Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1935 > September 1935 Decisions > G.R. No. 43014 September 24, 1935 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. BENITO and OCAMPO ET AL

062 Phil 137:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 43014. September 24, 1935.]

MACONDRAY & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FELICIANO BENITO and SEBASTIAN OCAMPO, Defendants-Appellees.

Jose Agbulos for Appellant.

Benedicto M. Javier for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CHATTEL MORTGAGE; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ARTICLE 1454-A, CIVIL CODE. — The question of the constitutionality of article 1454-A of the Civil Code (Act No. 4122 of the Philippine Legislature) was not raised in the trial court. The general rule is that if a question affecting the constitutionality of an act is not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised at the trial and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.

2. ID.; ID.; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. — Under article 1454-A (Act No. 4122) of the Civil Code the vendor of personal property, the purchase price of which is payable in installments, has the right to cancel the sale or foreclose the mortgage if one has been given on the property thus sold on the installment plan. Whichever right the vendor elects he need not return to the purchaser the amount of the installments already paid, if there is an agreement to that effect. Furthermore, if the vendor avails himself of the right to foreclose his mortgage this article prohibits him from bringing an action against the purchaser for the unpaid balance. Under this article, in proceedings for the foreclosure of chattel mortgages, executed on chattels sold on the installment plan, the mortgagee is limited to the property included in the mortgage.


D E C I S I O N


GODDARD, J.:


Under its amended complaint in this case the plaintiff seeks to recover over P2,500 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the defendants, less the sum of P550 realized from the sale at public auction of certain chattels mortgaged to it as security for the payment of the above mentioned sum.

In the lower court the parties submitted the case for decision on the following stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the defendants admit each and every allegation in each and every paragraph of the plaintiff’s amended complaint subject to the stipulations herein contained.

"2. That the promissory notes mentioned in paragraphs II and IV of the amended complaint were executed by the defendants to cover the unpaid balance of the price of certain personal properties purchased by them from the plaintiff payable in installments, the said properties being those described in paragraph IV of the amended complaint covered by the two chatel mortgages specified therein.

"3. That upon the failure of the defendants to pay the two (2) and more installments on the purchase price of said personal properties, plaintiff foreclosed the mortgages executed on said properties.

"4. That when the properties mortgaged were seized by the sheriff for the Province of Rizal by virtue of the writ of seizure, the same were in fairly good condition, allowing deterioration for ordinary wear and tear during the time defendants were in possession of the said properties from the time of their purchase, on December 21, 1933, up to the date of the seizure.

"5. That the properties mortgaged were sold at public auction, as specified in paragraph XIII of the amended complaint, to the plaintiff which was the only bidder therefor.

"6. That the parties, in view of this stipulation, submit for determination by the court the sole question of law whether by virtue of sec. 1454-A of the Civil Code (Act No. 4122 of the Philippine Legislature) plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants the unpaid balance of the purchase price of said personal properties."cralaw virtua1aw library

The decision of the trial court reads in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"En efecto, launica cuestion a determinar en esta causa, segun la estipulacion de hechos sometida en autos es, si lo dispuesto por la Ley No. 4122 de la Legislatura Filipina beneficia en esta causa a los aqui demandados. No esta impugnada la efectividad y la validez de la referida ley. Los pagares en cuestion se hand otorgado con posterioridad a la vigencia de la ley. Es obvio, por tanto, que la transaccion objeto del presente litigio se halla comprendida dentro de sus disposiciones legales, entre las que se dispone expresamente que el vendedor no tendra accion contra el comprador, a recobrar por el balance no pagado despues de ejecutada la propiedad, y que cualquier convenio contrario a esta provision legal es nulo e invalido.

"Por lo expuesto, se absuelve a los demandados, sin costas."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiff appealed from this judgment and now makes the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The lower court erred in not finding Act No. 4122 unconstitutional in that it denies to the appellant the equal protection of the laws, deprives it of property without due process of law, and impairs the obligation of contracts.

"II. The lower court erred in applying Act No. 4122 to the facts of the case.

"III. The lower court erred in rendering judgment dismissing the complaint and in not rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the amended complaint, together with the costs of the suit.

"IV. The lower court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for new trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

The question of the constitutionality of article 1454-A of the Civil Code (Act No. 4122 of the Philippine Legislature) was not raised in the trial court. The general rule seems to be that if a question affecting the constitutionality of an act is not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised at the trial and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.

In the case of State ex rel. Vandiver v. Burke (175 Ala., 561, 578; 57 S., 870), it was held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . This court will never, on appeal, investigate or inquire into the constitutionality of statutes in civil cases, where the questions were not raised or passed upon below, unless the statute is necessary to the jurisdiction of this court or to that of the court below."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the above decision and the fact that the plaintiff elected to foreclose its mortgage after the defendants failed to pay two or more installments on the chattels sold to them by the plaintiff on the installment plan, this court does not feel called upon in this case to inquire into the constitutionality of article 1454-A, which reads as follows: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."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


Under the above article of the Civil Code the vendor of personal property, the purchase price of which is payable in installments, has the right to cancel the sale or foreclose the mortgage if one has been given on the property thus sold on the installment plan. Whichever right the vendor elects he need not return to the purchaser the amount of the installments already paid, if there is an agreement to that effect. Furthermore, if the vendor avails himself of the right to foreclose his mortgage this article prohibits him from bringing an action against the purchaser for the unpaid balance. Under this article, in proceedings for the foreclosure of chattel mortgages, executed on chattels sold on the installment plan, the mortgagee is limited to the property included in the mortgage.

In this case the plaintiff, the vendor of personal property on the installment plan, elected, as stated above, to foreclose its mortgage on that property and consequently under the second paragraph of this article he has "no further action against the purchaser for the recovery of any unpaid balance owing by the same.

"In view of the foregoing, all of the above assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs in this instance against the plaintiff-appellant.

Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Recto, 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






September-1935 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43255 September 2, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. NARCISSO YAMUT

    062 Phil 1

  • Per Rec. No. L-2555 September 3, 1935 - LEONARDO S. BITON v. ANDRES MOMONGAN

    062 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 41702 September 4, 1935 - FORTUNATA LUCERO VIUDA DE SINDAYEN v. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

    062 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 41937 September 4, 1935 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE TARLAC v. DE LEON AND FERNANDEZ

    062 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 42551 September 4, 1935 - ALEKO E. LILIUS v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    062 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 43514 September 5, 1935 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. UTI MARIMPOONG ET AL.

    062 Phil 70

  • G.R. Nos. 44158-44160 September 5, 1935 - FELIPE BUENCAMINO v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF BONGABONG

    062 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 42185 September 10, 1935 - QUINTIN DE BORJA v. JOSE DE BORJA

    062 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 42660 September 12, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CRISPIN IMAN ET AL.

    062 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 42839 September 12, 1935 - BANZON and LUCILA ROSAURO v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    062 Phil 103

  • G.R. Nos. L-43232 & 43270 September 12, 1935 - In re JOSE DE BORJA and Flores ET AL.

    062 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 43495 September 14, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. MARCELO HONRADA

    062 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 42890 September 20, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. GENEROSA DE LA CRUZ

    062 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 43103 September 23, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. FILEMON MIRASOL

    062 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 42236 September 24, 1935 - CITY OF MANILA v. LYRIC MUSIC HOUSE

    062 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 43014 September 24, 1935 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. BENITO and OCAMPO ET AL

    062 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 43147 September 24, 1935 - SEBASTIANA RODRIGUEZ v. IRINEA CAOIBES

    062 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 44109 September 26, 1935 - IN RE: SILVESTRE C. PASCUAL v. PETRA SANTOS ET AL.

    062 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 44277 September 26, 1935 - JOSE LIM v. JOSE YULO

    062 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 42607 September 28, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL ISLANDS v. JUAN QUIANZON

    062 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 43479 September 8, 1935 - ADAM C. DERKUM v. PENSION AND INVESTMENT BOARD

    062 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 43563 September 28, 1935 - VILLAVERT v. LIM ET AL.

    062 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 42213 September 30, 1935 - IN RE: Manuel Tinio. EULOGIO CRESPO v. MARIANO Q. TINIO

    062 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 42829 September 30, 1935 - RADIO CORP. OF THE PHILS v. JESUS R. ROA ET AL.

    062 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 43605 September 30, 1935 - CHOA SIU v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    062 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 43728 September 30, 1935 - YU HUA CHAI v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    062 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 44262 September 30, 1935 - LUZON SURETY CO. v. GOV’T OF THE PHIL ISLANDS and GUILLERMO F. PABLO

    062 Phil 238