oblicon digest DOCX

Title	oblicon digest
Author	Heart Santos
Pages	6
File Size	33.1 KB
File Type	DOCX
Total Downloads	198
Total Views	260

Summary

Description

64. Spouses Chin Kong Wong Choi and Ana O. Chua vs. UCPB Gr. No. 207747, March 11, 2015 Facts: A Contract to Sell involving a condominium unit in Kiener Hills Cebu was entered into by pettoner spouses and Primetown. A down payment of P100,000.00 was given by pettoners while the remaining balance became payable in 40 equal monthly instalments from January 16, 1997 to April 16, 2000. In the meantme, on April 23, 1998, a Memorandum of Agreement and Sale of Receivables and Assignment of Rights and Interests were executed by and between respondent UCPB and Primetown. In 2006, a complaint for refund with interest and damages against Primetown and UCPB was insttuted by pettoners for failure of Primetown to fnish the constructon and to deliver the subject condominium unit despite full payment of contract price. The Ofce of the President likewise ruled that UCPB was jointly and severally liable with Primetown. The CA reversed the OP's decision and reinstated HLURB RFO reinstated in another aspect. Issue :Whether respondent UCPB is solidarily liable with Primetown. Ruling: No. Sc held that as for UCPB's alleged solidary liability, there is no merit in the instant case, there is failure to comply with Sectons 17, 18 and 25 of Presidental Decree No. 957, which made the banks in those cases solidarily liable. A solidary obligaton cannot be inferred lightly, but exists only when expressly stated, or the law or nature of the obligaton requires it. Since there is no other ground to hold UCPB solidarily liable with Primetown and there is no reason to depart from the rato decidendi in UCPB v. Ho, UCPB is only liable to refund Spouses Choi the amount it indisputably received, which is P26,292.97 based on the evidence presented by Spouses Choi. 65. The Bachrach Motor Co v. Espiritu G.R. No. L-28497 November 6, 1928 Facts: This is a consolidated case involving two separate sale transactons. One made in Feb. 18, 1925, when the defendant earlier bought a truck on installment from the pettoner and said truck was mortgaged together with the two others in the subsequent sale transacton. The said two of the other trucks were also purchased (but already paid previously) from the plainti. The defendant failed to pay the balance. In July 1925, defendant again purchased another truck from Bachrach. The said truck, together with the 3 other vehicles were mortgaged to the plainti to secure the remaining balance. The defendant failed to pay the balance for the latest truck obtained. The defendant also signed a promissory note solidarily with his brother Rosario (actng as intervenor), the sums secured by the mortgages. Issue: W/N the 25% penalty upon the debt in additon to the 25% p.a. is usurious Ruling: No, Artcle 1152 of the Civil Code permits the agreement upon a penalty apart from the interest. Should there be such an agreement, the penalty, as was held in the case of Lopez vs. Hernaez (32 Phil., 631), does not include the interest, and which may be demanded separately. The penalty is not to be added to the interest for the determinaton of whether the interest exceeds the rate fxed by the law, since said rate was fxed only for the interest. But considering that the obligaton was partly performed, and making use of the power given to the court by artcle 1154 of the Civil Code, this penalty is reduced to 10 per cent of the unpaid debt. The penalty is however reduced from 25 % upon the sum owed, the defendants need pay only 10 % thereon as penalty. (Judgment appealed from is afrmed in all other respects) 66. ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. CFI G.R. No. L-41093, October 30, 1978 Facts: In May 1962, Robes Corporaton entered into a contract of sale with Millan for a parcel of land in the amount of 3,864.00 payable in installments. Millan complied with her obligaton and made her fnal payment on December 22, 1971 for a total payment of P5,193.63 including interests and expenses for registraton of ttle. On March 2, 1973 the deed of absolute sale was executed but the transfer certfcate of ttle could not be executed because the parcel of land conveyed to Millan was included among other propertes of the corporaton mortgaged to GSIS to secure an obligaton...