Case Digest (G.R. No. 42091)
Facts:
Gonzalo Chua Guan v. Samahang Magsasaka, Inc., G.R. No. 42091, November 02, 1935, the Supreme Court, Butte, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellant, Gonzalo Chua Guan, sued Samahang Magsasaka, Inc. and its officers (Simplicio Ocampo, Adriano G. Sotto, and Emilio Vergara) in an action for a writ of mandamus. The case was an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija denying the requested mandamus; the appeal brought the case to the Supreme Court.The operative facts are these. On June 18, 1931, Gonzalo H. Co Toco, a resident of Manila, mortgaged 5,894 shares of Samahang Magsasaka, Inc. (represented by nine certificates, par P5 per share) to Chua Chiu to secure a P20,000 debt; the certificates were delivered to Chua Chiu. The chattel mortgage was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila (recorded June 23, 1931) and later noted in the corporation’s books (September 30, 1931). On November 28, 1931, Chua Chiu assigned his mortgage to the appellant; the assignment was recorded in the Register of Deeds (December 28, 1931) and in the corporation’s office (January 4, 1932).
After the debtor defaulted, the appellant foreclosed; the sheriff auctioned the 5,894 shares on December 22, 1932, and the appellant was the highest bidder, receiving a certificate of sale. The appellant then tendered the original certificates to the corporate officers and demanded cancellation and issuance of new certificates in his name; the officers refused. The corporate defendants answered that their refusal rested upon nine writs of attachment that had been served on the corporation and noted on its books prior to the appellant’s demand; eight of those attachments were noted before the corporation received notice from the mortgagee Chua Chiu of the mortgage dated June 18, 1931. Neither the validity of the mortgage nor of the attachments was disputed. The single contested legal question was whether the mortgage, as registered in the Register of Deeds of Manila, gave constructive notice to the attaching creditors and thus took priority over the attachments.
The Court of First Instance rul...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the registration of the chattel mortgage of the shares in the Register of Deeds of Manila give constructive notice to the attaching creditors such that the mortgage takes priority over the attachments noted on the corpor...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)