Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 287 views

    Sps. Canlas v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    1) The petitioner Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell two parcels of land to Vicente Mañosca for 850,000 pesos, with 500,000 pesos payable within one week. Canlas delivered the titles to Mañosca. 2) Mañosca took out a 500,000 peso loan from Asian Savings Bank using the parcels of land as collateral. Impostors posing as Canlas assisted with the loan. 3) When the loan was not repaid, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage. Canlas informed the bank that he did not authorize the mortgage. However, the bank proceeded with an auction sale of the properties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps. Canlas v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    287 views2 pages
    1) The petitioner Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell two parcels of land to Vicente Mañosca for 850,000 pesos, with 500,000 pesos payable within one week. Canlas delivered the titles to Mañosca. 2) Mañosca took out a 500,000 peso loan from Asian Savings Bank using the parcels of land as collateral. Impostors posing as Canlas assisted with the loan. 3) When the loan was not repaid, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage. Canlas informed the bank that he did not authorize the mortgage. However, the bank proceeded with an auction sale of the properties.

    Original Description:

    Torts

    Original Title

    (046) Sps. Canlas v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell two parcels of land to Vicente Mañosca for 850,000 pesos, with 500,000 pesos payable within one week. Canlas delivered the titles to Mañosca. 2) Mañosca took out a 500,000 peso loan from Asian Savings Bank using the parcels of land as collateral. Impostors posing as Canlas assisted with the loan. 3) When the loan was not repaid, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage. Canlas informed the bank that he did not authorize the mortgage. However, the bank proceeded with an auction sale of the properties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    287 views2 pages

    Sps. Canlas v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Aaron Ariston
    1) The petitioner Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell two parcels of land to Vicente Mañosca for 850,000 pesos, with 500,000 pesos payable within one week. Canlas delivered the titles to Mañosca. 2) Mañosca took out a 500,000 peso loan from Asian Savings Bank using the parcels of land as collateral. Impostors posing as Canlas assisted with the loan. 3) When the loan was not repaid, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage. Canlas informed the bank that he did not authorize the mortgage. However, the bank proceeded with an auction sale of the properties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Sps. Canlas v.

    CA
    GR No. 112160
    Feb 28, 2000

    Purisima, J.:

    FACTS:
    Petitioner, Osmundo S. Canlas (Osmundo), and private respondent, Vicente Mañosca (Mañosca),
    decided to venture in business and to raise the capital needed therefor. The former then executed a
    Special Power of Attorney authorizing the latter to mortgage two parcels of land situated in San Dionisio,
    (BF Homes) Paranaque, Metro Manila, each lot with semi-concrete residential house existing thereon.

    Vicente Mañosca was able to mortgage the same parcels of land for P100,000.00 to a certain
    Attorney Manuel Magno (Magno), with the help of impostors who misrepresented themselves as the
    spouses, Osmundo Canlas and Angelina Canlas (Sps. Canlas). Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell the said
    parcels of land to Vicente Mañosca, for and in consideration of P850,000.00, P500,000.00 of which
    payable within one week, and the balance of P350,000.00 to serve as his (Osmundo's) investment in the
    business. Thus, Osmundo delivered to Mañosca the transfer certificates of title of the parcels of land
    involved.

    Mañosca, as his part of the transaction, issued two postdated checks in favor of Osmundo in the
    amounts of P40,000.00 and P460,000.00, respectively, but it turned out that the check covering the bigger
    amount was not sufficiently funded. Mañosca was granted a loan by the respondent Asian Savings Bank
    (ASB) in the amount of P500,000.00, with the use of subject parcels of land as security, and with the
    involvement of the same impostors who again introduced themselves as the Canlas spouses.

    When the loan it extended was not paid, respondent bank extrajudicially foreclosed the
    mortgage. Osmundo wrote a letter informing the respondent bank that the execution of subject mortgage
    over the two parcels of land in question was without their authority, and request that steps be taken to
    annul and/or revoke the questioned mortgage. petitioner Osmundo also wrote the office of Sheriff
    Maximo O. Contreras (Contreras). But respondents Contreras and Asian Savings Bank refused to heed
    petitioner Canlas' stance and proceeded with the scheduled auction sale.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the bank is liable

    HELD:
    Yes. Under the doctrine of last clear chance, which is applicable here, the respondent bank must
    suffer the resulting loss. In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where both
    parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the
    other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of
    the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so,
    is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent
    negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of
    the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.17

    Assuming that Osmundo Canlas was negligent in giving Vicente Mañosca the opportunity to
    perpetrate the fraud, by entrusting to latter the owner's copy of the transfer certificates of title of subject
    parcels of land, it cannot be denied that the bank had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud, by the
    simple expedient of faithfully complying with the requirements for banks to ascertain the identity of the
    persons transacting with them.

    For not observing the degree of diligence required of banking institutions, whose business is impressed
    with public interest, respondent Asian Savings Bank has to bear the loss sued upon.

    You might also like