SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL., defendants,
Luis F. RIVILLA, Defendant-Appellee.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Frine C. Zaballero and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiazon, for plaintiff-appellant.
Benito C. Jalando-on, for defendant-appellee.

DIZON, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

The Republic of the Philippines appeals from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 49019 dismissing its complaint as against Luis F. Rivilla for lack of sufficient cause of action. Said complaint was filed to recover from Maria Vda. de Yulo, appellee Rivilla and Mariano Pacheco the sum of P16,357.03, with interest at 6% per annum, compounded quarterly, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total indebtedness and costs, alleging that on several occasions in 1943 "Maria P. Vda. de Yulo, for herself and through defendants Luis F. Rivilla and Mariano Pacheco", obtained several loans from the former Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. in the total amount of P7,372.94, all with interests at the rate of 6% per annum, compounded quarterly, as evidenced by seventeen promissory notes executed by them in favor of said bank; that as security therefor, Maria P. Vda. de Yulo executed in its favor a chattel mortgage on the standing crops growing on her hacienda "Maruja" located at the Municipality of Isabela, Negros Occidental.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

By virtue of Vesting Order No. p-4, dated January 21, 1946, the Alien Property Custodian vested in the Government of the United States all the property and assets of the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd., which, in turn, were transferred to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, pursuant to Transfer Agreement dated July 20, 1954, as supplemented by Transfer Agreement of June 15, 1957. Among the assets of the bank were the loans secured by the chattel mortgage mentioned heretofore.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription of the action and insufficiency of its allegations to constitute a valid cause of action against him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After due hearing on the motion, the Court issued the appealed order.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

A perusal of the promissory notes attached to the complaint shows that appellee signed some of them merely as agent of Maria P. Vda. de Yulo. In fact, the complaint itself, (paragraph two thereof) alleges "that on several occasions in 1943, the defendant Maria P. Vda. de Yulo, for herself and through defendants Luis F. Rivilla and Mariano Pacheco, obtained, several loans ...". That it was solely Maria P. Vda. de Yulo who owed the loans is further corroborated by the fact that the chattel mortgage was signed only by her and was constituted on her exclusive property.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Premises considered, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.