Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Far East Marble V BPI

    Uploaded by

    Xyy Cariaga
    This case involved a complaint by the Bank of the Philippines Islands (BPI) to foreclose on a chattel mortgage against Far East Marble (Phils.), Inc. Far East argued that the claim had prescribed since more than 10 years had passed since the promissory notes matured. However, BPI argued that it had made repeated demands for payment within the 10-year period that were acknowledged by Far East. The Supreme Court ruled that BPI's complaint validly established a cause of action by alleging that BPI extended loans to Far East, the loans matured, and Far East failed to pay despite demands, making the circumstances of the loan and failure to pay the essential facts that needed to be pleaded

    Copyright:

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

    Far East Marble V BPI

    Uploaded by

    Xyy Cariaga
    15 views2 pages
    This case involved a complaint by the Bank of the Philippines Islands (BPI) to foreclose on a chattel mortgage against Far East Marble (Phils.), Inc. Far East argued that the claim had prescribed since more than 10 years had passed since the promissory notes matured. However, BPI argued that it had made repeated demands for payment within the 10-year period that were acknowledged by Far East. The Supreme Court ruled that BPI's complaint validly established a cause of action by alleging that BPI extended loans to Far East, the loans matured, and Far East failed to pay despite demands, making the circumstances of the loan and failure to pay the essential facts that needed to be pleaded

    Original Title

    Far East Marble v BPI

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a complaint by the Bank of the Philippines Islands (BPI) to foreclose on a chattel mortgage against Far East Marble (Phils.), Inc. Far East argued that the claim had prescribed since more than 10 years had passed since the promissory notes matured. However, BPI argued that it had made repeated demands for payment within the 10-year period that were acknowledged by Far East. The Supreme Court ruled that BPI's complaint validly established a cause of action by alleging that BPI extended loans to Far East, the loans matured, and Far East failed to pay despite demands, making the circumstances of the loan and failure to pay the essential facts that needed to be pleaded

    Copyright:

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

    Far East Marble V BPI

    Uploaded by

    Xyy Cariaga
    This case involved a complaint by the Bank of the Philippines Islands (BPI) to foreclose on a chattel mortgage against Far East Marble (Phils.), Inc. Far East argued that the claim had prescribed since more than 10 years had passed since the promissory notes matured. However, BPI argued that it had made repeated demands for payment within the 10-year period that were acknowledged by Far East. The Supreme Court ruled that BPI's complaint validly established a cause of action by alleging that BPI extended loans to Far East, the loans matured, and Far East failed to pay despite demands, making the circumstances of the loan and failure to pay the essential facts that needed to be pleaded

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    94093 August 10, 1993

    FAR EAST MARBLE (PHILS.), INC., LUIS R. TABUENA, JR. and RAMON A. TABUENA vs.
    HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    FACTS:
     Respondent Bank of the Philippines Islands (BPI) filed a complaint for foreclosure of chattel
    mortgage with replevin against petitioner Far East Marble (Phils.), Inc. (Far East), Ramon A.
    Tabuena and Luis R. Tabuena, Jr.
    The complaint pertinently alleged:

    xxxxxxx

    2. That on various dates and for valuable consideration, the defendant Far East
    received from Commercial Bank and Trust Company . . . now merged with and into the
    plaintiff bank . . . several loans evidenced by promissory notes executed by said Far East,
    photo copies of which are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as Annexes A, B
    and C.

     In its answer, Far East admitted the genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes
    involved in the case, but denied BPI's allegation that repeated demands for payment were made
    by BPI on it. Far East then raised the affirmative defenses of prescription and lack of cause of
    action, arguing that since the promissory notes matured in 1976 while BPI filed its action to
    foreclose the chattel mortgage only in 1987 (or more than 10 years from the time its cause of
    action accrued), and there being no demand for payment which would interrupt the period of
    prescription for instituting said action, BPI's claims have prescribed.
     BPI, however, countered that its allegation of repeated demands on Far East for payment
    sufficiently stated a cause of action; that within ten years from the time its cause of action accrued
    in 1976, it sent written extrajudicial demands on Far East requesting payment of its due and
    outstanding obligations; that within that 10-years period, it received written acknowledgments of
    debt from Far East.

    ISSUE: Whether or not there is a cause of action. (YES)

    RULING:

    Yes, there is a valid cause of action. Under the Rules of Court, " a complaint is a concise statement
    of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause or causes of action.

    "Ultimate facts" are the essential and substantial facts which either form the basis of the primary right
    and duty or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant, while "evidentiary
    facts" are those which tend to prove or establish said ultimate facts.A cause of action consists of three
    elements, namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant; and
    (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.

    These elements are manifest in BPI's complaint, particularly when it was therein alleged that: (1) for
    valuable consideration, BPI granted several loans, evidenced by promissory notes, and extended credit
    facilities in the form of trust receipts to Far East; (2) said promissory notes and trust receipts had
    matured; and (3) despite repeated requests and demands for payment thereof, Far East had failed and
    refused to pay.

    Clearly then, the general allegation of BPI that "despite repeated requests and demands for payment,
    Far East has failed to pay" is sufficient to establish BPI's cause of action.

    Thus, the circumstances of BPI extending loans and credits to Far East and the failure of the
    latter to pay and discharge the same upon maturity are the only ultimate facts which have to be
    pleaded.

    You might also like