Title
Price vs. Yu Chengco
Case
G.R. No. 40766
Decision Date
Aug 29, 1934
An appeal is made by defendants in a case involving the mortgage of a vessel, arguing that they were not given notice and that the order was void, but the Supreme Court affirms the trial court's decision, stating that the lack of notice is a technical error and cannot be a ground for revoking the order.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 40766)

Facts:

  • The case involves an appeal by defendants Enrique T. Yu Chengco and The Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
  • The defendants argue that they were not given notice and that the order was void.
  • The case revolves around the administration and mortgage of the vessel Y. Sontua.
  • The vessel Y. Sontua was mortgaged by its owner, Yu Biao Sontua y Cia., to Enrique T. Yu Chengco for P50,000.
  • Yu Biao Sontua y Cia. later mortgaged the vessel again to W. S. Price for the same amount, with the consent of Yu Chengco.
  • Price filed a complaint against Yu Biao Sontua y Cia. and others, seeking the attachment of the vessel due to the debtor's failure to comply with the mortgage conditions.
  • Price filed a bond of P100,000 to answer for the prosecution of the action, return of the property, and payment of any sums recovered against him.
  • Yu Chengco assigned his mortgage rights to Pelagio Yu Singco, who was later substituted as plaintiff in place of Price.
  • This assignment was not recorded in the case record.
  • Price also assigned his rights as a first mortgage creditor to Yu Singco.
  • The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Yu Singco and ordered the payment of certain sums by Yu Biao Sontua y Cia.
  • The vessel Y. Sontua was administered by Price and Yu Singco during the case.
  • Price filed a motion to be relieved from liability and for the cancellation of his bond, stating that Yu Singco continued to administer the vessel and had purchased all his rights and responsibilities.
  • Yu Singco rendered an accounting of his administration, showing a profit.
  • The court granted Price's motion and canceled his bond.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court, finding ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. The failure to serve notice of a motion upon a defendant, whose rights have been transferred to the plaintiff without recording the tra...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.