PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC (petitioner)

VS
COMPAÑIA MARITIMA (respondent)
G.R. No. L-22358 January 29, 1975

PARTIES: PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC = VENDOR

COMPAÑIA MARITIMA = VENDEE
‘
SUBJECT: Collection of a sum of money for lumber worth 5 300.55 and 453.81 pesos.

FACTS: Petitioner as plaintiff filed a complaint about the collection of a sum of money against the respondent. Respondent as the defendant
filed its answer denying all the material allegations of the complaint. It prayed that the plaintiff-petitioner be ordered to pay the sums of
P500.00 as expenses of litigation and P1,500.90 as Attorney's fees, plus costs.

TRIAL COURTS DECISION: Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, CA: The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial court and
ordered the dismissal of the case. The Court found that delivery of the lumber by plaintiff-petitioner to defendant-respondent was not duly
proved.

ISSUE: The principal issue, therefore, before the Us is whether or not the Court of Appeals decided the case on a new issue not raised in the
pleadings before the lower courts (delivery).

HELD: The issue of delivery is no new issue at all, says the Court of Appeals. Without delivery of the goods, there is no corresponding
obligation to pay, The two complement each other. "By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself (Art. 1458, 1st
par., new Civil Code).

It is clear that the 2 elements can't be dissociated, for "the contract of purchase and sale is, essentially, a contract, because it gives
rise to reciprocal obligations; to wit, on the part of the vendor, "to deliver a determinate thing, and on the part of the customer, "to pay a
particular price therefor in money or something representing it.
Carolyn M. Garcia
-vs-
Rica Marie S. Thio
GR No. 154878, 16 March 2007

FACTS: Respondent Thio received from petitioner Garcia two crossed checks which amount to US$100,000 and US$500,000, respectively. According
to the petitioner, the respondent failed to pay the principal amounts of the loans when they fell due and so she filed a complaint about the
sum of money and damages. Respondent denied that she contracted the two loans and countered that it was Marilou Santiago to whom the
petitioner lent the money.

RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. CA reversed RTC and ruled that there was no contract of loan between the parties.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there was a contract of loan between petitioner and respondent.
2. Who borrowed money from the petitioner, the respondent, or Marilou Santiago?

HELD: The Court held within the affirmative. A loan may be a real contract, not consensual, and intrinsically I perfected only upon the
delivery of the thing of the contract. Upon delivery of the contract of the loan (in this case the cash received by the debtor when the checks
were encashed) the debtor acquires ownership of such money or loan proceeds and is sure to pay the creditor an equal amount. it's undisputed
that the checks were delivered to the respondent.
WHITE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus – GRAND WOOD
FURNITURE & WOODWORK, INC., Respondent

FACTS: Grandwood Furniture & Woodwork (Grandwood) obtained a loan from Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company (Metrobank) in the amount of 40,000,000. The loan was secured by a real estate
mortgage
Metrobank later sold its rights and interests over the loan and mortgage contract to Asia Recovery Corporation (ARC) CGAM3 extrajudicially
foreclosed the important estate mortgage with White Marketing Development. White Marketing was informed that Grandwood wanted to redeem the
property. The clerk of the court refused to simply accept the tender of payment due to conflicting applicable laws.

Grandwood then filed a petition for consignation, mandamus, and damages before the RTC claiming its right to redeem the property. The trial
court dismissed the petition and ruled that White Marketing acquired all the rights of Metrobank within the mortgage contract assigned to
CGAM3. The CA reversed the RTC and remanded the case to the latter for the determination of the redemption price. The CA ruled that the clerk
of court should have accepted the consigned amount for the redemption of the property.

ISSUE: Whether White Marketing was subrogated to Metrobank and therefore entitled to a shorter
redemption period under the General Banking Law

RULING: Yes. By the assignment of credit, White Marketing entered Metrobank's shoes. A contracting party's assignees remain bound by the first
party's transaction under the relativity principle. Jurisprudence states that when an individual assigns his credit to a different person, the
latter is deemed subrogated to the rights also because of the obligations of the previous.

An assignor does not obtain additional privileges than those relating to the assignor and conveniently stands inside the latter's shoes. Under
its mortgage deal with Grandwood, ARC received all of Metrobank's rights, privileges, and commitments. Under Section 47 of the General Banking
Rule, White Marketing is entitled to a shorter redemption cycle.