Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Lazy Student Digest

I read cases and write detailed summaries. Yellow Pad digests are those I wrote on legalpads.

S u n d a y, J u l y 2 7 , 2 0 1 4 Contact Form

Name
Philippine National Bank v Sta. Maria 29 SCRA 303 Case
Digest
Email *
Philippine National Bank v. Sta. Maria, 29 SCRA 303
Concept:
Message *
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 Send
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 Wikipedia
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. Sub
mit
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 Blog Archive About Me
executed by the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc.
Plaintiff Bank filed the case on February 10,1961 against Defendant Maximo Sta. Maria 2016 (17)
and his six brothers and sisters and the Associated Insurancs & Suret Co., Inc. for the
collection of unpaid balances of two sugar crop loans 2014 (11)
The Trial Court rendered judgement in favor of the PNB September (4)
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 August (6)
owned by them and that if they are liable, the liability should not go beyond the value of the July (1) bentep0511
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. Philippine Follow 6
National
Issue: W/N the siblings are only liable for the value of the land? Bank v Sta. He is left handed,
Maria 29 yes he's that cool.
Held: SCRA 303
He dedicated SOME
Yes, except for Valeriana who issued a separate Special Power of Attorney authorizing ...
of his time to this
Maximo to borrow money.
In Bank of P. I. v. De Coster, "where in an instrumentpowers and duties are specified blog be he, like
and defined, that all of such powers and duties are limited andconfined to thosewhich are you, is also lazy
specified and defined, and all other powers andduties are excluded. when it comes to
In De Villa vs. Fabricante, where the power of attorneygiven to the husband by the wife cases. He made
was limited to a grant of authority to mortgage a parcel of land titled in the wife'sname, the wife very detailed
may not be held liable for the payment of the mortgage debt contracted by the husband, as digests for students
theauthority to mortgage does not carry with it the authorityto contract obligation.
with detail oriented
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. professors, yes you
Maximos argument that "a mortgage is simply anaccessory contract, and that to effect are welcome.
the mortgage, aloan has to be secured" falls, far short of the mark.Maximo had indeed, View my complete
secured the loan on his own accountand the defendants-appellants had authorized him
profile
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

Posted by bentep0511 at 2:39 AM

No comments:
Post a Comment
 Enter your comment...

Comment as: Unknown (Google) Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Newer Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Pages

Privacy Policy
Contact Me

Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.