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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 786 views

    Mobil Oil Philippines Inc V Diocares

    Uploaded by

    Haze Q.
    Mobil Oil Philippines extended a loan to Diocares conditioned on Diocares purchasing a minimum amount of petroleum from Mobil Oil each month. Diocares defaulted on loan repayments and purchases. Mobil Oil sued to collect the outstanding loan balance or foreclose on the mortgaged properties used to secure the loan. The lower court ruled the mortgage was unenforceable because it was not registered. However, the Supreme Court held that an unregistered mortgage is still binding between the parties that created it according to the Civil Code. Therefore, Mobil Oil could foreclose on the properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Mobil Oil Philippines Inc V Diocares

    Uploaded by

    Haze Q.
    786 views2 pages
    Mobil Oil Philippines extended a loan to Diocares conditioned on Diocares purchasing a minimum amount of petroleum from Mobil Oil each month. Diocares defaulted on loan repayments and purchases. Mobil Oil sued to collect the outstanding loan balance or foreclose on the mortgaged properties used to secure the loan. The lower court ruled the mortgage was unenforceable because it was not registered. However, the Supreme Court held that an unregistered mortgage is still binding between the parties that created it according to the Civil Code. Therefore, Mobil Oil could foreclose on the properties.

    Original Title

    Mobil-Oil-Philippines-Inc-v-Diocares.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mobil Oil Philippines extended a loan to Diocares conditioned on Diocares purchasing a minimum amount of petroleum from Mobil Oil each month. Diocares defaulted on loan repayments and purchases. Mobil Oil sued to collect the outstanding loan balance or foreclose on the mortgaged properties used to secure the loan. The lower court ruled the mortgage was unenforceable because it was not registered. However, the Supreme Court held that an unregistered mortgage is still binding between the parties that created it according to the Civil Code. Therefore, Mobil Oil could foreclose on the properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Mobil Oil Philippines Inc V Diocares

    Uploaded by

    Haze Q.
    Mobil Oil Philippines extended a loan to Diocares conditioned on Diocares purchasing a minimum amount of petroleum from Mobil Oil each month. Diocares defaulted on loan repayments and purchases. Mobil Oil sued to collect the outstanding loan balance or foreclose on the mortgaged properties used to secure the loan. The lower court ruled the mortgage was unenforceable because it was not registered. However, the Supreme Court held that an unregistered mortgage is still binding between the parties that created it according to the Civil Code. Therefore, Mobil Oil could foreclose on the properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. v.

    Diocares (Fernando, 1969)


    [See doctrine underlined below]
    In February 1965, Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. (Mobil Oil) extended a PhP 45 000
    loan to Ruth Diocares and Lope Diocares (Diocares) in a condition that Diocares
    would buy on cash basis from Mobil Oil a minimum of 50 000 liters of petroleum
    per month.
    o Payment of the loan would be in monthly installments of PhP 950 per
    month for a period of five years.
    o As security, Diocares executed a mortgage on two parcels of land.
    o In case of non-payment of any installment or/and non-performance of the
    condition (to buy petroleum), Mobil Oil had the right to foreclose.
    Diocares defaulted when the third installment was due.
    o Only PhP 1900 was paid, leaving a balance of PhP 43 000.
    o Diocares also failed to buy the minimum amount of petroleum per month.
    Mobil Oil filed a complaint and prayed that they be paid PhP 43 000 with interest
    or, in default of payment, they be allowed to sell the mortgaged properties.
    o Defense: There was no refusal of payment. They only sought for an
    extension of time.
    LC: The loan agreement created a personal obligation but it did not establish a
    real estate mortgage because the mortgage was not registered. Hence,
    foreclosure cannot be ordered by the LC.
    Issue/Held: W/N the mortgage contract, although unregistered, is binding between the
    same parties who created it. Yes.
    Ratio:
    1. Article 21251 is clear and explicit. Even if the instrument were not recorded, the
    mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties. As between them, the
    mere fact that there is as yet no compliance with the requirement that it be
    recorded cannot be a bar to foreclosure.
    2. To hold otherwise would defeat the clear codal provision that the mortgage
    subsists despite lack of registration insofar as the parties thereto are concerned,
    and that the mortgagor is still liable thereon. Furthermore, while the law says that
    registration is indispensable in order that the mortgage be validly constituted,
    yet, what is indispensable may be dispensed with.

    Dispositive: GRANTED.

    Case brief by Pepe General

    1 Article 2125: In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is indispensable, in order that a mortgage may be validly
    constituted, that the document in which it appears be recorded in the Registry of Property. If the instrument is not recorded, the
    mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties.

    You might also like