Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1939 > October 1939 Decisions > G.R. No. 46306 October 27, 1939 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. LAZARO BLAS GERVACIO

069 Phil 52:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 46306. October 27, 1939.]

LEVY HERMANOS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAZARO BLAS GERVACIO, Defendant-Appellee.

Felipe Caniblas for Appellant.

Abreu, Lichauco & Picazo for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. INSTALLMENT SALES; ARTICLE 1454-A OF THE CIVIL CODE (ACT No. 4122). — In Macondray & Co. v. De Santos (33 Off. Gaz., 2170), we held that "in order to apply the provisions of article 1454-A of the Civil Code it must appear that there was a contract for the sale of personal property payable in installments and that there has been a failure to pay two or more installments." The contract, in the instant case, while a sale of personal property, is not, however, one on installments, but on straight term, in which the balance, after payment of the initial sum, should be paid in its totality at the time specified in the promissory note. The transaction is not, therefore, the one contemplated in Act No. 4122 and accordingly the mortgagee is not bound by the prohibition therein contained as to its right to the recovery of the unpaid balance.

2. ID.; ID. — Undoubtedly, the law is aimed at those sales where the price is payable in several installments, for, generally, it is in these cases that partial payments consist in relatively small amounts, constituting thus a great temptation for improvident purchasers to buy beyond their means. There is no such temptation where the price is to be paid in cash, or, as in the instant case, party in cash and partly in one term, for, in the latter case, the partial payments are not so small as to place purchasers off their guard and delude them to a miscalculation of their ability to pay. Theoretically, perhaps, there is no difference between paying the price in two installments and paying the same partly in cash and partly in one installment, in so far as the size of each partial payment is concerned; but in actual practice the difference exists, for, according to the regular course of business, in contracts providing for payment of the price in two installments, there is generally a provision for initial payment. But all these considerations are immaterial, the language of the law being so clear as to require no construction at all.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


On February 24, 1938, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which substantially recites the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On March 15, 1937, plaintiff Levy Hermanos, Inc., sold to defendant Lazaro Blas Gervacio, a Packard car. Defendant, after making the initial payment, executed a promissory note for the balance of P2,400, payable on or before June 15, 1937, with interest at 12 per cent per annum, and to secure the payment of the note, he mortgaged the car to the plaintiff. Defendant failed to pay the note at its maturity; wherefore, plaintiff foreclosed the mortgage and the car was sold at public auction, at which plaintiff was the highest bidder for P800. The present action is for the collection of the balance of P1,600 and interest.

Defendant admitted the allegations of the complaint, and with this admission, the parties submitted the case for decision. The lower court applied the provisions of Act No. 4122, inserted as articles 1454-A of the Civil Code, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Article 1454-A of the Civil Code reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In a contract for the sale of personal property payable in installments, failure to pay two or more installments shall confer upon the vendor the right to cancel the sale or foreclose the mortgage if one has been given on the property, without reimbursement to the purchaser of the installments already paid, if there be an agreement to this effect.

"However, if the vendor has chosen to foreclose the mortgage he shall have no further action agaist the purchaser for the recovery of any unpaid balance owing by the same, and any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Macondray & Co. v. De Santos (33 Off. Gaz., 2170), we held that "in order to apply the provisions of article 1454-A of the Civil Code it must appear that there was a contract for the sale of personal property payable in installments and that there has been a failure to pay two or more installments." The contract, in the instant case, while a sale of personal property, is not, however, one on installments, but on straight term, in which the balance, after payment of the initial sum, should be paid in its totality at the time specified in the promissory note. The transaction is not, therefore, the one contemplated in Act No. 4122 and accordingly the mortgagee is not bound by the prohibition therein contained as to its right to the recovery of the unpaid balance.

Undoubtedly, the law is aimed at those sales where the price is payable in several installments, for, generally, it is in these cases that partial payments consist in relatively small amounts, constituting thus a great temptation for improvident purchasers to buy beyond their means. There is no such temptation where the price is to be paid in cash, or, as in the instant case, partly in cash and partly in one term, for, in the latter case, the partial payments are not so small as to place purchasers off their guard and delude them to a miscalculation of their ability to pay. Theoretically, perhaps, there is no difference between paying the price in two installments and paying the same partly in cash and partly in one installment, in so far as the size of each partial payment is concerned; but in actual practice the difference exists, for, according to the regular course of business, in contracts providing for payment of the price in two installments, there is generally a provision for initial payment. But all these considerations are immaterial, the language of the law being so clear as to require no construction at all.

The suggestion that the cash payment made in this case should be considered as an installment in order to bring the contract sued upon under the operation of the law, is completely untenable. A cash payment cannot be considered as a payment by installment, and even if it can be so considered, still the law does not apply, for it requires non-payment of two or more installments in order that its provisions may be invoked. Here, only one installment was unpaid.

Judgment is reversed, and defendant-appellee is hereby sentenced to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P1,600 interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from June 15, 1937, and the sum of P52.08 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the filing of the complaint, with costs in both instances against the appellee.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46714 October 2, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS ACHA Y RIVERA

    068 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 46264 October 3, 1939 - DOMINGO FERRER v. JOSE S. LOPEZ

    068 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 46320 October 5, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    068 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. 46413 October 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BALAGTAS Y MANLAPAS

    068 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 46501 October 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS K. ARELLANO

    068 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 46573 October 5, 1939 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. JUAN G. LESACA

    068 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 46589 October 6, 1939 - NATIONAL NAVIGATION CO. v. JOSE T. TINSAY

    068 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 46625 October 6, 1939 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. VICENTE DE VERA

    068 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 46702 October 6, 1939 - ALEIDA SAAVEDRA v. W. S. PRICE

    068 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 45793 October 9, 1939 - ARISTONA LASERNA v. JOSE ALTA VAS

    068 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 46207 October 10, 1939 - VICTORIANO GATCHALIAN v. MAMERTO MANALO

    068 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 45963 October 12, 1939 - CARLOS PARDO DE TAVERA v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    068 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 46285 October 12, 1939 - MANUEL DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 46457 October 12, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    068 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 46459 October 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO DEL ROSARIO

    068 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 46628 October 13, 1939 - RADIO THEATER v. VICENTE DE VERA Y MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    068 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 46246 October 14, 1939 - TEODORO MARIANO Y LINGAT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. 46521 October 14, 1939 - TEOPISTA DOLAR v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    068 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 46540 October 14, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION CAMACLANG

    068 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. 46598 October 14, 1939 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 46612 October 14, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO YECLA

    068 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 46534 October 16, 1939 - J. V. HOUSE v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    068 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 46591 October 16, 1939 - TAN TIONG GONG v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 46097 October 18, 1939 - TEOFILA ADEVA VIUDA DE LEYNEZ v. IGNACIO LEYNEZ

    068 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. 46249 October 18, 1939 - CONCEPCION DE HILADO v. JESUS R. NAVA

    069 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 46454 October 18, 1939 - DIONISIA JAMORA v. DOMINGA DURAN

    069 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 46825 October 18, 1939 - ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO VILLAROMAN, ET AL.

    069 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46242 October 20, 1939 - JOSE MA. DE LA VIÑA, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    069 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 46278 October 26, 1939 - MENZI & CO. v. QUING CHUAN

    069 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 46386 October 26, 1939 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. BENJAMIN A. LEDESMA

    069 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 46306 October 27, 1939 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. LAZARO BLAS GERVACIO

    069 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-46533 October 28, 1939 - THE MANILA RACING CLUB, INC. v. THE MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, ET AL.

    069 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-46666 October 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    069 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 46700 October 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO GEMORA

    069 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-46261 October 31, 1939 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. ROSARIO GEAGA

    069 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-46310 October 31, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO GONZALES

    069 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 46455 October 31, 1939 - EUSEBIO PELIÑO v. JOSE ICHON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 81

  • G.R. Nos. 46526 & 46527 October 31, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERANG

    069 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 46635 October 31, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. ISABELO Z. ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

    069 Phil 86