Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6515)
Facts:
Daguhoy Enterprises, Inc. v. Rita L. Ponce, G.R. No. L-6515, October 18, 1954, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellee Daguhoy Enterprises, Inc., a Manila corporation, sued Rita L. Ponce and her husband Domingo Ponce (defendants-appellants) in the Court of First Instance (City Civil Case No. 15923) for collection of a loan of P6,190 with interest at 12% per annum (from June 24, 1950 as pleaded), plus P2,500 attorney’s fees and P34 litigation expenses. Defendants answered, admitted most allegations, raised affirmative defenses, and filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of the mortgage that secured the loan. They also sought to implead Potenciano Gapol as a third-party and filed a third-party complaint for damages; plaintiff opposed impleader.
The trial judge disposed of the case on the pleadings and on October 9, 1952 rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for P6,190 with interest (the court fixed the interest period as stated in its decision), attorney’s fees of P1,000, and P34 costs. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
The pleadings show that on June 24, 1950 Rita executed a mortgage in favor of the corporation to secure a P5,000 loan; on March 10, 1951, with her husband’s consent she executed an amended mortgage increasing the loan to P6,190. The mortgagors presented both deeds for registration, but the Register of Deeds noted defects; instead of curing them the Ponces withdrew the deeds and subsequently mortgaged the same property to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC). Domingo Ponce was then chairman-manager of the corporation and his son Buhay M. Ponce its secretary-treasurer; Potenciano Gapol was the majority stockholder and brought a separate suit (Civ. Case No. 13753) for accounting on behalf of the corporation. In that separate suit the RFC check for P6,190 plus interest (P266.10) was deposited in court, but petitions to withdraw those funds to apply them to the loan were denied because of defendants’ opposition in the accounting action.
The trial court held (and the Supreme Court reviewed) three principal points: (1) under Article 1198 of the New Civil Code the mortgagor’s failure to perfect the security and the withdrawal-and-remortgage conduct caused the debtor to lose the benefit of the period, rendering the obligation immediately demandable; (2) a shareholders’ resolution to dissolve the corporation did not extinguish the corporation’s capacity to sue because dissolution requires further steps and because Section 77 of the Corporation Law preserves existence for three years for winding up; and (3) the deposit made in Civil Case No. 13753 did not constitute pay...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Daguhoy Enterprises, Inc. lack legal capacity to sue because it was dissolved by a stockholders’ resolution (i.e., can the corporation maintain this action)?
- Did the borrowers’ failure to perfect and register the mortgages, and their withdrawal of the deeds followed by a mortgage to the RFC, cause loss of the benefit of the period so that the obligation became immediately demandable under Article 1198 of the New Civil Code?
- Did the deposit of the RFC check and interest in Civil Case No. 13753 constitute payment of the loan (thereby relie...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)