1. LAWIN Bus Co. took out loans from Advance Capital Corp. totaling P10.8M secured by chattel mortgages over buses. LAWIN failed to pay and renewed the loans.
2. LAWIN proposed transferring ownership of two buses to Advance Capital in exchange for extinguishing the debt, which Advance Capital rejected.
3. The Court affirmed there was no "dacion en pago" or transfer of ownership in satisfaction of debt, as the parties did not agree the buses' value equaled the debt. Ownership remained with LAWIN.
4. The Court ordered LAWIN to pay Advance Capital over P16M for the loan amounts plus interest and attorney's fees
1. LAWIN Bus Co. took out loans from Advance Capital Corp. totaling P10.8M secured by chattel mortgages over buses. LAWIN failed to pay and renewed the loans.
2. LAWIN proposed transferring ownership of two buses to Advance Capital in exchange for extinguishing the debt, which Advance Capital rejected.
3. The Court affirmed there was no "dacion en pago" or transfer of ownership in satisfaction of debt, as the parties did not agree the buses' value equaled the debt. Ownership remained with LAWIN.
4. The Court ordered LAWIN to pay Advance Capital over P16M for the loan amounts plus interest and attorney's fees
1. LAWIN Bus Co. took out loans from Advance Capital Corp. totaling P10.8M secured by chattel mortgages over buses. LAWIN failed to pay and renewed the loans.
2. LAWIN proposed transferring ownership of two buses to Advance Capital in exchange for extinguishing the debt, which Advance Capital rejected.
3. The Court affirmed there was no "dacion en pago" or transfer of ownership in satisfaction of debt, as the parties did not agree the buses' value equaled the debt. Ownership remained with LAWIN.
4. The Court ordered LAWIN to pay Advance Capital over P16M for the loan amounts plus interest and attorney's fees
1. LAWIN Bus Co. took out loans from Advance Capital Corp. totaling P10.8M secured by chattel mortgages over buses. LAWIN failed to pay and renewed the loans.
2. LAWIN proposed transferring ownership of two buses to Advance Capital in exchange for extinguishing the debt, which Advance Capital rejected.
3. The Court affirmed there was no "dacion en pago" or transfer of ownership in satisfaction of debt, as the parties did not agree the buses' value equaled the debt. Ownership remained with LAWIN.
4. The Court ordered LAWIN to pay Advance Capital over P16M for the loan amounts plus interest and attorney's fees
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
Oblicon * They further failed to pay 2 more promissory notes, hence prompting a debt
Dacion en pago restructuring for two months
3. Succeeding failures on the part of LAWIN to pay off their debts prompted the plaintiff to foreclose the mortgaged buses PH Lawin Bus, Co. v CA * after this, demand letters were sent to LAWIN to pay their obligations but G.R No. 130972 they still did not comply January 23, 2002 Pardo, J. ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO WN there was dacion en pago between the parties upon the transfer of the mortgaged Summary of THE CASE and the FACTS relevant to the case: buses —NO General Doctrine or what it says about the topic: Court refused to review the case, stating that it is not a trier of facts. They state that PROVISIONS APPLICABLE: the issue raised is factual. ● Art. 1245 Nonetheless, they agree with the CA that no dacion en pago took place. Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a In dacion en pago: debt in money, shall be governed by the law of sales 1. property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money ○ Digested Provision 2. It is the “delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing by the debtor to the ■ This article defines dation in payment as the alienation creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of the obligation” of property in lieu of a debt in money 3. Obligation is extinguished to the extent of the value of the thing delivered ■ It is alienated in favour of the creditor a. As agreed upon by the parties OR ■ Provision is governed by the law on sales b. May be proved by the parties’ conduct that they consider the thing as ○ Interpretation of the Court of the provision equivalent to the obligation ■ Jurisprudence on provision/Courts application Art. 1245 of the CC states that the law on sales governs the agreement of dacion en ■ Additional insights by court pago. A contract of sale is perfected at the moment that there is a meeting of the minds ■ Difference to other rulings etc. (If applicable) upon the objects of the contract and its price. In this case, there is no meeting of the minds between the parties on whether the Full FACTS: loan of the petitioners would be extinguished by dacion en pago. Case is a petition assailing the CA decision of sentencing the petitioner to be jointly and solidarity liable to Advance Capitol Corporation (ACC) Proof used for the existence of dacion en pago: mere testimony of Tan that he proposed to extinguish obligation by the surrender of 1. ACC extended to LAWIN a loan for P8M, payable within a year the buses * to guarantee this loan, the following were executed: The receipts show that the two buses were delivered to respondent in order that it a. Deed of chattel mortgage over 9 buses would take custody for the purpose of selling the same. The receipts themselves in b. Joint and several undertaking with Master Tours and Travel Corp fact show that petitioners deemed respondent as their agent in the sale of the two c. Joint and several undertaking with the Tans vehicles whereby the proceeds thereof would be applied in payment of petitioners’ 2. Out of the P8M, P1.8M was paid and LAWIN was able to avail additional P2M indebtedness to respondent. Such an agreement loan negates transfer of absolute ownership over the property to respondent, as in a sale. * they failed to pay this and thus renewed it to become due in the future (Feb. 1991) Ruling on the topic: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals MODIFICATION as follows: with WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendants- appellees to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-appellant Advance Capital Corp. the following amounts: (1) P16,484,994.42, the principal obligation under the two promissory notes plus 12% per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid; (2) P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees; (3) Costs of suit.
Law School Survival Guide (Volume I of II) - Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales: Law School Survival Guides