BPI Investment v. CA

University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D
Topic CONTRACT TO LOAN

Case No. G.R. No. 133632 / February 2002
Case Name BPI INVESTMENT V. CA
Ponente QUISUMBING, j.
RELEVANT FACTS
1. Frank Roa obtained a loan at an interest rate of 16 1/4% per annum from Ayala Investment and
Development Corporation (AIDC), the predecessor of petitioner BPIIC, for the construction of a house on
his lot in New Alabang Village, Muntinlupa.
2. Said house and lot were mortgaged to AIDC to secure the loan.
3. Sometime in 1980, Roa sold the house and lot to private respondents ALS and Antonio
4. Litonjua for P850,000. (P350,000 in cash and assumed the P500,000 balance of Roa’s indebtedness with
AIDC).
5. The latter, however, was not willing to extend the old interest rate to private respondents and proposed
to grant them a new loan of P500,000 to be applied to Roa’s debt and secured by the same property, at
an interest rate of 20% per annum and service fee of 1% per annum on the outstanding principal
balance payable within ten years in equal monthly amortization of P9,996.58 and penalty
6. interest at the rate of 21% per annum per day from the date the amortization became due and payable.
7. March 1981 - private respondents executed a mortgage deed containing the above stipulations
8. with the provision that payment of the monthly amortization shall commence on May 1, 1981.
9. August 13, 1982- ALS and Litonjua updated Roa’s arrearages by paying BPIIC the sum of P190,601.35.
This reduced Roa’s principal balance to P457,204.90 which, in turn, was liquidated when BPIIC applied
thereto the proceeds of private respondents’ loan of P500,000.
10. September 13, 1982 - BPIIC released to private respondents P7,146.87, purporting to be what was left of
their loan after full payment of Roa’s loan.
11. 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, amounting to
P475,585.31.
12. A notice of sheriff ’s sale was published on August 13, 1984.

13. On February 28, 1985, ALS and Litonjua filed Civil Case alleging that
a. they were not in arrears in their payment, but in fact made an overpayment as of June 30, 1984.
b. they should not be made to pay amortization before the actual release of the P500,000 loan in
August and September 1982.
c. the P500,000 loan, only the total amount of P464,351.77 was released to private respondents.
14. TC ruled in favor of Respondents

15. CA affirmed the decision
CPE, 1-D
ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N a loan contract is a NO, it is a real contract
consensual contract
1. We agree with private respondents. 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.
Petitioner misapplied Bonnevie. The contract in Bonnevie

declared by this Court as a perfected consensual contract
falls under the first clause of Article 1934, Civil Code. Bonnevie is
an accepted promise to deliver something by way of simple
loan.
2. In the present case, the loan contract between BPI, on the one hand, and
ALS and Litonjua, on the other, was perfected only on September 13, 1982,
the date of the second release of the loan. Thus, private respondents’
obligation to pay commenced only on October 13, 1982, a month after the
perfection of the contract.
We also agree with private respondents that a contract of loan involves a

reciprocal obligation, wherein the obligation or promise of each party is the
consideration for that of the other.
It is a basic principle in reciprocal obligations that 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.
NOTE: for there to be perfection of a loan contract, there must be delivery of

the object
W/N Petitioner is liable for YES, but it was changed to nominal only
damages
(sub-issue) As admitted by private respondents themselves, they were irregular in their
payment of monthly amortization. Conformably with our ruling in SSS, we
cannot properly declare BPIIC in bad faith. Consequently, we should rule out
the award of moral and exemplary damages.
However, in our view, BPIIC was negligent in relying merely on the entries
found in the deed of mortgage, without checking and correspondingly
adjusting its records on the amount actually released to private respondents
and the date when it was released. Such negligence resulted in damage to
private respondents, for which an award of nominal damages
CPE, 1-D
RULING
WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 28, 1997, of the Court of Appeals and its resolution dated April 21,
1998, are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the award of damages. The award of moral and exemplary
damages in favor of private respondents is DELETED, but the award to them of attorney’s fees in the amount of
P50,000 is UPHELD. Additionally, petitioner is ORDERED
to pay private respondents P25,000 as nominal damages. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

BPI Investment v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPI Investment v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPI Investment v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic CONTRACT TO LOAN

12. A notice of sheriff ’s sale was published on August 13, 1984.

14. TC ruled in favor of Respondents

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Petitioner misapplied Bonnevie. The contract in Bonnevie

We also agree with private respondents that a contract of loan involves a

It is a basic principle in reciprocal obligations that neither party incurs in

NOTE: for there to be perfection of a loan contract, there must be delivery of

You might also like