Case Digest (G.R. No. 45141)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 45141)
Facts:
Amparo Joven de Cortes & Noel J. Cortes (Jesus Noel) v. Mary E. Venturanza, etc., Jose Oledan & Erlinda M. Oledan, G.R. No. L-26058, October 28, 1977, First Division, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.The action began in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan as Civil Case No. 2693. The original plaintiffs were Felix Cortes y Ochoa and Noel J. Cortes; the original defendants were Gregorio Venturanza, Mary E. Venturanza, Jose Oledan and Erlinda M. Oledan. After Gregorio Venturanza's death (substituted by his surviving spouse and children) and the later death of Felix Cortes y Ochoa (case caption changed to reflect surviving plaintiff Amparo Joven de Cortes), the dispute proceeded to trial on a complaint for foreclosure of a purchase-money mortgage over 33 parcels of land.
The complaint alleged that on October 24, 1958 the plaintiffs sold the 33 parcels to the defendants for P716,573.90 with an agreed down payment schedule (P100,000 at signing; P40,000 on January 1, 1959) and a remaining balance of P576,573.90 payable jointly and severally within three years from January 1, 1959 at 6% interest; a purchase-money mortgage secured the obligation. Plaintiffs alleged defendants defaulted after the maturity date and sought foreclosure, interest and attorney’s fees (stipulated at P50,000). Defendants Venturanza admitted ownership but contended the balance was not yet due because payment was to depend on proceeds from the sale/expropriation of their haciendas; they also alleged a novation of terms. Defendants Oledan denied liability in full and asserted that by an agreement dated December 28, 1959 they transferred their interest to the Venturanzas who assumed the obligation, hence novation extinguished Oledans’ liability; they counterclaimed against the Venturanzas for unpaid amounts under that agreement.
The trial court (Court of First Instance) found the defendants indebted in the amount of P576,573.90 with interest at 6% and ordered foreclosure; it also held that the Oledans’ agreement with the Venturanzas did not bind plaintiffs because creditor consent was lacking but that the Venturanzas, having assumed the obligation, were liable to reimburse the Oledans on the latter’s cross-claim. After motions for reconsideration and amendment, the trial court re-amended its dispositive to direct defendants to pay the principal with stipulated interest from January 1, 1959, foreclosure in default, and ordered the Venturanzas to reimburse the Oledans.
Dissatisfied, the defendants (Venturanzas and Oledans) appealed directly to this Court. The appeal raised primarily three issues: whether the complaint was prematurely filed because the obligation was not yet due; whether the contract’s three-year payment term was conditional on the sale of the Venturanzas’ haciendas (and thus novated); and whether the Oledans’ transfer to the Venturanzas effected a novation extinguishing Oledans’ liability.
Issues:
- Was the complaint filed prematurely because the defendants’ obligation had not yet become due and demandable when plaintiffs filed suit on December 12, 1962?
- Did the payment obligation under the Deed of Sale with Purchase Money Mortgage become dependent on the consummation of the Venturanzas’ sales of their haciendas (constituting a novation or extension)?
- Did the December 28, 1959 sale by the Oledans to the Venturanzas, with alleged knowledge/consent of the plaintiffs, constitute a novation by substitution of debtor that extinguished the Oledans’ obligation?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)