modification with regard to the interest from with interest at 12% per annum
32% to 25% starting from June 7, 1991
Issue: Whether it was an outright sale or a sale merely on
Issue: Was the CA correct in awarding a 25% per annum on consignment ?
the P2M loan even beyond the second six months stipulated
period? Yes Municipal court held that it was a sale on consignment while
CFI held that it was an outright sale.
Ratio:
Held: It was an outright sale.
The phrase “for the last six months only” should be taken in
the context of the entire agreement. In the agreement, there Ratio:
were two periods of 6 months each. The first six months was
for the respondent to make up her mind WON she would
In Exhibit A, an order slip contained a condition in the sale. interest. But this obligation to pay interest on the deposit
According to the testimony of Mr. Chebat it means that Co ceases from the moment the operation of the bank is
could either consider the sale as 1) one on consignment, sell completely suspended by the Central Bank.
as many shoes as he could for any price and pay for it at P8 a
pair and at the end of 9 days, return the shoes unsold; or 2) Ramos vs Central Bank
an absolute sale at P7 a pair. Since he was not able to return
any of the shoes at the end of nine days, he must have Facts:
chosen the second alternative. But since this was a self
This is a resolution only so the facts are limited.
serving evidence, it was not admitted.
There was a MR filed by Central Bank regarding the Court’s
The court looked at the conduct of the parties. Exhibit B was
Resolution applying the Tapia ruling reaffirmed by the court
an invoice of the same 350 shoes including sales tax listed as
in cases such as OBM vs Cordero (previous case) that the bank
P2,450. It was noted down in his own handwriting the
is not liable for interest on the Central Bank loans and
different partial payments of P500, P528 and lastly the P420
advances during the period of its closure.
by check. It was obvious that he accepted the outright sale
since in making the partial payments, he made no mention of Issue: Payment of interest
the number of shoes sold by him and the number of shoes
remaining unsold which he should have done if the sale was The payment of interest should not be made.
on consignment.
Held: No
Facts: