Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Oblicon

    Uploaded by

    202360027
    The document discusses a case involving a loan agreement between BPI Investment Corporation and ALS Management & Development Corporation. The main issue is whether a loan agreement is a consensual or real contract under Article 1934 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court ruled that a loan is a real contract perfected upon delivery of the object of the contract, which in this case was September 13, 1982 when the full loan amount was released to ALS Management.

    Copyright:

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

    Oblicon

    Uploaded by

    202360027
    5 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case involving a loan agreement between BPI Investment Corporation and ALS Management & Development Corporation. The main issue is whether a loan agreement is a consensual or real contract under Article 1934 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court ruled that a loan is a real contract perfected upon delivery of the object of the contract, which in this case was September 13, 1982 when the full loan amount was released to ALS Management.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case involving a loan agreement between BPI Investment Corporation and ALS Management & Development Corporation. The main issue is whether a loan agreement is a consensual or real contract under Article 1934 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court ruled that a loan is a real contract perfected upon delivery of the object of the contract, which in this case was September 13, 1982 when the full loan amount was released to ALS Management.

    Copyright:

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

    Oblicon

    Uploaded by

    202360027
    The document discusses a case involving a loan agreement between BPI Investment Corporation and ALS Management & Development Corporation. The main issue is whether a loan agreement is a consensual or real contract under Article 1934 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court ruled that a loan is a real contract perfected upon delivery of the object of the contract, which in this case was September 13, 1982 when the full loan amount was released to ALS Management.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE DIGEST FORMAT (WEBEARLS)

    FULL CASE TITLE BPI INVESTMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,


    vs.
    HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ALS MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT
    CORPORATION, respondents.
    SHORT CASE TITLE BPI V. CA – GR 133632 – Feb, 15, 2002
    PONENTE QUISUMBING, J
    MAIN ISSUE/S Article 1934 of the Civil Code,
    a simple loan is perfected upon the delivery of the object of the contract, hence a real
    contract.
    FACTS - MAIN STORY
    Frank Roa
    -secured loan from AIDC at 16 ¼% int per annum. This is for the construction of his
    house in Alabang and his house is the mortgage of the loan.
    - Roa sold the House & lot to private respondent ALS for P850,000 (350K assume &
    500K loan)
    But don’t want to extend the same int to ALS

    ALS
    -1981, executed a mortgage deed based on the stipulation specified by ROA on May
    1, 1981
    - Aug 13, 1982, they updated ROA’s payment to BPIIC
    - Sept 13, 1982, BPIIC released to private respondents ₱7,146.87, purporting to be
    what was left of their loan after full payment of Roa’s loan.

    BPIIC
    -In June 1984, BPIIC instituted foreclosure proceedings against private respondents
    on the ground that they failed to pay the mortgage indebtedness which from May 1,
    1981 to June 30, 1984,

    ALS
    -filed case w/ the ff contention, They alleged, among others, that they were not in
    arrears in their payment, but in fact made an overpayment as of June 30, 1984. They
    maintained that they should not be made to pay amortization before the actual
    release of the ₱500,000 loan in August and September 1982. Further, out of the
    ₱500,000 loan, only the total amount of ₱464,351.77 was released to private
    respondents. Hence, applying the effects of legal compensation, the balance of
    ₱35,648.23 should be applied to the initial monthly amortization for the loan.

    RULING OF THE
    Favor of ALS, rendering that the amortization schedule attached as Annex "A" to the "Deed
    LOWER COURT
    of Mortgage" is correspondingly reformed as aforestated. The Court further finds that ALS
    and Litonjua suffered compensable damages when BPI caused their publication in a
    newspaper of general circulation as defaulting debtors. The foreclosure suit (Civil Case No.
    11831) is hereby DISMISSED for being premature. Costs against BPI.

    RULING OF THE
    APPELLATE COURT Favor ALS, the Court of Appeals reasoned that a simple loan is perfected only upon the
    delivery of the object of the contract. The contract of loan between BPIIC and ALS & Litonjua
    was perfected only on September 13, 1982, the date when BPIIC released the purported
    balance of the ₱500,000 loan after deducting therefrom the value of Roa’s indebtedness.
    Evidence showed that private respondents had an overpayment, because as of June 1984,
    they already paid a total amount of ₱201,791.96. Therefore, there was no basis for BPIIC to
    extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage and cause the publication in newspapers concerning
    private respondents’ delinquency in the payment of their loan. This fact constituted
    sufficient ground for moral damages in favor of private respondents.

    RULING OF THE
    Whether or not a contract of loan is a consensual contract and is only perfected on
    SUPREME COURT
    September 13, 1982

    SC agreed w/ private respondent that a loan contract is not a consensual contract but a real
    contract. It is perfected only upon the delivery of the object of the contract. It is an accepted
    promise to deliver something by way of simple loan. In this case, even though the loan
    contract was signed on March 31, 1981, it was perfected only on September 13, 1982, when
    the full loan was released to private respondents. In reciprocal obligations, neither party
    incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner
    with what is incumbent upon him. Therefore, private respondents conclude, they did not
    incur in delay when they did not commence paying the monthly amortization on May 1, 1981,
    as it was only on September 13, 1982 when petitioner fully complied with its obligation under
    the loan contract.
    FULL TEXT CASE Full Text. Click Here.

    Notes By Fritz Cutie

    You might also like