Case Digest (G.R. No. 34385)
Facts:
Alejandra Torres et al. v. Francisco Limjap, G.R. Nos. 34385 and 34386, September 21, 1931, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.On April 16, 1930, two actions were filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover possession of drug stores and to foreclose chattel mortgages executed by the deceased Jose B. Henson in favor of the plaintiffs. In G.R. No. 34385 the plaintiffs (including Alejandra Torres et al.) alleged that Henson executed a chattel mortgage (Exhibit A) on his drug store at Nos. 101–103 Calle Rosario (Farmacia Henson) to secure a loan of P7,000, although the instrument recited a loan of P20,000. In G.R. No. 34386 the plaintiffs (including Sabina Vergara Vda. de Torres et al. as heirs of Don Florentino Torres) alleged that Henson had executed a chattel mortgage on three drug stores to secure a loan originally for P50,000 later reduced to P26,000, with Henson’s Pharmacy at Nos. 71–73 Escolta remaining by agreement as the only security.
Both complaints charged default under the mortgages and sought possession and foreclosure. Upon plaintiffs’ petitions and after bonds were posted, the trial court ordered the sheriff of the City of Manila to take immediate possession of the drug stores. The defendant, Francisco Limjap, sued as special administrator of Henson’s estate and appellant here, answered both complaints with general denials, affirmative defenses that the mortgages were void for insufficient particularity in the description of the mortgaged chattels and that the goods seized were not those described, and counterclaimed for damages (P20,000 in No. 34385 and P100,000 in No. 34386).
By agreement the two cases were tried together. On July 17, 1930, Judge Mariano Albert found that the defendant had defaulted in payment of interest, that the mortgages had become due, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of Farmacia Henson (101–103 Calle Rosario) and Henson’s Pharmacy (71–73 Escolta); the sheriff’s deliveries to plaintiffs were confirmed and defendant was ordered to pay costs. Defendant appealed, assigning (1) lack of sufficient description of mortgaged chattels; (2) error in excluding evidence th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the special administrator estopped from contesting the validity of the chattel mortgages executed by the decedent?
- Are the chattel mortgages null and void for lack of sufficient particularity in the description of the mortgaged chattels?
- Is a stipulation in a chattel mortgage extending the mortgage to after-acquired or substituted goods enforceable as against the provision of the last paragraph of section 7 of Act No. 1508?
- Did the trial court err in failing to render an ex...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)