ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 11156   March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO<br /><br />034 Phil 488

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11156. March 28, 1916. ]

    In the matter of the voluntary of DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO and M. F. DE SOUZA, plaintiffs-appellants.

    Wolfson & Wolfson, for plaintiff and Appellant.

    SYLLABUS


    APPEAL; REVERSAL. — The Supreme Court will not reverse a trial court on question of fact or of law unless prejudicial error is clearly shown.


    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    This appeal involves two claims presented to the assignee in the bankruptcy proceedings of Du Tec Chuan; on by M. F de Souza for services rendered to Du Tec Chuan before going into bankruptcy; and the other by M. G. Veloso who asks to be declared a preferred creditor and entitled to have his claim paid out of the fire of certain personal property on which the said Veloso held a chattel mortgage. The fact that claimant held the chattel mortgage is the reason why the preference is claimed.

    After a careful examination of the record we have reached the conclusion that the trial court was correct in its decision with respect to both claims; and on the opinions written in these two cases we affirm the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Trent and Araullo, JJ.,

    Separate Opinions


    MORELAND, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    This appeal involve two claims presented by to the assignee in the bankruptcy proceedings of Du Tec Chuan; one is presented by M. F. de Souza for services rendered to Du Tec Chuan before going into bankruptcy, and the other by M. G. Veloso who asks to be declared a preferred creditor and entitled to have his claim paid out of the insurance money collected as a result of the destruction by fire of certain personal property on which the said Veloso held a chattel mortgage. The fact that claimant held the chattel mortgage is the reason why the preference is claimed.

    With regard to the claim of De Souza the trial court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "M. F. de Souza has filed a claim against the insolvent estate of Du Tec Chuan for the sum of P1,374.34 being 10 per cent of the amount collected on two fire insurance policies. Mr. de Souza bases his claim principally on the document marked ’M. F. de Souza’s Exhibit 1,’ which evidences an agreement between Du Tec Chuan and his creditor’s and M. F. de Souza for a liquidation of the affairs of the firm La Fama. The proposed liquidation appears to have been in the nature of an extrajudicial insolvency proceeding in which Mr. de Souza would act as assignee. The agreement is silent in regard to Mr. de Souza’s compensation but provides that he should have a bond in the sum of P20,000 for the faithful performance of his duties.

    "Mr. de Souza never gave the bond mentioned and it is self-evident that having failed to fulfill one of its essential conditions he cannot recover under the agreement. Nor has he in the motion of the court, established his right to recover upon any other basis. The evidence in regard to the services he alleges to have rendered is so vague and unsatisfactory as to leave the court in doubt as to whether they were of any value whatever. The claim is therefore denied."cralaw virtua1aw library

    After an examination of the record with respect to this claim I cannot but agree with the decision of the lower court and particularly with that portion where the court says that "the evidence in regard to the services he alleges to have rendered is so vague and unsatisfactory as to leave the court in doubt as to whether they were of any value whatever."cralaw virtua1aw library

    With respect to the other claim the trial court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Mariano G. Veloso has presented a claim against the insolvent estate of Du Tec Chuan for P5,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from July 21, 1912, and maintains that said claim is entitled to preference. Only the alleged right to preference and not the claim it self is opposed by the assignee.

    "The claim to preference rests upon the alleged pledge of a fire insurance policy, under which policy the insolvent recovered from the Assurance Company the sum of P7,174.45, which sum is now in the hands of the assignee. No documentary evidence has been presented and the court is not aware of any legal provision under which an oral assignment or pledge of a chose in action can be held effective as against third parties. The reference in the chattel mortgage Exhibit 3 to payment of insurance premium is not a sufficient assignment.

    "The court therefore holds that the insolvent estate of Du Tec Chuan is indebted to Mariano G. Veloso in the sum of P5,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from July 21, 1912, but that the credit is not entitled to preference."cralaw virtua1aw library

    A chattel mortgage is a conditional sale of personal property as security for the payment of a debt or the performance of some other obligation specified therein, the condition being that the sale shall be void upon the seller paying to the purchaser the sum of money or doing some other act named. The execution of a chattel mortgage transfers the title to the purchaser who receives it subject to a defeasance by the happening of the event named in the mortgage. In strict sense, a chattel mortgage is not a pledge of personal property as that term is defined in the titled remains in the pledgor and does not pass to the pledgee. Moreover, where there is a pledge is liable for any debts which the pledgor may create in favor of the pledgee during the existence thereof. This is not the case with a chattel mortgage. Furthermore, in case of pledge the property pledged must be delivered to the pledgee or to some third person in his behalf; in case of a chattel mortgage such delivery is not necessary. Finally, the act of pledging creates a preference in favor of the creditor which gives him certain advantages over the creditors of the pledgor. Such is not the case in a chattel mortgage. A chattel mortgage creates no preference in favor of the mortgagor, as the word preference is used in the Civil Code. It is rather a sale of property by which the vendor divests himself of the title in favor of the vendee subject to the possibility of such title being defeated by the payment of the money or the performance of the act required by the terms of the mortgage. A chattel mortgage relates to specific personal property. A preference does not refer to specific property but is simply a right to share in advance of some other person in the assets of the debtor after they have been marshalled and converted into money. A chattel mortgage has nothing to do with the marshalling of the assets of the debtor or with the money into which those assets are converted. It deals exclusively with the specific property described in the mortgage and for that reason is on entirely different footing from a right of preference. No one can take the title away from the mortgagee except the mortgagor and he only in the manner prescribed by the mortgage itself. No other person has or can have an interest in the property, except those persons who have under the law special liens resulting from repairs to the mortgaged property necessary to preserve it and the housing thereof for the same purpose. But mortgagee as they are to the mortgagor and without which the property would be lost to both. The general statement is therefore correct that, after the execution of a chattel mortgage and its registry as required by law, nobody can obtain an interest in that property adverse to that of the mortgagee. As a necessary result it is clear, as we have already stated, that a chattel mortgage cannot be considered a pledge of the property which it covers. Nor does it give a preference with regard to the general property of the debtor as that word is defined in the Civil Code. It would be contradictory, if not absurd, to say that a mortgagee has a preference with regard to property which he himself owns. A preference can exist only with respect to property which is owned by the debtor. The case of Meyers v. Thein (15 Phil. Rep., 303), cited by the appellant, is not in conflict with the observations herein made as that case related to the right of a person with respect to mortgaged property which he had housed and preserved, such act being for the benefit of the mortgagee as well as the mortgagor, giving him a lien on the property superior to that of the mortgagee. The reason why charges for repairs and for other acts which go directly to the preservation of the property are prior liens even upon mortgaged property is that they operate directly in benefit of the mortgagee as well as the mortgagor.

    While the mortgage in question was given on a stock of goods in a store it does not appear whether sales were made from the stock or not; and therefore we do not have before us the question whether such a mortgage is in violation of the last part of section 7 of Act No. 1508.

    The question whether the chattel mortgage, being transfer of the titled of the property to the mortgagee, did not subrogate the mortgagee to or place him in such a position in equity as would entitled him to exercise all of the rights which the mortgagor had in property, including the insurance policy in case of loss, is one which has not been raised on this appeal or argued in any way and we therefore do not feel called upon to discuss or to decide it.

    I am in accord with the finding of the trial court that there is no substantial evidence to the effect that the policy of insurance was assigned to the mortgagee and that, apart from the theory of subrogation, he had any interest in the insurance policy. All of the acts of the claimant are contrary to his contention that the insurance policy was assigned. After the property insured had burnt an action on the policy was begun by Du Tec Chuan in his own name with the knowledge of the mortgagee. He obtained judgment for P7,174.45 which, with the knowledge and consent of the mortgagee, was turned over to the assignee as property belonging to Du Tec Chuan. Not only this, but the claimant, in addition, presented his claim to the assignee asking that it be paid out of the P7,174.45 obtained on the insurance policy. This it would seem was in effect an admission that the P7,174.45 was the property of Du Tec Chuan, as the claim could not be paid out of property belonging to any one else.

    Upon the whole case I am convinced that the decision of the trial court is correct.

    G.R. No. 11156   March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO<br /><br />034 Phil 488




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED