Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > April 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6003 April 26, 1954 - RAMON R. DIZON ET AL. v. SIMEON OCAMPO ET AL.

094 Phil 803:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6003. April 26, 1954.]

RAMON R. DIZON ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SIMEON OCAMPO ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Jose Agbulos for Appellants.

Filemon Cajator for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; BILL OF PARTICULARS. — It is not a reversible error for the trial court to accede to defendant’s motion for particulars asking that the plaintiff specify in his complaint the date on which the obligation sued upon was contracted.

2. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE; MORATORIUM. — The law and executive orders on moratorium have been declared void in the case of Putter v. Esteban (49 Off. Gaz., 1807).


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


This is an action for foreclosure of mortgage.

The complaint alleges in substance that "on or about or previous to November 22, 1948" the defendants borrowed from plaintiffs the sum of P20,000 and secured payment thereof with a mortgage on real property, but that they have failed to comply with the terms of the mortgage and the debt (two years interests excepted) has remained unpaid though already long overdue.

Ordered to specify the date of the transaction, plaintiffs amended their complaint by making it state that the loan was contracted on November 22, 1948, whereupon defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that they borrowed no money from plaintiffs on November 22, 1948, though they did borrow from them P35,000 "in worthless Japanese war notes" on August 15, 1944, but as that was during the Japanese occupation, plaintiffs’ action to collect was barred by the debt moratorium law.

At the hearing of this motion, counsel for both parties made certain admissions from which the court deduced that on August 15, 1944, defendants obtained from plaintiffs by way of loan the sum of P35,000 in Japanese military notes on the security of a chattel mortgage, and that on November 22, 1948, the parties substituted the chattel mortgage with a mortgage on real property but reducing the loan to P20,000, Philippine currency, and making it payable two years from that date. And holding that an agreement which made a debt contracted during the Japanese occupation payable before the lifting of the debt moratorium was null and void as an open violation of the moratorium law and that the said debt was not demandable until Congress should enact a law lifting the debt moratorium, the court dismissed the complaint with costs.

From this order of dismissal plaintiffs have appealed to this Court, contending that the lower court erred in ordering them, in deference to a motion for a bill of particulars, to specify the exact date when the loan of P20,000 was contracted, in holding that the agreement reducing defendants’ debt of P35,000 in Japanese war notes to P20,000, Philippine currency, and making it payable within 2 years was violative of the moratorium law, in holding that the debt is not demandable until the moratorium is lifted, and in not holding that defendants had waived their right to the moratorium.

As to the first error assigned, we see no harm in having a litigant specify in his complaint the date on which the obligation sued upon was contracted. We, therefore, cannot say that the lower court in this case committed a reversible error when it acceded to defendants’ motion for particulars in that respect.

With respect to the other errors assigned the ruling complained of is grounded on the law and executive orders on moratorium, and as all of these have been declared void in the case of Royal L. Rutter v. Placido J. Esteban, * 49 Off. Gaz. 1807, the said ruling can no longer stand.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal is hereby revoked and the case remanded to the court below for further proceeding. With costs against the appellees.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Footnote

*. 90 Phil., 415.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





April-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5477 April 12, 1954 - QUING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-5943 April 12, 1954 - CO SAN v. CELEDONIO AGRAVA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. L-6029 April 12, 1954 - YU CHONG TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-6095 April 12, 1954 - DAVID v. CARLOS SISON

    094 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-6525 April 12, 1954 - MARTA BANCLOS DE ESPARAGOZA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    094 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-6570 April 12, 1954 - JUAN PLANAS and SOFIA VERDON v. MADRIGAL & CO., ET AL.

    094 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-6206 April 13, 1954 - AURELIO G. GAVIERES v. EMILIO SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 760

  • G.R. No. L-5257 April 14, 1954 - ARSENIO ALGARIN, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO NAVARRO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-6089 April 20, 1954 - VICENTE YLANAN v. AQUILINO O. MERCADO

    094 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-6201 April 20, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE A. LIVARA

    094 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. L-6307 April 20, 1954 - FELICIANO MANALANG, ET AL. v. GERCIA CANLAS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 776

  • G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954 - MANUEL LARA, ET AL. v. PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO, JR.

    094 Phil 778

  • G.R. No. L-5897 April 23, 1954 - KING MAU WU v. FRANCISCO SYCIP

    094 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-6134 April 23, 1954 - RUBEN VALERO, ET AL. v. ISABEL FOLLANTE

    094 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-6459 April 23, 1954 - CONSOLACION C. VDA. DE VERZOSA v. BONIFACIO RIGONAN, ET AL.

    094 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-6855 April 23, 1954 - LAZARO R. BIEN v. PEDRO BERAQUIT

    094 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-6003 April 26, 1954 - RAMON R. DIZON ET AL. v. SIMEON OCAMPO ET AL.

    094 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-6063 April 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEON AQUINO

    094 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-6118 April 26, 1954 - LARRY J. JOHNSON v. HOWARD M. TURNER, ET AL.

    094 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. L-5137 April 27, 1954 - E. E. ELSER, INC., ET AL. v. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO. INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-5631 April 27, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX GARCIA

    094 Phil 814

  • G.R. No. L-6691 April 27, 1954 - GAUDENCIO DAY, ET AL. v. GERARDO P. TIOSECO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-5387 April 29, 1954 - CLYDE E. MCGEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. L-5478 April 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN JISTIADO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. L-5547 April 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MANANTAN, ET AL.

    094 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. L-5867 April 29, 1954 - RUPERTO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 836

  • G.R. No. L-6061 April 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMEN LICOP

    094 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-6291 April 29, 1954 - SAN PEDRO BUS LINE, ET AL. v. NICOLAS NAVARRO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-6323 April 29, 1954 - BASILIA COLOMA VDA. DE VALDEZ v. CONSTANTE L. FARIÑAS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-6498 April 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZENAIDA FLORES

    094 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-6822 April 29, 1954 - OSCAR VENTANILLA v. HONORABLE L. PASICOLAN

    094 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-7071 April 29, 1954 - PEDRO CRISOLO v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    094 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-3659 April 30, 1954 - PHIL. OPERATIONS, INC. v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

    094 Phil 868

  • G.R. Nos. L-5304 to L-5324 April 30, 1954 - SMITH BELL & CO., LTD., ET AL. v. AMERICAN PRES. LINES, ET AL.

    094 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. L-5663 April 30, 1954 - PEDRO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    094 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-5848 April 30, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SY PIO

    094 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-6155 April 30, 1954 - JOSE SON v. CEBU AUTOBUS CO.

    094 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-6216 April 30, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMANDO AUSTRIA

    094 Phil 897

  • G.R. No. L-6898 April 30, 1954 - LUIS MANALANG v. AURELIO QUITORIANO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 903