Title
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. De Coster y Roxas
Case
G.R. No. 23181
Decision Date
Mar 16, 1925
BPI sued Gabriela de Coster over a promissory note secured by mortgages. She contested, claiming improper summons, lack of consent, and her husband's unauthorized actions. Court ruled in her favor, voiding obligations and reversing default judgment.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 23181)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Plaintiff: Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), a domestic banking corporation.
    • Defendants:
      • Gabriela Andrea de Coster y Roxas (wife of Jean M. Poizat).
      • Jean M. Poizat (husband of Gabriela).
      • J.M. Poizat & Co. (a registered partnership).
      • La Orden de Dominicos or PP. Predicadores de la Provincia del Santisimo Rosario (a religious corporation).
  2. Promissory Note and Mortgages:

    • On December 29, 1921, Gabriela Andrea de Coster y Roxas, with her husband’s consent, executed a promissory note for P292,000 in favor of BPI, payable one year later with 9% annual interest.
    • To secure the note, Jean M. Poizat and J.M. Poizat & Co. executed a chattel mortgage on two steamers and other properties.
    • Gabriela also executed a real estate mortgage on her property in Manila, which was already subject to a prior mortgage in favor of La Orden de Dominicos.
  3. Default and Judgment:

    • The note became overdue, and BPI filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
    • The court rendered a default judgment against Gabriela, Jean M. Poizat, and J.M. Poizat & Co. for P292,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and insurance costs.
    • La Orden de Dominicos filed a plea asserting its prior mortgage claim of P125,060 with 10% interest.
  4. Gabriela’s Defense:

    • Gabriela claimed she was absent from the Philippines from 1908 to April 30, 1924, and was unaware of the lawsuit until July 1924.
    • She argued that the summons was improperly served on her husband, who acted negligently, leading to the default judgment.
    • She also contended that the promissory note and mortgage were executed without her knowledge or consent and that her husband exceeded his authority as her agent.
  5. Power of Attorney:

    • Gabriela had granted her husband a power of attorney in 1903, which authorized him to borrow money and enter into contracts on her behalf.
    • However, she argued that the power of attorney did not authorize him to make her liable as a surety for his preexisting debts.

Issue:

  1. Jurisdiction:

    • Whether the court acquired jurisdiction over Gabriela Andrea de Coster y Roxas, given that she was absent from the Philippines and the summons was served on her husband.
  2. Validity of Service of Summons:

    • Whether the service of summons on Gabriela’s husband at their Manila residence was valid, considering she had been residing in Paris for 16 years.
  3. Authority of the Husband as Agent:

    • Whether Jean M. Poizat, as Gabriela’s agent, had the authority to bind her to the promissory note and mortgage, particularly as a surety for his preexisting debts.
  4. Meritorious Defense:

    • Whether Gabriela had a valid defense to the claims of BPI and La Orden de Dominicos, including the argument that the note and mortgage were executed without her consent and beyond her husband’s authority.
  5. Judgment by Default:

    • Whether the default judgment against Gabriela should be set aside due to improper service of summons and lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.