Sy vs CA

April 12, 1989

Doctrine: Redeem the property by paying the amount fixed by the court in the order of
execution, or the amount due under the mortgage deed, as the case may be, with interest thereon
at the rate specified in the mortgage and all the costs, and judicial and other expenses incurred by
the bank or institution concerned by reason of the execution and sale and as a result of the
custody of said property less the income received from the property. 

Facts: On March 2, 1979, Carlos Coquinco executed in favor of private respondent State
Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) a real estate mortgage over a 952 square-meter parcel of land in
San Juan, Metro-Manila, together with all the improvements thereon issued in his name, as
security for the payment of a loan in the amount of P1,000,000.00. Conquinco failed to pay and
his mortgaged property was extrajudicially foreclosed and was sold to a public auction to SIHI as
its only bidder and was thereafter registered with the Registry of Deeds via a certificate of sale.
SIHI then filed a case before the RTC for an action for a collection of a sum of money against
Conquino while petitioner acquired by virtue of a deed of assignment Carlos Coquinco's right of
redemption for and in consideration of P500,000.00 and before the expiration of the one-year
redemption period, petitioner offered to redeem the foreclosed property from SIHI by tendering
to the latter two manager's checks issued representing the purchase price, and another
representing interest at the rate of 1% per month for 12 months, totalling P851,200.00 but SIHI
rejected this offer. Petitioner filed an action for consignation of the aforesaid amount with the
RTC to compel SIHI to accept the P851,200.00 as payment of the redemption price for the
foreclosed property, to order SIHI to surrender the title over the property and to issue a
certificate of redemption in favor of petitioner. A day before the expiration of the redemption
period, petitioner decided to redeem the foreclosed property directly from the Ex-Officio
Regional Sheriff of Rizal, who accepted from him the amount of P851,200.00 as redemption
price and P4,269.00 as percentage fee of collection, and issued to him the corresponding
certificate of redemption. RTC dismissed the petition and was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the redemption Act No. 3135, as amended, in relation to Section 30, Rule
39 of the Revised Rules of Court, or Section 78 of Rep. Act No. 337 (General Banking Act), as
amended by P.D. No. 1828, is the applicable law in determining the redemption price

Ruling: Section 78 of the General Banking Act should apply. Section 78 of the General Banking
Act, for it is applicable not only to "banks and banking institutions," but also to "credit
institutions.” Section 78 of the General Banking Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1828, states
that:”….to redeem the property by paying the amount fixed by the court in the order of
execution, or the amount due under the mortgage deed, as the case may be, with interest thereon
at the rate specified in the mortgage and all the costs, and judicial and other expenses incurred
by the bank or institution concerned by reason of the execution and sale and as a result of the
custody of said property less the income received from the property.” The decision of the CA
was affirmed.
Cruz vs People
June 7, 2017
Doctrine: A counterfeit access device is "any access device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered,
or forged, or an identifiable component of an access device or counterfeit access device." Under
Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, the possession and use of an access device is not
illegal. Rather, what is prohibited is the possession and use of a counterfeit access device.
Therefore, the corpus delicti of the crime is not merely the access device, but also any evidence
that proves that it is counterfeit.

Facts: Cruz allegedly tried to purchase two bottles of Calvin Klein perfume worth US$96.00
from Duty Free Philippines Fiesta Mall. Danilo Wong (Wong), the cashier at the Perfume
Section, testified that Cruz paid for the purchase using a Citibank Visa credit card and the
transaction was approved, although Wong doubted the validity of the credit card since the
number at the back was not aligned. After a while, Cruz allegedly tried to purchase a pair of
Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00 and the cashier on duty, facilitated the sales transaction. Cruz
paid for the purchase using a Citibank Visa credit card bearing the name "Gerry Santos," and
when Lim asked for Cruz's Duty Free shopping card, Cruz presented a shopping card with the
name of "Rodolfo Garcia." Lim asked for another identification card, and Cruz gave her a
driver's license bearing the name "Gerry Santos.” Lim proceeded to the mall's Electronic Section
to swipe the credit card for approval. The card was approved, but she noticed that the last four
(4) digits of the card were not properly embossed and its validity date started in November 2006.
She called Citibank to verify the credit card. Upon verification, Citibank informed Lim that the
credit card was counterfeit and that the real Gerry Santos was the Head of Citibank's Fraud Risk
Management Division. Lim was advised to transfer the matter to the Security Department. RTC
and CA both found petitioner guilty belond reasonable doubt.

Issue: Whether or not Cruz is liable under RA 8484

Ruling: Yes. Since a credit card is "any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing
for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, property, labor or services or anything of value on
credit," it is considered an access device.Section 9(a) and (e) make the possession and use of a
counterfeit access device as "access device fraud" that is punishable by law: SECTION ch

9. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby
declared to be unlawful: (a) producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access
devices;(e) producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices;
A counterfeit access device is "any access device that is counterfeit, fictitious, altered, or forged,
or an identifiable component of an access device or counterfeit access device." Under Section
9(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 8484, the possession and use of an access device is not illegal.
Rather, what is prohibited is the possession and use of a counterfeit access device. Therefore,
the corpus delicti of the crime is not merely the access device, but also any evidence that proves
that it is counterfeit. Petition is denied and CA ruling was affirmed.