Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Corpus V Alikpala and Acme Marketing

    Uploaded by

    Jean-François Delacroix
    The Supreme Court considered two cases simultaneously regarding a dispute over a compromise agreement for payment of an unpaid real estate mortgage. The agreement required installment payments by a certain date, but a postdated check was dishonored, prompting the plaintiff to seek full execution. While the defendant argued an error led to the missed check, the Court affirmed execution, finding the agreement clear and no room for discretion. It held the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the appeal contesting execution. The ruling emphasized that failing to fulfill terms like advance interest payments can result in forfeiture of periods granted in a compromise agreement under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

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

    Corpus V Alikpala and Acme Marketing

    Uploaded by

    Jean-François Delacroix
    45 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court considered two cases simultaneously regarding a dispute over a compromise agreement for payment of an unpaid real estate mortgage. The agreement required installment payments by a certain date, but a postdated check was dishonored, prompting the plaintiff to seek full execution. While the defendant argued an error led to the missed check, the Court affirmed execution, finding the agreement clear and no room for discretion. It held the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the appeal contesting execution. The ruling emphasized that failing to fulfill terms like advance interest payments can result in forfeiture of periods granted in a compromise agreement under the Civil Code.

    Original Title

    4. Corpus v Alikpala and Acme Marketing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court considered two cases simultaneously regarding a dispute over a compromise agreement for payment of an unpaid real estate mortgage. The agreement required installment payments by a certain date, but a postdated check was dishonored, prompting the plaintiff to seek full execution. While the defendant argued an error led to the missed check, the Court affirmed execution, finding the agreement clear and no room for discretion. It held the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the appeal contesting execution. The ruling emphasized that failing to fulfill terms like advance interest payments can result in forfeiture of periods granted in a compromise agreement under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

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

    Corpus V Alikpala and Acme Marketing

    Uploaded by

    Jean-François Delacroix
    The Supreme Court considered two cases simultaneously regarding a dispute over a compromise agreement for payment of an unpaid real estate mortgage. The agreement required installment payments by a certain date, but a postdated check was dishonored, prompting the plaintiff to seek full execution. While the defendant argued an error led to the missed check, the Court affirmed execution, finding the agreement clear and no room for discretion. It held the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the appeal contesting execution. The ruling emphasized that failing to fulfill terms like advance interest payments can result in forfeiture of periods granted in a compromise agreement under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

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

    JOSE A. V.

    CORPUS, petitioner,
    vs.
    HON. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, as Presiding Judge of Branch XXII, Court of First Instance
    of Manila and ACME MANUFACTURING, CO., INC., respondents.

    FACTS

    In the case filed by Jose A. V. Corpus for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage
    against Acme Steel Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Civil Case No. 56047), a judgment was reached
    through a compromise agreement on May 26, 1964. This agreement outlined specific terms for
    the payment of the unpaid balance of the "Maria Dolores Building," now known as the "Nestor
    de Castro Building." The agreed amount was P100,000.00, payable by Acme Steel
    Manufacturing Co., Inc. by December 15, 1965, with detailed conditions for interest payments.
    However, a dispute arose when the second of two postdated checks issued by the defendant,
    amounting to P6,000.00, was dishonored for insufficient funds. Plaintiff Corpus, citing the
    missed payment, moved for execution of the entire balance. The trial court ordered the
    execution, leading to an appeal by the defendant.

    During the legal proceedings, the defendant argued that an oversight and mathematical
    error led to the dishonor of the postdated check and offered to rectify the situation. The trial
    court allowed the appeal, prompting the plaintiff to file a petition seeking nullification of the
    appeal and enforcement of the writ. The central procedural issue revolves around whether the
    order of execution is appealable or if the court retains discretion to be exercised. The defendant
    relies on a precedent (Cotton vs. Almeda-Lopez) to assert that the trial court could exercise
    discretion before executing the order, emphasizing an inadvertent error in issuing checks.
    However, the plaintiff contends that the terms of the compromise agreement are clear and
    definite, leaving no room for judicial determination regarding execution. The case is currently
    before the Supreme Court, with the appeal (case No. L-23720) and the petition for nullification
    of the appeal (case No. L-23707) simultaneously considered.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the trial court retains discretion in executing the order, considering the
    defendant's contention of an oversight and mathematical error that resulted in the dishonor of a
    postdated check.

    RULING

    The Supreme Court affirmed the order of execution in case L-23720, emphasizing that
    the dishonor of the postdated check, constituting an advance payment of interest, resulted in the
    forfeiture of the period given to pay the principal under Article 1198 of the Civil Code. The Court
    rejected the argument that the acceptance of the check novated the compromise, asserting that
    it was issued to comply with the compromise terms. Additionally, the Court held that the trial
    court did not err in issuing the execution order, but it gravely abused its discretion in allowing the
    appeal from the same order in case L-23707, granting the writs prayed for in the petition. Costs
    were imposed against Acme Steel Manufacturing Co., Inc.

    DOCTRINE

    The failure to fulfill a specific undertaking in a compromise agreement, such as the


    advance payment of interest, may lead to the forfeiture of the period granted for fulfilling the
    principal obligation, as outlined in Article 1198, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

    You might also like