Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Macapinlac vs. Gutierrez Repide Jose C. Macapinlac, vs. Francisco Gutierrez Repide, Et Al. G.R. No. 18574 September 20, 1922

    Uploaded by

    Joanna May G C
    The case involved a loan from the plaintiff to Lichauco & Company, Inc. To secure part of the loan, Faustino Lichauco and his wife executed a mortgage on their property. They agreed that if the loan was not repaid, the mortgage would also cover costs, expenses, and 5% attorney's fees. Lichauco & Company and the spouses later ratified the mortgage. The issue was whether the spouses' obligation lacked consideration since it guaranteed the company's debt. The court ruled that the mortgage was valid as an accessory to the principal loan contract, and could not be avoided for lack of consideration even though it secured the debt of a third party.

    Copyright:

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

    Macapinlac vs. Gutierrez Repide Jose C. Macapinlac, vs. Francisco Gutierrez Repide, Et Al. G.R. No. 18574 September 20, 1922

    Uploaded by

    Joanna May G C
    80 views2 pages
    The case involved a loan from the plaintiff to Lichauco & Company, Inc. To secure part of the loan, Faustino Lichauco and his wife executed a mortgage on their property. They agreed that if the loan was not repaid, the mortgage would also cover costs, expenses, and 5% attorney's fees. Lichauco & Company and the spouses later ratified the mortgage. The issue was whether the spouses' obligation lacked consideration since it guaranteed the company's debt. The court ruled that the mortgage was valid as an accessory to the principal loan contract, and could not be avoided for lack of consideration even though it secured the debt of a third party.

    Original Title

    27-28

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a loan from the plaintiff to Lichauco & Company, Inc. To secure part of the loan, Faustino Lichauco and his wife executed a mortgage on their property. They agreed that if the loan was not repaid, the mortgage would also cover costs, expenses, and 5% attorney's fees. Lichauco & Company and the spouses later ratified the mortgage. The issue was whether the spouses' obligation lacked consideration since it guaranteed the company's debt. The court ruled that the mortgage was valid as an accessory to the principal loan contract, and could not be avoided for lack of consideration even though it secured the debt of a third party.

    Copyright:

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

    Macapinlac vs. Gutierrez Repide Jose C. Macapinlac, vs. Francisco Gutierrez Repide, Et Al. G.R. No. 18574 September 20, 1922

    Uploaded by

    Joanna May G C
    The case involved a loan from the plaintiff to Lichauco & Company, Inc. To secure part of the loan, Faustino Lichauco and his wife executed a mortgage on their property. They agreed that if the loan was not repaid, the mortgage would also cover costs, expenses, and 5% attorney's fees. Lichauco & Company and the spouses later ratified the mortgage. The issue was whether the spouses' obligation lacked consideration since it guaranteed the company's debt. The court ruled that the mortgage was valid as an accessory to the principal loan contract, and could not be avoided for lack of consideration even though it secured the debt of a third party.

    Copyright:

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

    27. Macapinlac vs.

    Gutierrez Repide

    JOSE C. MACAPINLAC, 
    vs.
    FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE, ET AL.
    G.R. No. 18574           September 20, 1922

    FACTS:

    The case was instituted for the purpose of declaring plaintiff as owner of a real estate property and to
    nullify the Torrens title, which was in respondent’s name. Plaintiff also wanted to recover possession
    over the property with damages. Plaintiff acquired a loan to Bachrach Garage & Taxicab and executed
    fourteen promissory notes. As security or guaranty of payment, plaintiff executed a deed of sale with a
    right to repurchase. More than a year later, respondent acquired all the rights of Bachrach over the
    properties. Be it noted that during the conveyance of rights, Repide knew of the purpose of the transfer
    of title – to secure the debt owing to Bachrach by the plaintiff. He also knew that the debt had been paid
    and that only a half of the debt existed. Afterwards, Repide caused for the transfer of title into his name
    by making it appear that the purported sale was true. During those times, respondent Repide was in
    actual possession of the property and was enjoying its fruits. Plaintiff filed a case to recover possession
    in which the Court of First Instance decided in favour of respondent. Due to this, plaintiff filed for a
    review of the case.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the contract was a sale de retro or a mortgage.

    RULING:

    The court held that since the conveyance was executed to secure a debt, it should follow that in equity,
    said conveyance must be treated as a security or substantially as a mortgage. This decision was
    supported by the case of Cuyugan vs Santos wherein it was held that where a contract of sale with pacto
    de retro is executed as security for a debt owing from the grantor to the grantee, such conveyance must
    be treated in equity substantially as a mortgage, that is, as creating a mere equitable charge in favor of
    the creditor or person named as purchaser therein; and the fact that the conveyance was executed for
    this purpose may be shown by oral evidence apart from the instrument of conveyance.
    28. China Banking vs. Lichauco

    CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, in substitution of Filipinas Compania de Seguros vs.


    FAUSTINO LICHAUCO ET AL
    G.R. No. 22001, [November 4, 1924], 46 PHIL 460-463)

    FACTS:

    Lichauco & Company, Inc., owed the plaintiff a large sum by way of loan. Faustino Lichauco and his
    wife executed a document in favor of the plaintiff whereby they secured with a mortgage upon the
    property the payment of a part of the loan. It was agreed that in case of non-fulfillment of the contract,
    this mortgage would stand as security also for the payment of all the costs of the suit and expenses of
    any kind, including attorney's fees, which by way of liquidated damages are fixed at 5 per cent of the
    principal. It is stated lastly in this document that if spouses Lichauco should fail to pay this amount of
    P50,000, the mortgage shall be in full force and effect. Lichauco & Co., Inc., and the spouses
    Lichauco executed another document in which, among other things, they ratified the former mortgage
    and stated that the payment of the P50,000 shall continue to be secured in the same manner and with
    the same property, and shall earn interest at 12 per cent per year.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the obligation of the SPS. Lichauco lacked consideration because what they guaranteed with
    this mortgage was a debt of Lichauco & Co., Inc.

    RULING:

    No, it does not lack consideration. The consideration of a mortgage, which is an accessory contract, is
    that of the principal contract, from which it receives its life, and without which it cannot exist as an
    independent contract, even if the obligation thereby secured is of a third person, and therefore it will be
    valid, if the principal one is valid, and cannot be avoided on the ground of lack of consideration.

    You might also like