Facts:

The case involves BPI Credit Corporation (formerly Filinvest Credit Corporation) as the petitioner and Dominador Cabacungan as the respondent. The events leading to the case began in March 1982 when Cabacungan purchased a brand new Isuzu KBD 26 pick-up vehicle from B.M. Domingo Motor Sales, Inc. (BMD, Inc.) for a total price of P128,765.00. He made an initial down payment of P24,797.00, leaving a balance of P103,968.00 to be paid in 36 monthly installments of P2,888.00, starting from April 19, 1982. The agreement included a discount for early payments and a penalty for late payments. Cabacungan executed a Deed of Chattel Mortgage to secure the vehicle, which was subsequently assigned to Filinvest.

From April 1982 to August 1983, Cabacungan made several payments, including excess payments totaling P2,208.48. However, he failed to pay the installments for June 1982 and February 1983, which he justified by requesting a recomputation of the interest due to his excess payments. ...

Facts:

1. Purchase of Vehicle and Financing Agreement

   • In March 1982, Dominador Cabacungan purchased a brand-new Isuzu KBD 26 pick-up vehicle on installment from B.M. Domingo Motor Sales, Inc. (BMD, Inc.) for P128,765.00.
   • He made a downpayment of P24,797.00 and agreed to pay the balance of P103,968.00 in 36 monthly installments of P2,888.00.
   • A Deed of Chattel Mortgage was executed, with the vehicle as security. BMD, Inc. later assigned its rights under the mortgage and promissory note to Filinvest Credit Corporation (now BPI Credit Corporation).

2. Payment History and Dispute

   • From April 1982 to August 1983, Cabacungan made several installment payments, some of which were in excess of the stipulated amount.
   • He failed to pay the installments for June 1982 and February 1983, explaining that he withheld payments to request a recomputation of interest charges.
   • Filinvest claimed Cabacungan was in arrears and demanded payment of overdue amortizations.

3. Seizure of the Vehicle

   • On September 13, 1983, Filinvest employees seized the vehicle from Cabacungan’s driver and helper without a court order or prior demand for surrender.
   • Cabacungan tendered a check for P7,555.00 to cover the overdue payments, but Filinvest refused to accept it and demanded full payment of the remaining balance.

4. Legal Proceedings

   • Cabacungan filed a complaint for replevin, alleging illegal seizure of the vehicle and seeking damages.
   • The trial court ruled in favor of Cabacungan, ordering Filinvest to return the amount paid (P44,914.00) and awarding moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
   • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Filinvest appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Whether the seizure of the vehicle by Filinvest was lawful.
2. Whether Cabacungan was in arrears in his payment obligations.
3. Whether damages were properly awarded to Cabacungan.
4. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case despite the alleged non-payment of docket fees for the amended complaint.
5. Whether the Deed of Chattel Mortgage is a contract of adhesion.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)