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
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 44552   November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 459

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 44552. November 7, 1938.]

    ONG LIONG TIAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY and THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, Defendants-Appellees.

    Felipe S. Abeleda, for Appellant.

    Jose Agbulos, for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CHATTEL MORTGAGE; OBLIGATIONS OR DEBTS FOR WHICH A MORTGAGE OF THIS KIND ANSWERS. — In view of the facts stated in the decision, Held: That the lower court committed none of the errors attributed to it by the appellant. It was right in holding that, by interpreting the terms of Exhibit 2 wherein the mortgagor assumed responsibility for the payment of any other amount he may be indebted to the mortgagee, the automobile in question still remained subject to the lien stated in said instrument, inasmuch as the account, which S. A. C. S. accepted and bound himself to pay for J. A., had not been completely settled.

    2. ID.; ID.; OBLIGATION OF THOSE WHO, BY PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE, ACQUIRE MORTGAGED PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHEN THE MORTGAGE IS REGISTERED. — Instruments of mortgage, as Exhibit 2 in question, are binding, while they subsist, not only upon the parties executing them but also upon those who later, by purchase or otherwise, acquire the properties referred to therein. The right of those who so acquire said properties should not and cannot be superior to that of the creditor who has in his favor an instrument of mortgage executed with the formalities of the law, in good faith, and without the least indication of fraud.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; — When the plaintiff purchased the automobile in question on August 22, 1933, he knew, or at least, it is presumed that he knew, by the mere fact that the instrument of mortgage Exhibit 2, was registered in the office of the register of deeds of Manila, that said automobile was subject to a mortgage lien. In purchasing it, with full knowledge that such circumstances existed, it should be presumed that he did so, very much willing to respect the lien existing thereon, since he should not have expected that with the purchase, he would acquire a better right than that which the vendor then had.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    Ong Liong Tiak appealed from the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila in civil case No. 47997 of said court, overruling and dismissing his complaint, wherein he sough an injunction against the defendant and a judgment in his favor for damages in the sum of P500, plus the costs.

    In his brief, Ong Liong Tiak, the appellant, makes the following enumeration of the errors alleged by him to have been committed by the lower court in rendering its decision appealed from, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The trial court erred in holding that the indebtedness of Jeronimo Angeles to Macondray & Co., Inc. was also guaranteed by the chattel mortgage executed by S. Arellano Choa Siong in favor of the Luneta Motor Co.

    "2. The trial court erred in holding that the automobile in question was still encumbered at the time it was sold by S. Arellano Choa Siong to the plaintiff-appellant.

    "3. The trial court erred in not finding as a fact that the chattel mortgage over the automobile in question was extinguished upon payment of the last promissory note.

    "4. The trial court erred in not holding that the automobile in question was, at the time of the levy on execution by the defendant sheriff, the exclusive property of the plaintiff-appellant."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is undisputed that about August 21, 1933, S. Arellano Choa Siong, the registered owner of Chrysler Sedan automobile, motor No. 4253, serial No. 6524936, transferred the ownership thereof to the plaintiff-appellant, to which effect he endorsed his certificate of registration, Exhibit A, in favor of the latter.

    S. Arellano Choa Siong purchased said automobile from the Luneta Motor Co. about June 11, 1931. However, instead of paying the price thereof, which was P1,800 he executed eighteen promissory notes for P100 each in favor of the vendor, binding himself to redeem one after another, every month. To secure the payment of said eighteen promissory notes and that of articles he might take from his creditor, such as gasoline, tires, automobile accessories, etc., and to secure also the payment of any other obligation that he might contract with it, he constituted a mortgaged on the automobile in question, executing to that effect in favor of the Luneta Motor Co., the instrument of mortgage, Exhibit 2, one of the clauses of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . it being expressly agreed further that this mortgage shall also serve as security for the payment to the said mortgage in addition to the aforesaid notes of the purchase price or cost of any and all gasoline, tires, automobile accessories or parts, and repairs furnished or made by the said mortgagee at any time up to the date this mortgage is completely satisfied as and when the same becomes due, and of any other indebtedness of the mortgagor in favor of the mortgage incurred in any other manner whatever." (Emphasis ours.)

    About the months of October and November, 1932, one Jeronimo Angeles obtained from Macondray & Co., Inc. plaints and other merchandise of the total value of P407. For the payment of this amount, S. Arellano Choa Siong acted as surety up to the sum of P300, having paid the sum of P160 on account, on March 30, 1933, thereby leaving a balance against him in the sum of P140. In this state of affairs, Macondray & Co., Inc., assigned its credit against S. Arellano Choa Siong to the defendant-appellee, after notice of said assignment had been served upon said S. Arellano Choa Siong, who offered no objection thereto. On the contrary, he paid P40 on account, shortly thereafter, thereby leave a balance of P100.

    About April 4, 1993, S. Arellano Choa Siong made the last payment of the eighteen promissory notes which he had executed in favor of the defendant-appellee. However, as there still existed in its favor a credit of P100 for the paints and other merchandise taken by Jeronimo Angeles from Macondray & Co., Inc., under the personal guaranty of S. Arellano Choa Siong, which sum was assigned to it by said Macondray & Co., Inc., without any objection on the part of S. Arellano Choa Siong, the defendant-appellee refused to cancel the instrument of mortgage Exhibit 2. On the contrary, it foreclosed the mortgaged constituted in its favor, causing the sheriff to attach the above- mentioned automobile. It is for the purpose of setting aside said attachment that the plaintiff filed his complaint in this case, seeking what has already been set forth hereinbefore.

    Taking into account the circumstances of the case, and particularly the obligation assumed by S. Arellano Choa Siong, according to the terms of the above-quoted clause of the instrument of the mortgage Exhibit 2, this court holds that the lower court committed none of the errors attributed to it by the appellant. It was right in holding that, by interpreting the terms of Exhibit 2, the automobile in question still remained subject to the lien stated in said instrument, inasmuch as the account, which S. Arellano Choa Siong accepted and bound himself to pay for Jeronimo Angeles, had not been completely settled. Instruments of mortgage, as said Exhibit 2, are binding, while they subsist, not only upon the parties executing them but also upon those who later, by purchase or otherwise, acquire the properties referred to therein. The right of those who so acquire said properties should not and can not be superior to that of the creditor who has in his favor an instrument of mortgage executed with the formalities of the law, in good faith, and without the least indication of fraud. This is all the more true in the present case, because, when the plaintiff purchased the automobile in question on August 22, 1933, he knew, or at least, it is presumed that he knew, by the mere fact that the instrument of mortgage, Exhibit 2, was registered in the office of the register of deed of Manila, that said automobile was subject to a mortgage lien. In purchasing it, with full knowledge that such circumstances existed, it should be presumed that he did so, very much willing to respect the lien existing thereon, since he should not have expected that with the purchase, he would acquire a better right than which the vendor then had.

    For all the foregoing considerations, finding as this court finds that the decision appealed from is in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial and Laurel, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 44552   November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 459


    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