7/26/2019 Digestcredit1-7

1/7

Digest

People v. Concepcion

G.R. No. 19190 (November 29, 1922)

FACTS: Defendant authorized an extension of credit in favor of Concepcion, a co-

partnership. Defendants wife was a director of this co-partnership. Defendant was found guilty of

violating Sec. 3 of !ct "o. #$%$ which says that &'he "ational (an) shall not, directly or indirectly,

grant loans to any of the *e*+ers of the (oard of Directors of the +an) nor to agents of the +ranch

+an)s. 'his Section was in effect in +ut was repealed in !ct "o. #3/ approved on 0anuary

31, #.

ISSU:

2" Defendant can +e convicted of violating Sections of !ct "o. #$%$, which were repealed

+y !ct "o. #3/.

!"#$

4n the interpretation and construction, the pri*ary rule is to ascertain and give effect to the

intention of the 5egislature. Section % in relation to Sec. # of !ct "o. #$%$ provides a punish*ent

for any person who shall violate any provisions of the !ct. Defendant contends that the repeal of

these Sections +y !ct "o. #3/ has served to ta)e away +asis for cri*inal prosecution. 'he Court

holds that where an act of the 5egislature which penalizes an offense repeals a for*er act which

penalized the sa*e offense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter depriving

the Courts of 6urisdiction to try, convict and sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law.

HERRERA vs PETROPHIL CORP.

[G.R. No. L-48349, December 29, 98!"CR#$, %.

&ACT'(

On December 5, 1969, Herrera and ESSO Standard, (later substituted by Petrophil Corp,! entered into a

lease a"reement, #hereby the $ormer leased to the latter a portion o$ his property $or a period o$ %&yrs

sub'ect to the condition that monthly rentals should be paid and there should be an adance payment o$

rentals $or the $irst ei"ht years o$ the contract, to #hich ESSO paid on December )1, 1969 Ho#eer,

ESSO deducted the amount o$ 1&1, &1&*) as interest or discount $or the ei"ht years adance rental

On +u"ust %&, 19*&, ESSO in$ormed Herrera that there had been a mistae in the computation o$ the

interest and paid an additional sum o$ %,1-%*&. thus, it #as reduced to 9-, -%-&)

+s such, Herrera sued ESSO $or the sum o$ 9-, -%-&), #ith interest, claimin" that this had been

ille"ally deducted to him in iolation o$ the /sury 0a#

7/26/2019 Digestcredit1-7

2/7

ESSO ar"ued that amount deducted #as not usurious interest but rather a discount "ien to it $or payin"

the rentals in adance ud"ment on the pleadin"s #as rendered in $aor o$ ESSO 2hus, the matter #as

eleated to the SC $or only 3uestions o$ la# #as inole

I''#E4 7 the contract bet#een the parties is one o$ loan or lease

R#LING4

Contract bet#een the parties is one o$ lease and not o$ loan 8t is clearly denominated a 0E+SE

+:;EE

7/26/2019 Digestcredit1-7

3/7

accepted and approved the loan application sub%ect to so#e conditions &hich Saura

ad#itted it could not co#pl" &ith. 'ithout havin$ received the a#ount bein$ loaned

and sensin$ that it could not at an"&a" obtain the full a#ount of loan Saura Inc. then

as!ed for cancellation of the #ort$a$e &hich RFC also approved. ine "ears after the

cancellation of the #ort$a$e Saura sued RFC for da#a$es for its non*fulfill#ent of

obli$ations ar$uin$ that there &as indeed a perfected consensual contract bet&eenthe#.

Issue: 'as there a perfected consensual contract+

'as there a real contract of loan &hich &ould &arrant recover" of da#a$es arisin$ out

of breach of such contract+

,eld: -n the first issue "es there &as indeed a perfected consensual contract as

reco$nied in /rticle 0123 of the Civil Code. 4here &as undoubtedl" offer and

acceptance in this case: the application of Saura Inc. for a loan of P5. &as

approved b" resolution of the defendant and the correspondin$ #ort$a$e &as

eecuted and re$istered. But this fact alone falls short of resolvin$ the second issue and

the basic clai# that the defendant failed to fulfill its obli$ation and the plaintiff is

therefore entitled to recover da#a$es. 4he action thus ta!en b" both parties6Saura7s

re8uest for cancellation and RFC7s subse8uent approval of such cancellation6&as in the

nature of #utual desistance 6 &hat 9anresa ter#s #utuo disenso6 &hich is a #ode

of etin$uishin$ obli$ations. It is a concept derived fro# the principle that since #utual

a$ree#ent can create a contract #utual disa$ree#ent b" the parties can cause its

etin$uish#ent. In vie& of such etin$uish#ent said perfected consensual contract to

deliver did not constitute a real contract of loan.

Credit 'ransactions Case Digest: (74

4nvest*ent Corp 8. C! 9#11#

G.R. No. 133632 ;e+ruary , #11#

5essons !pplica+le: Si*ple 5oan

5aws !pplica+le:

;acts:

;ran) annu* fro* !yala 4nvest*ent and

Develop*ent Corporation 9!4DC, the predecessor of (74 4nvest*ent Corp. 9(744C, for the

construction of a house on his lot in "ew !la+ang 8illage, ?untinlupa.

@e *ortgaged the house and lot to !4DC as security for the loan.

http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2012/07/jurisprudence-gr-no-133632.htmlhttp://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2012/07/jurisprudence-gr-no-133632.html

7/26/2019 Digestcredit1-7

4/7

/1: annu* on the outstanding +alance paya+le within 1 yearsthrough eual *onthly a*ortization of 7,=./ and penalty interest of #>annu*day fro*

the date the a*ortization +eco*es due and paya+le.

?arch /: !5S and 5iton6ua executed a *ortgage deed containing the new stipulation with

the provision that the *onthly a*ortization will co**ence on ?ay , /

!ugust 3, /#: !5S and 5iton6ua paid (744C 71,=1.3 reducing the 711B principal

loan to 7%$,#1%.1.

Septe*+er 3, /#: (744C released to !5S and 5iton6ua 7$,%=./$, purporting to +e what

was left of their loan after full pay*ent of

7/26/2019 Digestcredit1-7

5/7

i reci$roca" o("igatios that either $art& icurs i %e"a&) i! the other %oes ot

co'$"& or is ot rea%& to co'$"& i a $ro$er 'aer #ith #hat is icu'(et u$o

hi'. 5oseuet"&) $etitioer cou"% o"& %e'a% !or the $a&'et o! the 'oth"&

a'orti;atio a!ter Se$te'(er 13) 1*+2 !or it #as o"& the #he it co'$"ie% #ith its

o("igatio u%er the "oa cotract. BPII5 #as eg"iget i re"&ig 'ere"& o the etries !ou% i the %ee% o!

'ortgage) #ithout chec annual interest paya+le win 3 yrs. !n advance

interest was deducted fr the partial release +ut this prededucted interest was refunded to

'olentino after +eing infor*ed that there was no fund yet for the release of the 7=3B

+alance.

?onetary (oard of Central (an), after finding that +an) was suffering liuidity pro+le*s,

prohi+ited the +an) fr *a)ing new loans and invest*ents. !nd after the +an) failed to

restore its solvency, the Central (an) prohi+ited 4sland Savings (an) fro* doing +usiness

in the 7hilippines. 4sland Savings (an) in view of the non-pay*ent of the 7$B filed an

7/26/2019 Digestcredit1-7

6/7

application for foreclosure of the real estate *ortgage. 'olentino filed petition for specific

perfor*ance or rescission and da*ages with preli*inary in6unction, alleging that since the

+an) failed to deliver 7=3B, he is entitled to specific perfor*ance and if not, to rescind the

real estate *ortgage.

4ssues: 2hether or not 'olentinos can collect fro* the +an) for da*ages

# 2hether or not the *ortgagor is lia+le to pay the a*ount covered +y the

pro*issory note

3 2hether or not the real estate *ortgage can +e foreclosed

!el%$

2hether or not 'olentinos can collect fro* the +an) for da*ages

'he loan agree*ent i*plied reciprocal o+ligations. 2hen one party is willing and ready to

perfor*, the other party not ready nor willing incurs in delay. 2hen 'olentino executed real

estate *ortgage, he signified willingness to pay. 'hat ti*e, the +an)s o+ligation to furnish

the 7/1B loan accrued. "ow, the Central (an) resolution *ade it i*possi+le for the +an) to

furnish the 7=3B +alance. 'he prohi+ition on the +an) to *a)e new loans is irrelevant +ec it

did not prohi+it the +an) fr releasing the +alance of loans previously contracted. 4nsolvency

of de+tor is not an excuse for non-fulfill*ent of o+ligation +ut is a +reach of contract.

'he +an)s as)ing for advance interest for the loan is i*proper considering that the total

loan hasnt +een released. ! person cant +e charged interest for nonexisting de+t. 'he

alleged discovery +y the +an) of overvaluation of the loan collateral is not an issue. 'he

+an) officials should have +een *ore responsi+le and the +an) +ears ris) in case the

collateral turned out to +e overvalued. ;urther*ore, this was not raised in the pleadings so

this issue cant +e raised. 'he +an) was in default and 'olentino *ay choose +et specificperfor*ance or rescission w da*ages in either case. (ut considering that the +an) is now

prohi+ited fr doing +usiness, specific perfor*ance cannot +e granted.

7/26/2019 Digestcredit1-7

7/7

'he pro*issory note gave rise to Sulpicio ?. 'olentinos reciprocal o+ligation to pay the

7$,111.11 loan when it falls due. @is failure to pay the overdue a*ortizations under the

pro*issory note *ade hi* a party in default, hence not entitled to rescission 9!rticle of

the Civil Code. 4f there is a right to rescind the pro*issory note, it shall +elong to the

aggrieved party, that is, 4sland Savings (an). 4f 'olentino had not signed a pro*issory note

setting the date for pay*ent of 7$,111.11 within 3 years, he would +e entitled to as) for

rescission of the entire loan +ecause he cannot possi+ly +e in default as there was no date

for hi* to perfor* his reciprocal o+ligation to pay. Since +oth parties were in default in the

perfor*ance of their respective reciprocal o+ligations, that is, 4sland Savings (an) failed to

co*ply with its o+ligation to furnish the entire loan and Sulpicio ?. 'olentino failed to co*ply

with his o+ligation to pay his 7$,111.11 de+t within 3 years as stipulated, they are +oth

lia+le for da*ages.

3 2hether or not the real estate *ortgage can +e foreclosed

Since 4sland Savings (an) failed to furnish the 7=3,111.11 +alance of the 7/1,111.11

loan, the real estate *ortgage of Sulpicio ?. 'olentino +eca*e unenforcea+le to such

extent. 7=3,111.11 is $/.$> of 7/1,111.11, hence the real estate *ortgage covering 11

hectares is unenforcea+le to the extent of $/.$ hectares. 'he *ortgage covering the

re*ainder of #.# hectares su+sists as a security for the 7$,111.11 de+t. #.# hectares

is *ore than sufficient to secure a 7$,111.11 de+t.