ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 145373.January 15, 2001]
SPS. RIVERA vs. BPI CREDIT CORP., et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen :
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 15 2001 .
G.R. No. 145373(Spouses Mariano and Erlinda Rivera vs. BPI Credit Corporation and Rebecca Calata.)
Before us is a petition for review under Rule 45 which seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 27, 2000.
Petitioner-Spouse Mariano and Erlinda Rivera were the owners of a gasoline station located in Bocaue, Bulacan known as "Century Service Station".Among their regular customers since 1975 who regularly purchased gasoline and other oil products on credit was Rebecca Calata, herein private respondent who was engaged in a freight business.Time and again Calata exceeded her credit limit and as of December 31, 1988, she had incurred an outstanding account in the amount of P1,488,124.49 inclusive of interests.
Calata had no cash to pay her debt while petitioner Mariano Rivera was a holder of BPI Credit Card No. 11630240 issued by the BPI Credit Corporation.Hence, to be able to pay the debts due the spouses, both parties agreed that petitioners will borrow money in their names but for the benefit of Calata.It was further agreed that the net proceeds of the loan will be applied to the payment of Calata's debts and for her to execute a deed of absolute sale over her two motor vehicles and trailers in favor of petitioners as collateral for the loan.It was further agreed that Calata shall pay the monthly amortizations.Pursuant to all their agreement, a "deed of absolute sale" was executed by Calata on June 30, 1989.In the said deed, it was made to appear that the amount of P900,000.00 was paid by petitioners to Calata.
On September 27, 1989, petitioners Mariano Rivera executed a promissory note in favor of BPI Credit Corporation for the amount of P1,523,880.00 payable in monthly installments in the amount of P63,495.00, the first installment of which was to commence on November 5, 1989.A chattel mortgage over the two vehicles and trailer beds also executed in favor of the Corporation.
Petitioners received the entire amount of the net proceeds in the amount of P1,015,152.12 and applied the same in partial payment to the debts of Calata.The possession of the mortgaged vehicles and trailers remained with Calata who later on failed to pay the monthly amortizations due on November-December 1989.
On March 12, 1990, BPI Credit Corporation sent a letter to petitioners and demanded the payment of the balance of their loan in the amount of P1,434,029.08.Failing to get any response, BPI subsequently sent petitioners a statement of account which also proved to be futile.Consequently, on April 5, 1990, BPI Credit filed a complaint for replevin and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Manila against petitioners and a "John Doe" who purportedly had possession of the mortgaged chattels.In their answer, petitioners alleged that it was Calata who was paying for the amortizations and was using the mortgaged vehicles and trailers for the business.
On September 25, 1990, petitioners filed a "Motion to Admit Third Party Complaint" appending thereto the third-party complaint.
The trial court admitted the third-party complaint.Upon the other hand, private respondent Calata, in her answer to the third-party complaint alleged that she is not privy to the contract entered into between petitioners and BPI and that she sold her two vehicles and trailers to petitioners by way of full payment of her account with them.
At the pre-trial, the sole issue raised was whether or not petitioners are liable under the promissory note and chattel mortgage.The trial court, in another order dated July 31, 1990, ordered the seizure of the two (2) trailer trucks and beds.After the filing of the requisite bond, BPI Credit Corporation was able to repossess one of the trucks as well as the two trailer beds subject of the chattel mortgage.The value of the truck and two trailer beds was then deducted from the account of petitioners under the promissory note, leaving a balance of P391,047.09, exclusive of interest and other charges.
Consequently, the trial court, after due proceedings, promulgated a decision in favor of BPI Credit Corporation and against petitioners and Calata, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff.
1.affirming the seizure of the repossessed vehicles; and
2.the defendant Mariano Rivera and third-party defendant Rebecca Calata are likewise ordered to surrender to plaintiff in good running condition one (1) Isuzu Truck Tractor with Engine No. 10PA1-939645 and Serial No. TV3OF-1715964 and in the event, no delivery is made, defendants are furthermore ordered to jointly and severally pay plaintiff the sum of P391,047.09, plus interest thereon from April 24, 1991 until fully paid, and attorney'' fees in the amount of P20,000.00.
On the other hand, third-party defendant Rebecca Calata is hereby directed to reimburse third-party plaintiffs, Mariano Rivera and Erlinda Rivera of the aforesaid amounts.
Expectedly, petitioners and Calata interposed their respective appeals with the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 45052 (CV).Petitioners, in the meantime, filed a separate complaint against Calata for recovery of a sum of money (Quezon City RTC, CC No. Q-911-10139), wherein a decision was later promulgated in favor of petitioners.Calata thereafter appealed the said decision and further prayed that she be allowed to consolidate her appeal with that of the previous appeal.The said motion for consolidation was denied by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the two cases involved separate subject matters or transactions and that the parties at hand were not identical.Despite denial of the motion, Calata filed a consolidated brief in both appeals.
Herein petitioners in their appeal disowned any liability vis-�-vis the unpaid balance by asserting that they signed the promissory note merely as an accommodation party and that the BPI Credit Corporation had knowledge about it.
The Court of Appeals found otherwise.In ruling against petitioners, the appellate court held that they cannot be considered as an accommodation party for the simple reason that under the law, for a person to be considered as such, it is imperative that the accommodator must not be a recipient of any consideration because the receipt of benefit is inconsistent with the concept of benefiting another party.In the case at bar, petitioners agreed to secure the loan from BPI Credit for the benefit and use of Calata, the primary and solitary purpose of which is to pay petitioners.
The Court of Appeals went further by holding that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that BPI indeed knew of the arrangement between the parties.Verily, it held that an existing and valid written contract may not be novated nor amended orally.
Hence, the instant petition which is devoid of merit.
Petitioners contend that respondent BPI is barred recovering the balance of P391,047.89 from petitioners since it has already repossessed the vehicles.It asserts that after the repossession of the mortgaged vehicles, BPI is barred from collecting any unpaid balance, applying Article 1484 of the Civil Code, because the remedies under the same are alternative and not cumulative.
It also posits the view that BPI Credit, by dealing directly with Calata, has waived or novated the obligation of petitioners.
Anent the first issue, the Court notes that this issue is raised for the first time in the instant petition.It is axiomatic that a party may not raise a new issue for the first time on appeal.
Nonetheless, to clarify issues on the applicability of Article 1484, the Court would like to stress that such Article does not find application for the simple reason that by explicit provision, said Article shall only be applicable to sale of personality on installments.It is a basic rule in mortgages that the deficiency or excess is for the account or credit, respectively, of the debtor, except in the foreclose of chattel mortgages of personal property sold on installments under Article 1484 of the Civil Code.
As regards the second issue, suffice it to say that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals on the matter stand.Factual matters regarding whether or not BPI directly dealt with Calata were sufficiently passed upon by the Court of Appeals, hence this Court need not go over the evidence presented by the parties and assess or analyze this, absent any excepting circumstance to do so.
Moreover, the instant petition is replete with technical violations which by themselves are sufficient grounds for its outright dismissal, to wit: it lacks the original or certified true copy of the assailed decision and does not contain the written explanation required under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE , the petition is denied due course.
SO ORDERED .
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
