FACTS:

Grandwood Furniture & Woodwork (Grandwood) obtained a loan from Metropolitan

WHITE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
1 Bank and
Petitioner, - versus – GRAND WOOD
Trust Company (Metrobank) in the amount of 40,000,000. The loan was secured by
FURNITURE & WOODWORK, INC., Respondent
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.

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

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 ISSUE:
encashed) the debtor acquires ownership of such
money or loan proceeds and is sure to pay the 1. Whether or not there was a contract of loan
creditor an equal amount. it's undisputed that between petitioner and respondent.
the checks were delivered to the respondent. 2. Who borrowed money from the petitioner, the
respondent, or Marilou Santiago?
PIO BARRETTO SONS, INC
(petitioner), (VENDOR)
VS
COMPAÑIA MARITIMA (respondent),
(VENDEE
G.R. No. L-22358 January 29, 1975
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.
SUBJECT:
Collection of a sum of money
for lumber worth 5 300.55 and
453.81 pesos.
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).
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.