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. 44671   November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 562

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 44671. November 26, 1938.]

    MACONDRAY & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ and ERNESTO CUISIA, Defendants-Appellees.

    Jose Agbulos, for Appellant.

    Francisco V. Avena, for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CONTRACTS; NOVATION. — According to article 1203 of the Civil Code obligations are modified by altering their object or principal conditions, by substituting another in place of the debtor, or by subrogating a third person to the rights of creditor; and article 1204 provides that in order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes it, it shall be necessary that it be declared expressly, or that the old and new obligations be incompatible in every respect. In the first contract the debtors were R and B and they were answerable jointly and severally for the sum of P3,270. In the second contract the debtors were the same R and E. C. and the amount for which they were liable was only P2,246.18. In the latter contract the dates of maturity of the obligations were changed due to the lapse of time and to the partial payments made by the former debtors. These facts show at a glance that the first contract was in its terms substituted by the second, and that the latter was incompatible with the former.

    2. ID; ID; ACT NO. 4122. — The trial court held that Act No. 4122 is applicable to the contract later entered into by the parties and that by virtue thereof the plaintiff cannot maintain the action for the recovery of the balance owing from the defendants. In its second assignment of error the plaintiff insists that the court erred in applying said law. The subsequent contract between the parties took place on March 14, 1934 and said law having gone into effect on December 9, 1933, it was doubless applicable.

    3. ID; ID. — According to Act No. 4122 its provisions are applicable when there is a contract of sale with mortgage of the property sold as well as when there is only mortgage of the property sold on installment, as in the present case. It is true that in the subsequent contract the automobile was not sold, but it cannot be denied that the promissory note and the mortgage were executed, the first, in order to evidence the unpaid balance of the price of the automobile, and the second, in order to guarantee payment of said balance; in other words, the promissory note and the mortgage originated from the sale of the automobile.


    D E C I S I O N


    IMPERIAL, J.:


    On January 21, 1932 plaintiff sold to the defendant Antonio E. Ruiz an automobile "De Sotto De Luze Sedan" for P3,572. They agreed that defendant would pay in cash P302 and for the balance of P3,270 he would execute several promissory notes in different amounts maturing on different dates. The defendant executed jointly with one Ramon Borromeo 27 promissory notes wherein both undertook to pay jointly and severally the value of said notes on the dates of their maturity. In addition, Ruiz mortgaged the automobile, executing the corresponding deed. Ruiz made some payments on account of his promissory notes and his indebtedness was reduced to P2,246.18. On March 15, 1934 the parties agreed to execute another contract excluding Ramon Borromeo, whereby Ruiz and another person would sign the promissory notes for the balance. Consequently, on said date Ruiz and another defendant, Ernesto Cuisia, signed another promissory note whereby they promised jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum of P2,246.18 with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum. In this latter contract the parties stipulated that the mortgaged would be left to stand. Ruiz again made other payments and his indebtedness was reduced to P2,088.89 plus interest thereon. As defendants failed to pay some of the installment upon their maturity, the plaintiff foreclosed the mortgage and the sheriff sold the automobile at public auction, awarding it to the plaintiff for the sum of P500. After the account of the defendants had been liquidated and the proceeds of the public sale of the automobile together with the expenses of the proceeding had been deducted, it appeared that the defendants were owing the plaintiff the sum of P1,696.20. In order to recover this amount plus interest thereon and the penalty agreed upon, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendants. After trial the court absolved the defendants from the complaint, without costs. The plaintiff appealed from the decision and timely filed the bill of exceptions which was approved and certified.

    1. The court absolved the defendants because in its opinion the first mortgage and the promissory notes signed by Ruiz and Ramon Borromeo on January 21, 1932 were substituted and novated by the deed executed by Ruiz and Ernesto Cuisia on March 14, 1934, and because on this latter date Act. No. 4122 was already in force, under which the plaintiff cannot maintain the present action for the recovery from the defendants of the balance owing after it had elected to foreclose the mortgage. In its first assignment of error plaintiff contends that the court erroneously applied the law in considering as novated the first mortgage and the promissory notes which were executed. We hold that the court did not commit the alleged error, for it clearly appears that the first contract was substituted in its entirety by the second, because the stipulations contained in the first were substantially altered by other stipulations that were inserted in the second. According to article 1203 of the Civil Code obligations are modified by altering their object or principal conditions, by substituting another in place of the debtor, or by subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor; and article 1204 provides that in order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes it, it shall be necessary that it be son declared expressly, or that the old and new obligations be incompatible in every respect. In the first contract the debtors were Ruiz and Borromeo and they were answerable jointly and severally for the some of P3,270. In the second contract the debtors were the same Ruiz and Ernesto Cuisia and the amount for which they were liable was only P2,246.18. In the latter contract the dates of the maturity of the obligations were changed due to the lapse of time and to the partial payments made by the former debtors. These facts show at a glance that the first contract was in its terms substituted by the second, and that the latter is incompatible with the former. With respect to the first mortgage, the principal obligation, consisting of the previous indebtedness, having been extinguished, its terms and conditions should be understood as subject to those of the contract subsequently entered into.

    2. As we have already said, the trial court held that Act. No. 4122 is applicable to the contract later entered into by the parties and that by virtue thereof the plaintiff cannot maintain the action for the recovery of the balance owing from defendants. In its second assignment of error the plaintiff insist that the court erred in applying said law. The subsequent contract between the parties took place took place on March 14, 1934 and said law having gone into effect on December 9, 1933, it was doubless applicable.

    But the plaintiff argues further that said law is inapplicable because under the last contract there was no sale of the automobile, but only renewal of the promissory notes and mortgage. We do not find any merit in the argument because according to Act No. 4122 its provisions are applicable when there is contract of sale with mortgage of the property sold as well as when there is only mortgage of the property sold on installment, as in the present case. It is true that in the subsequent contract the automobile was not sold, but it cannot be denied that the promissory note and the mortgage were executed, the first, in order to evidence the unpaid balance of the price of the automobile, and the second, in order to guarantee payment of said balance; in other words, the promissory note and the mortgage originated from the sale of the automobile.

    3. The last assignment of error is a corollary of the preceding ones. If the court did not commit the errors we have discussed, it follows that it did not err in denying the motion for new trial filed by the plaintiff.

    The appealed judgment being in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed, with the costs in this instance against plaintiff- appellant. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 44671   November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 562


    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