Title
Spouses Agner vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 182963
Decision Date
Jun 3, 2013
A couple fails to pay their auto loan installments, leading to a legal battle with the bank that results in the Supreme Court affirming the lower courts' decisions, including the reduction of the interest rate imposed on the couple.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 182963)

Facts:

  • On February 15, 2001, Spouses Deo Agner and Maricon Agner signed a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage in favor of Citimotors, Inc.
  • They agreed to pay Php834,768.00 in monthly installments of Php17,391.00.
  • The loan was secured by a 2001 Mitsubishi Adventure Super Sport with a 6% monthly interest rate for late payments.
  • Citimotors, Inc. transferred its rights to ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc. on the same day.
  • On May 31, 2002, ABN AMRO assigned these rights to BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (BPI).
  • The Agners missed four consecutive installments from May 15, 2002, to August 15, 2002.
  • On August 29, 2002, BPI sent a demand letter declaring the entire amount due, totaling Php576,664.04, or demanded the surrender of the vehicle.
  • The Agners did not comply, prompting BPI to file an action for Replevin and Damages on October 4, 2002, in the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC).
  • The RTC ruled in favor of BPI, ordering the Agners to pay Php576,664.04 plus 72% annual interest from August 20, 2002, until fully paid.
  • The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision, leading to the Agners' petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that BPI has a cause of action.
  2. The Agners are considered in default even without proof of receiving the demand letter.
  3. BPI's action...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. The Supreme Court held that the issue regarding the Deed of Assignment is factual and not appropriate for a petition for review under Rule 45. The trial court and the CA had already evaluated this, and the Supreme Court does not re-assess evidence reviewed by lower courts.
  2. The Court found that BPI made both verbal and written demands. Even if a demand letter was not sent, the Agners had waived the necessity of notice or demand in the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage. The Court cited the Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, which upheld the legality of waiving demand. Additionally, sending the demand letter suffices as valid notice under the Promissory Note terms.
  3. The C...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.