Natalia Bustamante vs Rodito and Norma Rosel
Concept:
Article 1245. Dation
in payment, whereby property is
alienated to the
creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money,
shall be governed by the law on sales.
Facts:
·
March
8, 1987. Norma Rosel entered in a loan agreement with Natalia Bustamante with
the conditions:
1. That the borrowers
are the registered owners of a parcel of land, evidenced by TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 80667, containing an area of FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY THREE
(423) SQUARE Meters, more or less, situated along Congressional Avenue.
2. That the
borrowers were desirous to borrow the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00)
PESOS from the LENDER, for a period of two (2) years, counted from March 1,
1987, with an interest of EIGHTEEN (18%) PERCENT per annum, and to guaranty the
payment thereof, they are putting as a collateral SEVENTY (70) SQUARE METERS
portion, inclusive of the apartment therein, of the aforestated parcel of land,
however, in the event the borrowers fail to pay, the lender has the option to
buy or purchase the collateral for a total consideration of TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P200,000.00) PESOS, inclusive of the borrowed amount and
interest therein;
3. That the lender
do hereby manifest her agreement and conformity to the preceding paragraph,
while the borrowers do hereby confess receipt of the borrowed amount.”
·
When the loan was about to mature the
respondent proposed to buy the land for P200,000 but the petitioner refused and
offered another residential lot at road. 20 project 8, quezon city. Respondent
accepted the lot. The Respondents were not the owner but entitled as Land
developers
·
March 1, 1989. Petitioner tendered payment
for the loan but the respondent refused insisting that the former sign the
document as deed of absolute sale of the collateral
·
Respondent filed a complaint and sent a
letter asking the petitioner to sell the collateral pursuant to the loan
agreement
·
March 5, 1990. Petitioner filed a petition
for consignation and deposited the amount of P153,000 with the City Treasurer
of Quezon City. Petitioner refused the sell the collateral and the respondent
cosigned the amount of P47,500 with the trial court. In arriving at the amount deposited,
respondents considered the principal loan of P100,000.00 and 18% interest per
annum thereon, which amounted to P52,500.00. The principal loan and the
interest taken together amounted to P152,500.00, leaving a balance of P47,500.00
·
The
trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner and denied the prayer of the
respondents in the execution of the deed of sale
·
Court
of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court
·
The
SC found no error in the decision of the trial court, petitioner asked for a
reconsideration. Respondent filed an opposition against petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. They contend that the agreement between the
parties was not a sale with right of re-purchase, but a loan with interest at
18% per annum for a period of two years and if petitioner fails to pay, the
respondent was given the right to purchase the property or apartment for P200,000.00,
which is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy.
Issue: W/ON the petitioner failed to pay the loan at its
maturity and is the stipulation in the loan contract valid
Held:
No. The respondents refused to accept payment, petitioner consigned the amount
with the trial court. We note the eagerness of respondents to acquire the
property given as collateral to guarantee the loan. The sale of the collateral
is an obligation with a suspensive condition. It is dependent upon the
happening of an event, without which the obligation to sell does not
arise. Since the event did not occur,
respondents do not have the right to demand fulfillment of petitioner’s
obligation, especially where the same would not only be disadvantageous to
petitioner but would also unjustly enrich respondents considering the
inadequate consideration (P200,000.00) for a 70 square meter property situated
at Congressional Avenue, Quezon City.
No, The SC said that the stipulation
is void. the intent of the creditor appears to be evident,for the debtor is
obliged to dispose of the collateral at the preagreed consideration amounting
to practically the same amount
as the loan. In effect, the creditor
acquires the collateral in the event of non-payment of the loan. This is within
the concept of pactum commissorium. Such stipulation is void.
No comments:
Post a Comment