Scribd
Upload
569 views2 pages

Daguhoy Enterprises, Inc. vs. Ponce G.R. No. L-6515, October 18, 1954 96 Phil 15

Domingo Ponce and his wife Rita took out two loans from Daguhoy Enterprises, securing the loans with mortgages on a parcel of land. However, they failed to properly register the mortgages and instead took out another loan from RFC using the same land as collateral. When the majority shareholder of Daguhoy learned this, he sued to recover the amounts owed. The court ruled that by failing to register the mortgages as agreed, the Ponces lost the benefit of the repayment period in the contract and the full amount became immediately due. Even though the Ponces had deposited some funds with the court, they still owed interest until the full loan was repaid.

Uploaded by

Hope Trinity Enriquez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
569 views2 pages

Daguhoy Enterprises, Inc. vs. Ponce G.R. No. L-6515, October 18, 1954 96 Phil 15

Domingo Ponce and his wife Rita took out two loans from Daguhoy Enterprises, securing the loans with mortgages on a parcel of land. However, they failed to properly register the mortgages and instead took out another loan from RFC using the same land as collateral. When the majority shareholder of Daguhoy learned this, he sued to recover the amounts owed. The court ruled that by failing to register the mortgages as agreed, the Ponces lost the benefit of the repayment period in the contract and the full amount became immediately due. Even though the Ponces had deposited some funds with the court, they still owed interest until the full loan was repaid.

Uploaded by

Hope Trinity Enriquez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Daguhoy Enterprises, Inc. vs.

Ponce
G.R. No. L-6515, October 18, 1954
96 Phil 15

FACTS:

In the year 1950, defendant-appellant Domingo Ponce was chairman and manager and
his son Buhay M. Ponce was secretary-treasurer of the plaintiff corporation Daguhoy
Enterprises, Inc. On June 24, Rita L. Ponce, wife of Domingo, executed in favor of plaintiff
corporation a deed of mortgage over a parcel of land including the improvements thereon to
secure the payment of a loan of P5, 000 granted to her by said corporation, payable within six
years with interests at 12% per annum. On March 10, 1951, Rita L. Ponce with the consent of her
husband Domingo executed another mortgage deed amending the first one, whereby the loan was
increased from P5,000 to P6,190, the terms and conditions of the mortgage remaining the same.
Rita and Domingo presented the two mortgage deeds for registration in the office of the register
of deeds for registrations in the office of the register of deeds, but the said register advised the
two to cure the defects and furnish the necessary data. Instead of complying with the suggestion
and requirements, the two withdrew the two mortgage deeds and then mortgaged the same parcel
of land in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) to secure a loan.
Potenciano Gapol, the majority stockholder in the corporation, upon learning that the deeds of
mortgage were not registered and that they were withdrawn from the office of the register of
deeds and the land covered by the two deeds was again mortgaged to RFC, he filed a civil case
against the respondents, not only for the amount of the loan of P6,190 but for other sums,
possibly on the theory that the loan in question was granted by Domingo and Buhay as officers
of the corporation.

To account for the amount of the loan, Domingo and his son filed in court a check of
RFC in the amount of P6,190 and an interest of P266.10 in favor of the company. After that,
Gapol petitioned the court for permission to withdraw the amounts as payment of the loan. But
because the defendants opposed said petition, the court denied it. Gapol, agreeing to the
cancellation of the mortgage as soon as the amounts are withdrawn and deposited with the Bank
of America, in the name of the company, filed a second petition for withdrawal. However, the
defendants failed to agree, thus it was again denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sum in the form of an RFC check and some interest deposited in the
civil case may be withdrawn to satisfy the judgment and to pay the loan of P6,190 and part of the
interest due.

HELD:
Although the original loan of P5,000 including the increase of P1,190 was payable within
six years from June 1950 and so did not become due and payable until 1956, the trial court held
that under article 1198 of the Civil Code, the debtor lost the benefit of the period by reason of her
failure to give the security in the form of the two deeds of mortgage and register them, including
defendant’s act in withdrawing said two deeds from the office of the register of deeds and then
mortgaging the same property in favor of the RFC; and so the obligation became pure and
without any condition and consequently, the loan became due and immediately demandable.
Likewise, even if the defendants had already deposited a certain amount in favor of the
corporation, they are not yet relieved from the payment of interests from the time of the deposit
because the loan is not yet paid.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy