Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BANAS v. ASIA PACIFIC

    Uploaded by

    Von Lee De Luna
    8 views1 page
    Banas filed a complaint against Asia Pacific and Dizon Construction arguing that the transaction between them violated banking law and was therefore null and void. Banas claimed that Asia Pacific was an investment house that could not engage in lending funds obtained from public deposits. However, the court disagreed, finding that the transaction was a purchase of receivables by Asia Pacific, which is allowed for an investment company. The court also noted that it was not proven that the funds lent to Banas came from public deposits, so banking law was not applicable in this case.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Banas filed a complaint against Asia Pacific and Dizon Construction arguing that the transaction between them violated banking law and was therefore null and void. Banas claimed that Asia Pacific was an investment house that could not engage in lending funds obtained from public deposits. However, the court disagreed, finding that the transaction was a purchase of receivables by Asia Pacific, which is allowed for an investment company. The court also noted that it was not proven that the funds lent to Banas came from public deposits, so banking law was not applicable in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views1 page

    BANAS v. ASIA PACIFIC

    Uploaded by

    Von Lee De Luna
    Banas filed a complaint against Asia Pacific and Dizon Construction arguing that the transaction between them violated banking law and was therefore null and void. Banas claimed that Asia Pacific was an investment house that could not engage in lending funds obtained from public deposits. However, the court disagreed, finding that the transaction was a purchase of receivables by Asia Pacific, which is allowed for an investment company. The court also noted that it was not proven that the funds lent to Banas came from public deposits, so banking law was not applicable in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    BANAS, Dizon Asia Pacific Finance> filed a WON the TRASACTION BETWEEN BANAS, ET

    COnstr V. ASIA complaint and prayer for WRIT AL AND ASIA PACIFIC VIOLATED BANKING
    PACIFIC, subs by of REPLEVIN> against Bass , LAW > HENCE NULL AND VOID
    UNIION dizon Constructio and DIzon>
    BANK(Internationa  Teodoro Baas executed Banas INSISTS that ASIA PACIFIC WAS
    l Corporate bank) a Promissory Note in ORGANIZED AS INVESTMENT HOUSE> COULD
    favor of C. G. Dizon NOT ENGAGE IN LENDING FUNDS OBTAINED
    Construction FROM PUBLIC THRU DEPOSITS
     Dizon C,. endorsed the  Promissory Note, Deed of Chattel
    PM tto ASIA PACIFIC> to Mortgage and Continuing
    secure paymentand Undertaking were not intended to be
    executed CHATTEL valid and binding on the parties as they
    MORTGAGE were merely devices to conceal their
     CONTINUING real intention
    UNDERTAKING>
    solidary with Dizon COURT DOES NOT AGREE
    Const.  nvestment company refers to any
    issuer which is or holds itself out as
    DIZON made installment being engaged or proposes to engage
    PAYMENTS but clailmed never primarily in the business of investing,
    intended to maintain those reinvesting or trading in securities
    documents> only to conceal a  Clearly, the transaction between
    loan with usurious interest petitioners
     Claimed that AP could and respondent was one involving not a
    not direcly engage in loan but purchase of receivables at a
    banking business discount, well within the purview
     Dizon informed a DELAY of "investing, reinvesting or trading in
    IN PAYMENT securities" which an investment
     AP > Dizon must company, like ASIA PACIFIC, is
    surrender ownership authorized to perform and does not
    over equipment> constitute a violation of the General
    bulldozer Banking AcT
     Urned over> writ of
    replevin UNDER THE BANKING LAW
     Only entities duly authorized by the
    Monetary Board of the Central Bank
    may engage in the lending of funds
    obtained from the public through the
    receipt of deposits

    What its prohibited from INVESTMENT


    COMPANIES> to lend funds from public through
    receipts of deposits (a function of banking
    institution)
     IN THE CASE AT BAR, THE FUNDS
    “LENT” TO BANAS HAVE NOT BEEN
    SHOWN TO HAVE OBTAINED FROM
    PUBLIC BY WAY OF DEPOSITS> thus
    the inapplicability f banking law

    You might also like