Case Digest (G.R. No. 149926) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Spouses Deo Agner and Maricon Agner v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., petitioners Deo and Maricon Agner executed on February 15, 2001 a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage in favor of Citimotors, Inc. for a loan of ₱834,768.00, payable in monthly installments of ₱17,391.00 on the 15th of each month, secured by a 2001 Mitsubishi Adventure Super Sport and bearing a 6% per‐month penalty interest for overdue installments. Citimotors assigned its rights to ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc., which in turn assigned to respondent BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. on May 31, 2002. After petitioners failed to pay four consecutive installments from May 15 to August 15, 2002, BPI sent a demand letter on August 29, 2002 declaring the entire obligation of ₱576,664.04 due and demandable and demanding either full payment or surrender of the vehicle. Petitioners did not respond, so on October 4, 2002 BPI filed a Replevin and Damages action in the Manila Regional Trial Court, which issued a writ of re Case Digest (G.R. No. 149926) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Execution of Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage
- On February 15, 2001, petitioners spouses Deo and Maricon Agner executed a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage in favor of Citimotors, Inc. for ₱834,768.00.
- Terms included monthly installments of ₱17,391.00 due every 15th, secured by a 2001 Mitsubishi Adventure Super Sport, and a 6% monthly interest on late payments.
- Assignment of the Note
- On the same day, Citimotors, Inc. assigned all rights, title, and interest in the note to ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc.
- ABN AMRO, on May 31, 2002, further assigned the note to BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (respondent).
- Default and Demand
- Petitioners failed to pay four successive installments from May 15 to August 15, 2002.
- Respondent sent a demand letter dated August 29, 2002, declaring the entire obligation due (₱576,664.04) and demanding immediate payment or surrender of the vehicle.
- Replevin Action and Trial Court Decision
- On October 4, 2002, respondent filed an action for replevin and damages; a writ of replevin was issued but the vehicle was not seized.
- On August 11, 2005, the Manila RTC Branch 33 ordered petitioners to pay ₱576,664.04 plus 72% per annum interest from August 20, 2002, and costs of suit.
- Court of Appeals
- Petitioners appealed; the CA, in its April 30, 2007 Decision, affirmed the RTC decision and denied reconsideration on May 19, 2008.
- Petitioners thereafter filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Cause of Action and Deed of Assignment
- Whether respondent has a valid cause of action given that the Deed of Assignment did not specifically mention ABN AMRO’s account receivable from petitioners.
- Default and Proof of Demand
- Whether petitioners can be deemed to have defaulted in payment without competent proof that they received the demand letter.
- Concurrent Remedies and Article 1484
- Whether respondent’s resort to both replevin and collection of sum of money violates Article 1484 of the Civil Code and the ruling in Elisco Tool Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)