G.R. No. 173946. June 19, 2013.

MAIN TOPIC – Different Kind Of Obligations

FACTS

In 1997, Boston Equity filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses Manuel and Lolita Toledo. Respondent (Lolita Toledo) filed an Answer and later filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer in which she alleged, among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel Toledo, is already dead. The death certificate of Manuel states “13 July 1995” as the date of death. As a result, petitioner filed a motion to require respondent to disclose the heirs of Manuel. In compliance, Toledo submitted the required names and addresses of the heirs. 

G.R. No. 201883. November 16, 2016.

MAIN TOPIC – Suspensive Condition

FACTS

Respondents Emmanuel and Tita Manzano (the Manzanos) were the registered owners of a 35,281-square-meter parcel of land with improvements in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City , through their duly appointed attorney-in­-fact Franklin Estabillo (Estabillo), executed a notarized agreement of contract to sell with petitioners Desiderio and Teresa Domingo. However, they failed to tender full payment of the balance when the March 2001 deadline came. In December 2001, petitioners offered to pay the remaining P555,000.00 balance, but Estabillo refused to accept payment; instead, he advised petitioners to await respondent Tita Manzano’s (Tita) arrival from abroad.

52 Phil. 346 [1928]

MAIN TOPIC – Obligations with a Penal Clause

FACTS

Bachrach Motor Co., filed two cases – Nos. 28497 and 28498 which were tried together, against defendants. The cases involve an action for the recovery of total amount of P11,940.37 representing the unpaid balance of White truck purchases within the periods agreed upon. To secure the payment, defendant executed mortgage deeds and promissory note. In both sales it was agreed that 12% interest would be paid upon the unpaid portion of the price at the execution of the contracts, and in case of non-payment of the total debt upon its maturity, 25% thereon, as penalty. The trial courts rendered judgments in favor of the plaintiff. However, the defendants contended that the 25 % penalty upon the debt, in addition to the interest of 12% per annum makes the contract usurious.

G.R. No 156132. October 12, 2006

MAIN TOPIC – Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation

FACTS

Modesta R. Sabeniano was a client of both petitioners Citibank and FNCB Finance. Unfortunately, the business relations among the parties subsequently went awry. In 1985, Sabeniano filed a civil case for “Accounting, Sum of Money and Damages”, alleging that petitioners refused to return her deposits and the proceeds of her money market placements despite her repeated demands. Petitioners admitted that respondent had deposits and money market placements with them, including dollar accounts. However, they also alleged that the respondent obtained several loans aggregating to ₱1,920,000.00, for which she executed Promissory Notes and secured by a pledge on her dollar accounts and money market placements. That despite of the repeated demands, respondent failed to pay her outstanding loans. Thus, petitioner Citibank used respondent’s deposits and money market placements to off set and liquidate her outstanding obligations. RTC declared this illegal, null and void and to pay Sabeniano with legal interest, while Sabeniano was ordered to pay her loans.