Salvador Panganiban vs Agustin Cuevas 7 Phil 477 Case Digest

Salvador Panganiban vs Agustin Cuevas

Concept:

Article 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose

favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successors-ininterest,

or any person authorized to receive it

Facts:

·         Agustin Cuevas was ordered to return the property to Panganiban and to pay the proceedings

·         Dec. 10, 1897. Panganiban was an owner of a Camarin (Nipa and bamboo construction) and lot. He sold it to one Francisco Gonazales in the sum of P1,300. It had a stipulation that the vendor has the right to repurchase within six months from the time of purchase, in compliance with the art 1518 of the civil code, if the vendor fails to do so the vendee will pay P200 and he will be the absolute owner.

·         August 1, 1900. Gonzales sold the property to Agustin Cuevas with the same price. It was also stated that the vendor (panganiban) has the right to repurchase and if in six months he failed to do so the vendee (Cuevas) has to pay P200 and will be the owner.

·         Cuevas asked and granted judicial possession of the property, notice was given to the occupants of the property, among them was the wife of Panganiban. Cuevas paid in court the sum of P200 and declared that he is now owner of the property. The payment was refused by Panganiban and an action of ejectment was filed against Panganiban

·         Panganiban said that In the month of May 1898, He sought to repurchase the property, but he could not locate Gonzales due to the revolutionary war. The revolutionary government then seized the land and camarin from Gonzales. Panganiban redeemed  the property to th erevolutionary government on November 12, 1898  by paying the repurchase price. On the other hand, on August 1, 1900, Gonzales sold the property to Cuevas.

Issue: W/ON the Purchase made by Panganiban from the revolutionary army vested him the right to the property.

Held: No. The property was seized by the army not confiscated, a seizure just prohibits the owner from enjoying his/her property. Panganiban repurchased the property from the army but the army was not the owner. the Supreme Court said that payment made to a third person, even through error and in good faith, shall not release the debtor of the obligation to pay and will not deprive the creditor of his right to demand payment. If it becomes impossible to recover what was unduly paid, any loss resulting therefrom shall be borne by the deceived debtor, who is the only one responsible for his own acts unless there is a stipulation for the wrongful payment.

People of the Philippines vs Jaime Jose GR no. L-28397 71 SCRA 273 Case Digest

People of the Philippines vs Jaime Jose GR no. L-28397

71 SCRA 273

Concept:

Article 1231. Obligations are extinguished:

(1) By payment or performance;

(2) By the loss of the thing due;

(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt;

(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor

and debtor;

(5) By compensation;

(6) By novation.

Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as

annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition,

and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code.

Facts:

·         Jaime Jose and George Tillman was acquitted in the crime of robbery but found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape in a criminal case and both are sentenced in the penalty of death but with recommendation to be commuted to life imprisonment

·         Jose and Tillman to pay jointly and severally the amount of P6,000 to Zenaida dela Cruz

·         July 4^th 1966, Jose and Tillman along with John Doe and Roy, Peter and and Richard Roe, armed and with a vehicle abducted Dela Cruz and with carnal knowledge, raped her. (the other four guys are actually unidentified and the whereabouts are unknown, the names were just stated in the facts)

·         The facts has two sides the prosecutor side and the defendant side:
Prosecutor: Dela Cruz whilst riding a golden taxicab driven by Osmundo delacruz (no relation) was forcibly taken by five men in a Mercedes benz and the same five men divested her jewelries. She was then taken to Queen’s Motel where she got raped along with another woman named Araceli Sy.

Defendant side: A man named Crisologo along with his two companions went to Jaime Jose and Tillman to borrow Jose’s mercedez benz but the latter refused stating that him and Tillman are going to party and that they should tag along so that after the party they can go to the bayside. Whilst on the road they were hailed by two women, dela cruz and Sy, and joined them inside the mercedez benz and went to the Queen’s motel. The defendants stated that there was no forcible abduction.

·         The Judge took emphasis and credibility on dela Cruz’s sworn statement.

·         Prosecutor has evidence while the defendants failed to present evidence and their statement is much more improbable.

·         During the pendency of this case, Jose died

Issue: W/ON civil liabilities are extinguished

Held: Yes, the court ruled that accused is relieved in this case of all personal and pecuniary penalties attendant to his crime, his death occurring before rendition of final judgment herein. (The ruling was different in the case of Torrijos vs CA)

Philippine National Bank v Sta. Maria 29 SCRA 303 Case Digest

Philippine National Bank v. Sta. Maria, 29 SCRA 303

Concept:

Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity

Facts:

·         Special power of the attorney to mortgage real estate is limited to such authority and does not bind the grantor  personally to other obligations contracted by the grantee

·         The sugar crop loans were obtained by Maximo from the plaintiff bank under the power of the attorney, executed in his favor by his brothers and sisters to mortgage a 16-odd hectare parcel of land, jointly owned by all of them

·         Valeriana the sister of Maximo, alone also executed in favor of her brother Maximo a special power of attorney to borrow money and mortgage any real estate owned by her.

·         Maximo applied for two separate crop loans with the PNB, one in the amount of P15,000 but only P13,216.11 was extended by the PNB and the other for P23,000 but only P12,427.57 was extended by the PNB

·         As security for the two loans, Maximo executed it in his own name in favor of PNB two chattel mortgages, guaranteed by the surety bonds for the full authorized amounts of loans executed by the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc.

·         Plaintiff  Bank filed the case on February 10,1961 against Defendant Maximo Sta. Maria and his six brothers and sisters and the Associated Insurancs & Suret Co., Inc. for the collection of unpaid balances of two sugar crop loans

·         The Trial Court rendered judgement in favor of the PNB

·         Maximo did not appeal but his siblings appealed and contended that they had given their brother Maximo the authority to borrow money but only to mortgage the real estate jointly owned by them and that if they are liable, the liability should not go beyond the value of the property which9 they had authorized to be given as security of the loans obtained by Maximo. They further contended that they did not benefit whatsoever from the loans.

Issue: W/N the siblings are only liable for the value of the land?

Held:

·         Yes, except for Valeriana who issued a separate Special Power of Attorney authorizing Maximo to borrow money.

·         In Bank of P. I. v. De Coster, "where in an instrumentpowers and duties are specified and defined, that all of such powers and duties are limited andconfined to thosewhich are specified and defined, and all other powers andduties are excluded.”

·         In De Villa vs. Fabricante, where the power of attorneygiven to the husband by the wife was limited to a grant of authority to mortgage a parcel of land titled in the wife'sname, the wife may not be held liable for the payment of the mortgage debt contracted by the husband, as theauthority to mortgage does not carry with it the authorityto contract obligation.

·         Maximo and Valeriana are the only ones liable for the loans and that the other siblings’ liability only correspond to real estate mortgage and the foreclosure and sale of mortgage.

·         Maximo’s argument that "a mortgage is simply anaccessory contract, and that to effect the mortgage, aloan has to be secured" falls, far short of the mark.Maximo had indeed, secured the loan on his own accountand the defendants-appellants had authorized him tomortgage their respective undivided shares of the realproperty jointly owned by them as security for the loan.But that was the extent of their authority land consequentliability, to have the real property answer for the loan incase of non-payment.

·          The outcome might be different if there had been anexpress ratification of the loans by defendants-appellantsor if it had been shown that they had been benefited bythe crop loans so as to put them in estoppel.

·         Under the Art. 1207, Valeriana is only jointly liable with Maximo