Navoa vs. CA

OLIVIA M. NAVOA and ERNESTO NAVOA, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, TERESITA DOMDOMA and

EDUARDO DOMDOMA, respondents.
G.R. No. 59255. December 29, 1995.
MATERIAL FACTS:
1. On Feb 1977, plaintiff Teresita got acquainted with defendant Olivia in the jewelry business. Terisita
sold jewelries to the latter worth 120,000. On August 1977 terisita sold for defendant jewelries worth no
less than 20,000 pesos. On June and July of 1977 defendant olivia on two occasions asked for a loan
from Terisita for the purpose of investing it which were secured by personal checks and promised
terisita to ½ of the profit to be realized.
2. Causes of action :
A. On August – one diamond ring valued at 15,000 and thereafter issued a security for the said ring.
That the condition of the issuance of the check was—if the ring is not returned within fifteen (15) days
from August 15, 1977, the ring is considered sold, that after fifteen days, plaintiff Teresita asked
defendant Olivia if she could deposit the check, and the answer of defendant Olivia was —hold it for
sometime until I tell you to deposit the same, that the check was held until the month of November,
1977, and when deposited, it was dishonored for lack of sufficient funds.
B. On August 25, 1977 – Teresita extended a loan in the amount of 10,000 pesos which is secured by a
check. this loan was extended upon representation of defendant Olivia that she needed money to pay
for jewelries which she can resell for a big profit. that having established her goodwill, by reason of the
transaction giving her share of the profit hereof, the loan was extended by plaintiff; But when it was
deposited it was dishonored.
C. On August 27 – Plaintiff extended a loan of 5,000 secured by a check and still for the purpose already
mentioned.
D. On August 30 – Extended again a loan of 5,000 to olivia secured by a check for the purpose
mentioned
E. September 15- Extended a loan in the amount of 10,000 which was secured by a check – PCI bank.It
was dishonered when it was deposited
F. September 27 – 10,000
G. That plaintiff, by reason of the two transactions in par. “5” hereof, reposed trust and confidence on
defendant Olivia, however, by virtue of these trust and confidence, she availed of the same in securing
the loans aforementioned by misrepresentations, and as a direct consequence thereof, the loans have
not as yet been settled up to now, for which plaintiff Teresita suffered sleepless nights, mental torture
and wounded feelings, for the reason that the money used in said transactions do all belong to her, that
this situation is further aggravated by the malicious act of defendant Olivia,
ISSUE:
The question now is whether petitioners committed an act or omission constituting a violation of the
right of private respondents.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
All the loans granted to petitioners are secured by corresponding checks dated a month after each loan
was obtained. In this regard, the term security is defined as a means of ensuring the enforcement of an
obligation or of protecting some interest in property. It may be personal, as when an individual becomes
a surety or a guarantor; or a property security, as when a mortgage, pledge, charge, lien, or other device
is used to have property held, out of which the person to be made secure can be compensated for loss.
Security is something to answer for as a promissory note. That is why a secured creditor is one who
holds a security from his debtor for payment of a debt. From the allegations in the complaint there is no
other fair inference than that the loans were payable one month after they were contracted and the
checks issued by petitioners were drawn to answer for their debts to private respondents.
Art. 1169 of the Civil Code is explicit— those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from
the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation.
Petitioners failed to make good the checks on their due dates for the payment of their obligations.
Hence, private respondents filed the action with the trial court precisely to compel petitioners to pay
their due and demandable obligations.

Navoa vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navoa vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Navoa vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OLIVIA M. NAVOA and ERNESTO NAVOA, petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, TERESITA DOMDOMA and

You might also like