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
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45486   May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA<br /><br />068 Phil 172

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 45486. May 24, 1939.]

    THE ASIATIC PETROLEUM COMPANY (P. I.) , LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA, Defendant-Appellee.

    Ross, Lawrence, Selph & Carrascoso for Appellant.

    Jose Ma. Cavanna for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. INSOLVENCY LAW; WAIVER OF SECURITY BY CREDITOR. — Under the provision of section 59 of the Insolvency Law, there is but one mode of waiver of security, namely, its release or surrender to the receiver, sheriff or assignee. The herein appellant has in no wise made such release or surrender. What it has done was to petition the insolvency court to have its security sold and applied to its claim. This act constitutes, not a waiver, but enforcement of the security. Whether its ultimate purpose is to prove the residue of its claim before the insolvency court is here immaterial. In fact, it has not actually made such proof or ever manifested any desire to do so.

    2. EXECUTION SALE; EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. — The sale of the mortgaged property at public auction may be treated as an execution sale incident to foreclosure. And, it appearing that the junior mortgagee has no notice of the sale, her equity of redemption remained unaffected. An independent suit, then, nor the foreclosure of such equity of redemption is proper.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    On March 8, 1929, a contract of agency was entered into between plaintiff herein and one Tam Meng by the terms of which the latter was appointed selling agent by and for the goods of the former. As security for the faithful performance of the agent’s obligation up to eight thousand pesos (P8,000), a mortgage was executed by Tam Meng and Tam Chio & Co. upon a parcel of land with all its improvements. The deed was annotated as a first mortgage upon the transfer certificate of title. Thereafter, the mortgagors executed upon the same property a second mortgage in favor of the herein defendant in security for a loan of five thousand pesos (P5,000) and the instrument evidencing the transaction was also duly annotated on the certificate of title. Subsequently, the mortgagor was declared insolvent. A petition was thereafter addressed by the plaintiff to the insolvent court, praying that, under the provision of section 59 of the Insolvency Act the property mortgaged to it be sold at public auction. The court acceded to the petition and ordered the sale of the property at a public auction wherein the plaintiff was the highest bidder in the amount of one thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500). Upon motion the sale was later confirmed by the court. The defendant herein, as junior mortgagee, had no notice of the petition for the sale nor of the confirmation thereof.

    Plaintiff now institutes the present action against the junior mortgagee seeking to foreclose her equity of redemption. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiff, by filing its motion for sale in the insolvency proceedings, has waived its mortgage security. Plaintiff appealed.

    Section 59 of the Insolvency Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "When a creditor has a mortgage, or pledge of real or personal property of the debtor, or a lien thereon, for securing the payment of a debt owing to him from the debtor, or an attachment or execution on property of the debtor duly recorded and not dissolved under this Act, he shall be admitted as a creditor for the balance of the debt only, after deducting the value of such property, such value to be ascertained by agreement between him and the receiver, if any, and if no receiver, then upon such sum as the court or a judge thereof may decide to be fair and reasonable, before the election of an assignee, or by a ale thereof, to be made in such manner as the court or judge thereof shall direct; or the creditor may release or convey his claim to the receiver, if and, or if no receiver then to the sheriff, before the election of an assignee, or to the assignee if an assignee has been elected, upon such property, and be admitted to prove his whole debt. If the value of the property exceeds the sum for which it is so held as security, the assignee may release to the creditor the debtor’s right of redemption thereon on receiving such excess; or he may sell the property, subject to the claim of the creditor thereon, and in either case the assignee and creditor, respectively, shall execute all deeds and writings necessary or proper to consummate the transaction. If the property is not sold or released, and delivered up, or its value fixed, the creditor shall not be allowed to prove any part of his debt, but the assignee shall deliver to the creditor all such property upon which the creditor holds a mortgage, pledge, or lien, or upon which he has an attachment or execution."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Two local authors (Attorneys Gregorio Araneta and Salvador Araneta of the Philippine bar) analyze this provision thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) That a mortgage creditor shall be admitted as a creditor for the balance of the debt only, after deducting the value of the property;

    "Such value before the election of the assignee to be ascertained by the court, or if there be a receiver by agreement between the creditor and me receiver.

    "And after the election of the assignee by selling the property In such manner as the court shall direct.

    "(b) That a mortgage creditor shall be admitted for the whole of the debt of the creditor releases his claim upon the property mortgaged;

    "(c) That a mortgage creditor shall not be allowed to prove any part of his debt if the value of the security is not determined as in (a), or if it is not released as in (b).

    "But if the value of the property mortgaged exceeds the debt the assignee may release to the creditor the debtor’s right of redemption thereon, on receiving such excess." ’ (Araneta on Insolvency, p. 191.)

    This analysis is substantially correct.

    Under the above quoted provision, there is but one mode of waiver of security, namely, its release or surrender to the receiver, sheriff or assignee. The herein appellant has in no wise made such release or surrender. What it has done was to petition the insolvency court to have its security sold and applied to its claim. This act constitutes not a waiver, but enforcement of the security. (Cf. 7 C. J., 284; In re Medina Quarry Co., 24 Am. Bankr. Rep., 770; see also Notes on Ch. 6, U. S. C. A on Bankr., p. 259.) Whether its ultimate purpose is to prove the residue of its claim before the insolvency court is here immaterial. In fact, it has not actually made such proof or ever manifested any desire to do so.

    The sale of the mortgaged property at public auction may be treated as an execution sale incident to foreclosure. And, it appearing that the junior mortgagee had no notice of the sale, her equity of redemption remained unaffected. An independent suit, then, for the foreclosure of such equity of redemption i3 proper. (Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Gonzalez Diez, 52 Phil., 271, 275.)

    Judgment is reversed, and appellee is hereby ordered to exercise its equity of redemption within ninety (90) ways by paying appellant the sum of six thousand live hundred pesos (P6,500) with interest at six per cent (6%) per annum from February 17, 1936, or, in default thereof, it is hereby ordered that her lien on the property be cancelled.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45486   May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA<br /><br />068 Phil 172


    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