Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

093 Phil 271:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5535. May 29, 1953.]

U. S. COMMERCIAL CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI, ETC., Defendant-Appellee.

Jose G. Macatangay for Appellant.

Arnaldo J. Guzman for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE; PAYMENT BY INSTALLMENTS AS RENTS; EFFECT OF LESSOR’S REPOSSESSION OF LEASED PROPERTY. — In a contract of lease of personal property with option to purchase, the contract is subject to the provision of law that when the lessor has chosen to deprive the lessee of the enjoyment of such personal property, he shall have no further action against the lessee for the recovery of any unpaid balance owing by the latter, any agreement to the contrary being null and void. (Art. 1454-A, old Civil Code.) In choosing the alternative remedy of depriving the lessee of the enjoyment of the leased property, the lessor in such case waives his right to bring an action for unpaid rentals.

2. D.; ID.; ID.; REPOSSESSION NEED NOT BE BY COURT ACTION. — Even where the lessee voluntarily delivers the property to the lessor, the case is not taken out of the purview of article 1454-A if he does so in obedience to the lessor’s demand. The article does not require that the deprivation of the enjoyment of the property be brought about through court action. Specially where the contract specifically authorizes the lessor to repossess the property whenever the lessee defaults in the payment of rent, court action for such purpose is not essential.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


This is an action to recover unpaid rentals on used army vehicles alleged to have been leased by plaintiff to the defendant.

The case was submitted in the court below on a stipulation of facts from which it appears that on December 22, 1945, plaintiff, as representative of the U. S. Government, entered into a contract with the defendant leasing to the latter for a term of one year two used army vehicles, and on February 18, 1946, plaintiff again entered into a contract with the same defendant leasing to the latter for the same term six used army vehicles; that under the terms of both contracts the value of the vehicles was fixed and then after deducting therefrom a substantial initial payment made by the lessee, the balance was divided into twelve equal parts and each part was made the monthly rental or payment which the lessee was to make to the lessor together with 6 per cent interest "on the unpaid balance of the value of the leased equipment;" that the contracts provided that title to the vehicles was to remain in the lessor during the term of the lease until all the rents or payments collected from the lessee should equal the total value fixed for them, in which event the lease would terminate and payment of any further rental would cease and the lessor would then transfer to the lessee title to the vehicles, provided the lessee had complied with the other conditions of the contracts; that the lessor would have the right to terminate the contracts and repossess the trucks should the lessee fail to make payment on the dates specified or fulfill any of the obligations under the contracts, but that failure to exercise the right of repossession on any default would not be a waiver of such right upon any subsequent default; that in the event the contracts were terminated on account of the lessee’s default in the performance of his obligations then all the payments theretofore made should remain the property of the lessor and not be recoverable by the lessee, the latter also waiving "the benefit of section 1454-A, Philippine Civil Code;" that after paying several instalments or rentals under the two contracts, the lessee defaulted in the payment of subsequent rents and that one year after such default the lessor requested the lessee to return all of the eight vehicles and the lessee voluntarily complied with said request, but thereafter refused to pay all rentals in arrears. Hence the present action.

Holding that the contracts in question were leases of personal property with option to purchase and come within the purview of article 1454-A of the old Civil Code, the trial court ruled that plaintiff’s repossession of the vehicles precluded it from bringing an action to recover the unpaid rents, this notwithstanding the fact that the lessee had waived the benefit of said article, the court declaring said waiver to be null and void. The Court, therefore, rendered judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with costs. From this judgment plaintiff has appealed to this court, contending that (1) defendant’s voluntary surrender of the vehicles to the plaintiff took the case out of the operation of article 1454-A of the old Civil Code, and (2) defendant’s waiver of the benefit of said article is valid.

The article in question reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1454-A. 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 against the purchaser for the recovery of any unpaid balance owing by the same, and any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void.

"The same rule shall apply to the leases of personal property with option to purchase, when the lessor has chosen to deprive the lessee of the enjoyment of such personal property." (Old Civil Code.)

There can hardly be any question that the so-called contracts of lease on which the present action is based were veritable leases of personal property with option to purchase, and as such come within the purview of the above article. In fact the instruments (exhibits "A" and "B") embodying the contracts bear the heading or title "Lease-Sale (Lease-Sale of Transportation and/or Mechanical Equipment)." The contracts fix the value of the vehicles conveyed to the lessee and expressly refer to the remainder of said value after deduction of the down payment made by the lessee as "the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the leased equipment." The contracts also provide that upon the full value (plus stipulated interest) being paid, the lease would terminate and title to the leased property would be transferred to the lessee. Indeed, as the defendant-appellee points out, the inclusion of a clause waiving benefit of article 1454-A of the old Civil Code is conclusive proof of the parties’ understanding that they were entering into a lease contract with option to purchase which come within the purview of said article.

Being leases of personal property with option to purchase as contemplated in the above article, the contracts in question are subject to the provision that when the lessor in such case "has chosen to deprive the lessee of the enjoyment of such personal property," "he shall have no further action" against the lessee "for the recovery of any unpaid balance" owing by the latter, "any agreement to the contrary being null and void."cralaw virtua1aw library

Plaintiff and appellant, however, contends that defendant and appellee’s voluntary surrender of the property takes the case out of the purview of the article. But it appears from the stipulation of facts that the voluntary delivery of the vehicles was made in obedience to plaintiff’s demand so that there is no escaping the conclusion that plaintiff has in fact chosen to deprive the lessee of the enjoyment of the property leased. The article does not require that the deprivation of the enjoyment of the property be brought about thru court action. And in the present case court action for such purpose was not essential because the contracts specifically authorized the lessor to repossess the vehicles whenever the lessee defaulted in the payment of rent and the lessee could not in that event refuse a demand for the delivery of the vehicles without violating the terms of his undertaking.

As to the second ground of appeal, not much need be said, for the article itself seeks to forestall waiver of its benefits by providing that "any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void." The waiver inserted in the contracts in this case being contrary to both the letter and the policy of the law, the same cannot be given effect.

Plaintiff could have recovered all the rentals due by suing for them in the courts. In choosing the alternative remedy of depriving the defendant of the enjoyment of the vehicles leased with option to purchase, plaintiff waived its right to bring such action.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, 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






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310