Title
Palileo vs. Cosio
Case
G.R. No. L-7667
Decision Date
Nov 28, 1955
Plaintiff sought declaration of transaction as equitable mortgage; defendant claimed sale with repurchase. Court ruled mortgage, modified insurance proceeds' application, ordered refund.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-7667)

Procedural Background

The complaint was filed by Palileo, seeking a declaration of the transaction as a loan with an equitable mortgage. She requested that Cosio credit the sum received from an insurance payout to her outstanding obligation. Cosio countered that the agreement constituted a sale with an option to repurchase, arguing that the period for repurchase had lapsed. A trial was held, but Cosio failed to appear, leading to a ruling in favor of Palileo. Following the judgment, Cosio, through her new attorney, sought to have the decision set aside, claiming her prior counsel’s absence was due to excusable negligence.

Court’s Discretion on Reopening Proceedings

The principal issue for appeal was whether the lower court abused its discretion in refusing to reopen the trial for Cosio to present her evidence. The appellate court considered the justifications for the prior counsel’s failure, including an unexpected appointment that resulted in substantial workload and distraction, which were argued as grounds for excusable negligence. The court reiterated that the grant of a motion to set aside a judgment based on such grounds is within the discretion of the trial court and typically not disturbed unless a grave abuse of discretion is shown.

Findings on the Loan Agreement

The trial court concluded that the true nature of the transaction was an equitable mortgage intended to secure a loan of P12,000. The agreement included conditions for repayment, as well as collection of interest that exceeded legal limits. Palileo had paid P2,250 in interest over nine months, which was acknowledged as an overpayment according to the legal interest cap in such transactions.

Analysis of Insurance Proceeds

Upon review, the court addressed the issue of the insurance proceeds collected by Cosio in the amount of P13,107, asserting that the insurance policy was issued in her name and for her benefit, independent of Palileo. The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in ordering that the insurance proceeds be credited to Palileo for her obligation. The established rule holds that a mortgagee who insures the property for her own interest is entitled solely to the insurance proceeds, without the obligation to account for them against the mortgagor, thus preserving her claim under the mortgage.

Modifications to Lower Court’s Judgment

In light of these findings, the appellate court modified the lower court’s judgment: affirming that the transaction was an equitable mortgage, acknowledging that the insurance proceeds belonged entirely to Cosio and shoul

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.