Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    INCHAUSTI & CO v. YULO G.R. No. L-7721

    Uploaded by

    Steven Casais
    The document discusses a case between Inchausti & Co. and Gregorio Yulo regarding a debt. Teodoro Yulo had borrowed money from Inchausti & Co. for his businesses. After his death, his children continued the business relationship and debt. Inchausti & Co. later tried to secure the debt through a mortgage signed by some but not all children. The case centers on whether Gregorio Yulo can claim the suit was premature given differences in maturity dates between signatories.

    Copyright:

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

    INCHAUSTI & CO v. YULO G.R. No. L-7721

    Uploaded by

    Steven Casais
    23 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case between Inchausti & Co. and Gregorio Yulo regarding a debt. Teodoro Yulo had borrowed money from Inchausti & Co. for his businesses. After his death, his children continued the business relationship and debt. Inchausti & Co. later tried to secure the debt through a mortgage signed by some but not all children. The case centers on whether Gregorio Yulo can claim the suit was premature given differences in maturity dates between signatories.

    Original Title

    49. INCHAUSTI & CO v. YULO G.R. No. L-7721

    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 document discusses a case between Inchausti & Co. and Gregorio Yulo regarding a debt. Teodoro Yulo had borrowed money from Inchausti & Co. for his businesses. After his death, his children continued the business relationship and debt. Inchausti & Co. later tried to secure the debt through a mortgage signed by some but not all children. The case centers on whether Gregorio Yulo can claim the suit was premature given differences in maturity dates between signatories.

    Copyright:

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

    INCHAUSTI & CO v. YULO G.R. No. L-7721

    Uploaded by

    Steven Casais
    The document discusses a case between Inchausti & Co. and Gregorio Yulo regarding a debt. Teodoro Yulo had borrowed money from Inchausti & Co. for his businesses. After his death, his children continued the business relationship and debt. Inchausti & Co. later tried to secure the debt through a mortgage signed by some but not all children. The case centers on whether Gregorio Yulo can claim the suit was premature given differences in maturity dates between signatories.

    Copyright:

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

    INCHAUSTI & Co.

    , plaintiff and appellant, vs. GREGORIO YULO, defendant and appellee.


    G.R. No. 7721. March 25, 1914.

    FACTS

    Teodoro Yulo, a property owner of Iloilo, for the exploitation and cultivation of his numer-
    ous haciendas in the province of Occidental Negros, had been borrowing money from the firm of
    Inchausti & Company under specific conditions. Teodoro Yulo died testate and for the execution
    of the provisions of his will, he had appointed as administrators his widow and five of his sons,
    Gregorio Yulo being one of the latter. Of these children Concepcion and Jose were minors, while
    Teodoro was mentally incompetent. At the death of their mother, Teodoro Yulo, his widow and
    children held the conjugal property in common and these children preserved the same relations
    under the name of Hijos de T. Yulo continuing their current account with Inchausti & Company
    in the best and most harmonious reciprocity until said balance amounted to P200, 000.00. In this
    state of affairs the creditor firm tried to obtain security for the payment of the disbursements of
    money which until that time it had been making in favor of its debtors, the Yulos.

    Of the nine children of T. Yulo, six executed the mortgage of August 12, 1909, namely, Grego-
    rio, Pedro, Francisco, Manuel, Carmen, and Concepcion, admitting a debt of P253,445.42 at 10%
    per annum and mortgaging six-ninths of their hereditary properties. Of those six children, Fran-
    cisco, Manuel and Carmen executed the instrument of May 12, 1911, wherein was obtained a re-
    duction of the capital to P225,000.00 and of the interest to 6% from the 15th of March of the
    same year of 1911.

    The other children of T. Yulo named Mariano, Teodoro, and Jose have not taken part in these in-
    struments and have not mortgaged their hereditary portions. By the first instrument the maturity
    of the first installment was June 30, 1910, whereas by the second instrument, Francisco, Manuel,
    and Carmen had in their favor as the maturity of the first installment of their debt, June 30, 1912.
    On March 27, 1911, an ordinary action was already filed against Gregorio Yulo for the payment
    of the said balance due of P253,445.42 with interest at 10% per annum, on that date aggregating
    P42,944.76, and judgment was pronounced on December 22, 1911, when the whole debt was
    not yet due nor even the first installment of the same respecting the three aforesaid debtors, Fran-
    cisco, Manuel, and Carmen.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not defense of the prematurity of the action, which is implied in the last special de-
    fense set up in the answer of the defendant Gregorio Yulo be made available to him in this pro-
    ceeding.

    RULING

    No, Gregorio Yulo cannot allege as a defense to the action that it is premature. When the suit
    was brought on March 27, 1911, the first installment of the obligation had already matured of
    June 30, 1910, and with the maturity of this installment, the first not having been paid, the whole
    debt had become mature, according to the express agreement of the parties, independently of the
    resolutory condition which gave the creditor the right to demand the immediate payment of the
    whole debt upon the expiration of the stipulated term of one week allowed to secure from Mari-
    ano Yulo the ratification and confirmation of the contract of August 12, 1909.

    Article 1148 of the Civil Code.—"The solidary debtor may utilize against the claims of the credi-
    tor all the defenses arising from the nature of the obligation and those which are personal to him.
    Those personally pertaining to the others may be employed by him only with regard to the share
    of the debt f or which the latter may be liable.”

    You might also like