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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Del Carmen v. Sabardo

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2014 regarding a land dispute over several lots in Mandaue City, Cebu. The key facts are that in 1961, spouses Toribio and Eufrocina Suico mortgaged several lots they owned, along with a lot owned by their business partner Juliana Del Rosario, to secure a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines. After failing to repay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the properties. In 1976, respondent Restituto Sabordo filed a case seeking a declaration that the Suico spouses had no right to recover two of the lots. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and that prior tender of payment was required before

    Copyright:

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

    Del Carmen v. Sabardo

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    37 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2014 regarding a land dispute over several lots in Mandaue City, Cebu. The key facts are that in 1961, spouses Toribio and Eufrocina Suico mortgaged several lots they owned, along with a lot owned by their business partner Juliana Del Rosario, to secure a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines. After failing to repay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the properties. In 1976, respondent Restituto Sabordo filed a case seeking a declaration that the Suico spouses had no right to recover two of the lots. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and that prior tender of payment was required before

    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 document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2014 regarding a land dispute over several lots in Mandaue City, Cebu. The key facts are that in 1961, spouses Toribio and Eufrocina Suico mortgaged several lots they owned, along with a lot owned by their business partner Juliana Del Rosario, to secure a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines. After failing to repay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the properties. In 1976, respondent Restituto Sabordo filed a case seeking a declaration that the Suico spouses had no right to recover two of the lots. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and that prior tender of payment was required before

    Copyright:

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

    Del Carmen v. Sabardo

    Uploaded by

    Ansai Claudine Calugan
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2014 regarding a land dispute over several lots in Mandaue City, Cebu. The key facts are that in 1961, spouses Toribio and Eufrocina Suico mortgaged several lots they owned, along with a lot owned by their business partner Juliana Del Rosario, to secure a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines. After failing to repay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the properties. In 1976, respondent Restituto Sabordo filed a case seeking a declaration that the Suico spouses had no right to recover two of the lots. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and that prior tender of payment was required before

    Copyright:

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

    Del Carmen v.

    Sabardo
    G.R. No. 181723. August 11, 2014
    PERALTA, J.:

    FACTS: Sometime in 1961, the spouses Toribio and Eufrocina Suico (Suico spouses), along
    with several business partners, entered into a business venture by establishing a rice and com
    mill at Mandaue City, Cebu. As part of their capital, they obtained a loan from the Development
    Bank of the Philippines (DBP), and to secure the said loan, four parcels of land owned by the
    Suico spouses, denominated as Lots 506, 512, 513 and 514, and another lot owned by their
    business partner, Juliana Del Rosario, were mortgaged. Subsequently, the Suico spouses and
    their business partners failed to pay their loan obligations forcing DBP to foreclose the mortgage.
    After the Suico spouses and their partners failed to redeem the foreclosed properties, DBP
    consolidated its ownership over the same. Nonetheless, DBP later allowed the Suico spouses and
    Reginald and Beatriz Flores (Flores spouses), as substitutes for Juliana Del Rosario, to
    repurchase the subject lots by way of a conditional sale for the sum of ₱240,571.00. The Suico
    and Flores spouses were able to pay the downpayment and the first monthly amortization, but no
    monthly installments were made thereafter. Threatened with the cancellation of the conditional
    sale, the Suico and Flores spouses sold their rights over the said properties to herein respondents
    Restituto and Mima Sabordo, subject to the condition that the latter shall pay the balance of the
    sale price. On September 3, 1974, respondents and the Suico and Flores spouses executed a
    supplemental agreement whereby they affirmed that what was actually sold to respondents were
    Lots 512 and 513, while Lots 506 and 514 were given to them as usufructuaries. DBP approved
    the sale of rights of the Suico and Flores spouses in favor of herein respondents. Subsequently,
    respondents were able to repurchase the foreclosed properties of the Suico and Flores spouses.
    On September 13, 1976, respondent Restituto Sabordo (Restituto) filed with the then Court of
    First Instance of Negros Occidental an original action for declaratory relief with damages and
    prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction raising the issue of whether or not the Suico spouses
    have the right to recover from respondents Lots 506 and 514.

    ISSUE: Whether the consignation which she and her co-heirs made was a judicial deposit based
    on a final judgment and, as such, does not require compliance with the requirements of Article
    1256 of the New Civil Code

    RULING: The petition lacks merit. Under Article 1256, the only instances where prior tender of
    payment is excused are: (1) when the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the
    place of payment; (2) when the creditor is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is
    due; (3) when, without just cause, the creditor refuses to give a receipt; (4) when two or more
    persons claim the same right to collect; and (5) when the title of the obligation has been lost.
    None of these instances are present in the instant case. Hence, the fact that the subject lots are in
    danger of being foreclosed does not excuse petitioner and her co-heirs from tendering payment to
    respondents, as directed by the court.

    You might also like