Scribd
Upload
83 views3 pages

Radio Corp V Roa Case Digest

Radio Corp. v Roa involved a loan that Jesus R. Roa obtained and then Radio Corp. was assigned the rights to the loan. Roa sought and was granted an extension on the payment without the consent of the guarantors. The court ruled that under Article 1851 of the Civil Code, an extension granted to the debtor by the creditor without the consent of the guarantor extinguishes the guarantor's liability. Therefore, the extension granted to Roa without the consent of the guarantors discharged them from liability according to Articles 1851 and 1852 of the Civil Code.

Uploaded by

Zirk Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
83 views3 pages

Radio Corp V Roa Case Digest

Radio Corp. v Roa involved a loan that Jesus R. Roa obtained and then Radio Corp. was assigned the rights to the loan. Roa sought and was granted an extension on the payment without the consent of the guarantors. The court ruled that under Article 1851 of the Civil Code, an extension granted to the debtor by the creditor without the consent of the guarantor extinguishes the guarantor's liability. Therefore, the extension granted to Roa without the consent of the guarantors discharged them from liability according to Articles 1851 and 1852 of the Civil Code.

Uploaded by

Zirk Tan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Radio Corp.

v Roa

Facts:

Jesus R. Roa obtained a loan from the Philippine Theatrical Enterprises, Inc.,
in the
sum of P28,400 payable.

On that same date the Philippine Theatrical Enterprises, Inc., assigned all its
right and interest in that contract to the Radio Corporation of the Philippines.

Roa sought an extension in the payment of the loan from February to April which
Radio Corp approved.

When Roa failed to pay, a case was filed. The court ruled in favor of Radio Corp and
held Roa and his

sureties jointly and severally liable.

Issue:

whether or not the extension granted by Radio Corp, without the consent of
the guarantors,
the herein appellants, extinguishes the latter's liability to the whole amount of their
obligation.

Ruling:

Articles 1851 of the Civil Code reads as follows:

ART. 1851.
An extension grated to the debtor by the creditor, without the consent of the
guarantor,
extinguishes the latter's liability.

The stipulation in the contract says that upon failure to pay any installment
when due the other installments ipso facto become due and payable. Under
the express provision of the contract, the whole unpaid balance
automatically becomes due and payable upon failure to pay one
installment, the act of the plaintiff in extending the payment of the
installment without the consent of the guarantors, constituted an
extension of the payment of the whole amount of the indebtedness, as by
that extension the plaintiff could not have filed an action for the collection
of the whole amount until after April, 1932.

Therefore appellants' contention that after default of the payment of one


installment the act of the herein creditor in extending the time of payment
discharges them as guarantors in conformity with articles 1851 and 1852
of the Civil Code is correct.

Plaintiff's contention that the enforcement of the accelerating clause is potestative


on the part of the
obligee, and not self-executing, is clearly untenable from a simple reading of the
clause copied
above. What is potestative on the part of the obligee is the foreclosure of the
mortgage and not the
accelerating clause.

Plaintiff-appellee contends that there was no consideration for the extension


granted the principal
debtor. Article 1277 of the Civil Code provides that "even though the consideration
should be
expressed in the contract, it shall be presumed that a consideration exists and that
it is licit, unless
the debtor proves the contrary." It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that
there was no valid
consideration for the extension granted.

You might also like