Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > March 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 39746 March 28, 1934 - LA URBANA v. AIMEE SARGENT VIUDA DE ALEGRE

059 Phil 820:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 39746. March 28, 1934.]

LA URBANA, Mutual Building and Loan Association, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AIMEE SARGENT VIUDA DE ALEGRE, judicial administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased, Juan B. Alegre, Defendant-Appellant.

Cesar de Larrazabal for Appellant.

Ohnick & Opisso for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MORTGAGE; CONSOLIDATION OF MORTGAGES; NOVATION; LACK OF CONSENT OF PROBATE COURT TO NEW CONTRACT PROPOSED BY ADMINISTRATRIX. — The defendant administratrix submitted a proposition to the plaintiff to consolidate the mortgages and accrued interest in question into a new mortgage. The board of directors of the plaintiff agreed to the proposition, but required the consent of the probate court to the proposed contract. Without the approval of the probate court the estate could not be bound, and the mutuality of contract does not exist where one party is without authority to enter into the proposed contract.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Under the circumstances of this case there was no novation of the mortgages as the transactions looking to such an eventuality had not passed out of the realm of negotiations when plaintiff withdrew from them and relied upon the original mortgages. This plaintiff had a right to do.

3. ID.; ATTORNEY’S FEES. — The contracts of mortgage provide for the assessment of a stated percentage as attorney’s fees in case of litigation. Appellant complains of the award of attorney’s fees as fixed in the contracts. The lower court declined to modify the contracts. The arguments advanced by appellant asking this court to intervene and modify the action of the trial court failed to convince this court, that it should do so.


D E C I S I O N


HULL, J.:


Plaintiff brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon seeking the foreclosure of three mortgages executed by the late Juan B. Alegre during his lifetime.

After trial judgment was given plaintiff according to the face of the three mortgages, and the defendant brings this appeal and makes the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The trial court erred in not adjudging that the mortgage contracts set out in the complaint could not be foreclosed for the reason that they had been novated and superseded by defendant’s offer to consolidate the same as shown in Exhibit 1 and plaintiff’s acceptance of that offer as contained in Exhibit 2.

"II. The trial court erred in not declaring that there was in this case, at least, an executory contract to novate the contracts sued upon, as a result of plaintiff’s acceptance of the offer contained in Exhibit 1, which plaintiff was bound to fulfill and carry to execution.

"III. The trial court erred in not declaring that inasmuch as the new contract of consolidation as set out in Exhibits 1 and 2 was all benefit to the estate of the deceased Juan B. Alegre, the probate court would have approved said contract when executed, and that in spite of the fact that the same was not submitted for such approval the said agreement is valid and subsisting as between plaintiff and defendant under the maxim that ’equity regards that as done which ought to be done.’

"IV. The trial court erred in rendering judgment against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff foreclosing the mortgages described in the complaint.

"V. The trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees in the sum of P30,407 to counsel for the plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

Although the deceased was reputed to be wealthy and left a large estate, it was so involved that payments on the mortgages became delinquent. The administratrix asked for delay and submitted a proposition to plaintiff to consolidate the mortgages and accrued interest into a new mortgage, and instead of the ten year period of the former mortgages that the period of the new mortgage be twenty years. The board of directors of La Urbana agreed to the proposition and the secretary in a letter expressed that agreement, but required that certain conditions be met. One of these conditions was the consent of the probate court to the proposed contract. Prior to the administratrix’s meeting the conditions set forth in the letter of the secretary, plaintiff withdrew from the proposed contract and the defense in this case is based upon the idea that plaintiff could not withdraw from the proposed acceptance of the offer of the administratrix. This contention of the plaintiff was denied by the lower court nor does it appeal to us. Without the approval of the probate court the estate could not be bound, and the mutuality of a contract does not exist where one party is without authority to enter into the proposed contract.

The third assignment of error, in its full assumption that the probate court would have approved the proposed contract, is not founded in fact. There are various provisions both in the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure that indicate the disapproval of the legislature of prolonged administration of the estate. Experience verifies the wisdom of such provisions, as it would be a very rich estate that could stand probate administration for twenty years and still be solvent. Instead of a probability that a probate court would approve of such a contract, it is believed that any conservative probate judge would not authorize such a contract as was proposed between the parties. Under the circumstances of this case there was no novation of the mortgages as the transactions looking to such an eventuality had not passed out of the realm of negotiations when plaintiff withdrew from them and relied upon the original mortgages. This plaintiff had a right to do.

The contracts of mortgage provide for the assessment of a stated percentage as attorney’s fees in case of litigation. Appellant complains of the award of attorney’s fees as fixed in the contracts. The lower court, conversant with the difficulties and expense attorneys for plaintiff have been put to, the amount involved in the litigation and the character thereof as well as the standing of the attorneys in question, all of which items enter into the valuation of proper attorney’s fees, declined to modify the contracts, and this action of the lower court is made the basis of the fifth assignment of error. The arguments advanced by appellant asking this court to intervene and modify the action of the trial court fail to convince us that we should do so.

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

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Goddard, 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






March-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 37986 March 1, 1934 - EUFEMIA MERCADO v. MUN. PRES. OF MACABEBE

    059 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 36699 March 3, 1934 - HEIRS OF DATU PENDATUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 40468 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO M. SIOJO

    059 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 40512 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERFECTO TAYAG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 40592 March 3, 1934 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 40895 March 5, 1934 - TEOFILO HAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 37602 March 7, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RAFAEL FERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 39633 March 7, 1934 - HENRY HERMAN v. LA URBANA

    059 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 39433 March 9, 1934 - CLEMENTE A. LAZARO, ET AL. v. FELICIANA MARIANO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 39796 March 9, 1934 - ANTONIO GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.

    059 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 38736 March 10, 1934 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF NUEVA ECIJA v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    059 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 39209 March 10, 1934 - HIPOLITO ANDALIS v. LUCIA PULGUERAS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 39806 March 10, 1934 - LA URBANA v. SUSANA VILLASOR, ET AL.

    059 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 40309 March 10, 1934 - BERNARDINO QUITORIANO, ET AL. v. ROQUE M. CENTENO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 40327 March 10, 1934 - DIONISIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL. v. PNB

    059 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 39797 March 12, 1934 - FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN v. IRENE PAÑGANIBAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. 39679 March 13, 1934 - GENATO COMM’L. CORP. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 39440 March 14, 1934 - RAFAEL VILLANUEVA v. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA

    059 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 39801 March 14, 1934 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. JUAN POSADAS, JR.

    059 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 37671 March 15, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TANSIOCO, ET AL. v. FELICIANO RAMOSO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 40177 March 15, 1934 - LI SENG GIAP & CO. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    059 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 39389 March 16, 1934 - LUIS MIRASOL v. MARIA LIM

    059 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 40147 March 16, 1934 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO ITALIA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 712

  • G.R. Nos. 339303-39305 March 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FELIPE KALALO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 40480 March 17, 1934 - GABINO ABALA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 40561 March 17, 1934 - LEE CHIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 39670 March 20, 1934 - ROSARIO OÑAS v. CONSOLACION JAVILLO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 39799 March 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO NARVAES

    059 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 39681 March 21, 1934 - BONIFACIO LUMANLAN v. JACINTO R. CURA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 39883 March 21, 1934 - ODUS C. HORNEY v. SOUTHERN TRANS. & TRADING CO.

    059 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 39596 March 23, 1934 - GOTAUCO & CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS

    059 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 39587 March 24, 1934 - ALEKO E. LILIUS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 40935 March 26, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. APRONIANO DIAZ

    059 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. 40315 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. AUSTIN TAXICAB CO.

    059 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 40316 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. PANFILO SABELLANO

    059 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. 40317 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. E. VESNAN

    059 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. 40319 March 27, 1934 - ESMERALDA VESNAN v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. 40425 March 27, 1934 - RAMON SILOS v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 36657 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. 36701 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. ORIENT INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. 37757 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 39746 March 28, 1934 - LA URBANA v. AIMEE SARGENT VIUDA DE ALEGRE

    059 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 39842 March 28, 1934 - IMUS ELECTRIC CO. v. MUN. OF IMUS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 39996 March 28, 1934 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. FERNANDO GREY, JR., ET AL.

    059 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 41433 March 28, 1934 - NATALIO AREVALO v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 839

  • G.R. Nos. 36811, 36827, 36840 & 36872 March 31, 1934 - ANTONIO MA. R. BARRETTO, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 845