Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 309 views

    Spouses Paray Vs Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Talina Binondo
    This case discusses whether petitioners were authorized to refuse payment from respondents when auctioning pledged shares of stock after respondents failed to pay loans. The Supreme Court ruled yes since it was an extrajudicial sale by a notary public according to the Civil Code, not a judicial sale, so there was no right of redemption for personal property like shares.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Paray Vs Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Talina Binondo
    309 views1 page
    This case discusses whether petitioners were authorized to refuse payment from respondents when auctioning pledged shares of stock after respondents failed to pay loans. The Supreme Court ruled yes since it was an extrajudicial sale by a notary public according to the Civil Code, not a judicial sale, so there was no right of redemption for personal property like shares.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Spouses Paray vs Rodriguez

    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 discusses whether petitioners were authorized to refuse payment from respondents when auctioning pledged shares of stock after respondents failed to pay loans. The Supreme Court ruled yes since it was an extrajudicial sale by a notary public according to the Civil Code, not a judicial sale, so there was no right of redemption for personal property like shares.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    309 views1 page

    Spouses Paray Vs Rodriguez

    Uploaded by

    Talina Binondo
    This case discusses whether petitioners were authorized to refuse payment from respondents when auctioning pledged shares of stock after respondents failed to pay loans. The Supreme Court ruled yes since it was an extrajudicial sale by a notary public according to the Civil Code, not a judicial sale, so there was no right of redemption for personal property like shares.

    Copyright:

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

    SPOUSES PARAY vs RODRIGUEZ Case Digest

    Facts:
    Respondents were the owners, in their respective personal capacities, of shares of stock in a corporation known as the
    Quirino-Leonor-Rodriguez Realty Inc. Respondents secured by way of pledge of some of their shares of stock to petitioners
    Bonifacio and Faustina Paray (Parays) the payment of certain loan obligations.
    When the Parays attempted to foreclose the pledges on account of respondents failure to pay their loans,
    respondents filed complaints which sought the declaration of nullity of the pledge agreements.
    Respondents consign to RTC which they interpreted as redemption.
    Notwithstanding the consignations, the public auction took place as scheduled, with petitioner Vidal Espeleta successfully
    bidding the amount of P6,200,000.00 for all of the pledged shares.
    Issue:
    WON Petitioners were authorized to refuse as they did the tender of payment since theywere undertaking the auction sale
    pursuant to the final and executory decision in Civil Cases.
    Held:
    Yes. it must be clarified that the subject sale of pledged shares was an extrajudicial sale, specifically a notarial sale, as
    distinguished from a judicial sale as typified by an execution sale. Under the Civil Code, the foreclosure of a pledge occurs
    extrajudicially, without intervention by the courts. All the creditor needs to do, if the credit has not been satisfied in due time, is to
    proceed before a Notary Public to the sale of the thing pledged.
    In this case, petitioners attempted as early as 1980 to proceed extrajudicially with the sale of the pledged shares by public
    auction. However, extrajudicial sale was stayed with the filing of Civil Cases No. R-20120 and 20131, which sought to annul the
    pledge contracts. The final and executory judgment in those cases affirmed the pledge contracts and disposed. Since the
    pledged shares in this case are not subject to redemption, the Court of Appeals had no business invoking
    and applying the inexistent right of redemption. We cannot thus agree that the consigned payments should be
    treated with liberality, or somehow construed as having been made in the exercise of the right of redemption. We
    also must reject the appellate courts declaration that the buyer of at the public auction is not ipso facto
    rendered the owner of the auctioned shares, since the debtor enjoys the one-year redemptive period to redeem the property.
    Obviously, since there is no right to redeem personal property, the rights of ownership vested unto the purchaser at the
    foreclosure sale are not entangled in any suspensive condition that is implicit in a redemptive period.
    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the decision of the
    Cebu City RTC, Branch 16, dated 18 November 1992 is REINSTATED. Costs against respondents.

    You might also like