Scribd
Upload
160 views13 pages

OBLICON-Atty. Agualada

This case discusses a contract dispute between Leoncio Gabriel and Monte de Piedad. Gabriel was employed as a jewellery appraiser for Monte de Piedad from 1913 to 1933. In 1932, Gabriel executed a chattel mortgage to secure deficiencies from his erroneous appraisals amounting to P4,679.07. The lower court found the contract valid. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding consideration in Gabriel's pre-existing liability and that the contract was voluntarily executed and did not violate public policy or law.

Uploaded by

Johnson Yaplin
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
160 views13 pages

OBLICON-Atty. Agualada

This case discusses a contract dispute between Leoncio Gabriel and Monte de Piedad. Gabriel was employed as a jewellery appraiser for Monte de Piedad from 1913 to 1933. In 1932, Gabriel executed a chattel mortgage to secure deficiencies from his erroneous appraisals amounting to P4,679.07. The lower court found the contract valid. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding consideration in Gabriel's pre-existing liability and that the contract was voluntarily executed and did not violate public policy or law.

Uploaded by

Johnson Yaplin
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/ 13

Article 1306

Gabriel vs. Monte de Piedad 71


Phil.497
Facts: Petitioner Leoncio Gabriel
was employed as appraiser of
jewels in the pawnshop of Monte
Piedad defendant from 1913-1933
on December 13, 1932, he
executed a chattel mortgage to
secure
the part of deficiencies which
resulted from his erroneous
appraisal of jewels amounting to P
4,679.07 with interest and
promised to pay the appellee the
sum of P300 amount until the P
4,679.07
with interest is fully paid. And this
was registered to become the a fore
mentioned sum less what the
balance of P11,345.75 and in case
of default the Chattel Mortgage
was based upon all non existing
subtract matter as consideration
and C.M was null and void. The
lower court rendered judgment of
lower court. Hence, this petition
for review by certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not there was a
valid contract made?
Held: There is a valid contract in
this case. A contract is to be
judged by its characteristics and
courts will look to the substance.
In the case at bar, the object of
contract does not in anyway
militate against public good.
Neither does it contravene the
policy of law as interest of society.
There is sufficient consideration in
this contract. A pre-existing
admitted liability is a good
consideration for a promise. It
has satisfactorily established that it
was executed voluntarily by the
latter to guarantee the deficiencies
resulting from his erroneous
appraisals of the jewels. The
exception to this rule is where the
inadequacy by is gross as to
amount to fraud, oppression /of
undue
influence as when statutes requires
the consideration to be inadequate.
We are not convinced that the
instant case falls within the
exception. Therefore, the petition
is dismissed
Article 1306
Gabriel vs. Monte de Piedad 71
Phil.497
Facts: Petitioner Leoncio Gabriel
was employed as appraiser of
jewels in the pawnshop of Monte
Piedad defendant from 1913-1933
on December 13, 1932, he
executed a chattel mortgage to
secure
the part of deficiencies which
resulted from his erroneous
appraisal of jewels amounting to P
4,679.07 with interest and
promised to pay the appellee the
sum of P300 amount until the P
4,679.07
with interest is fully paid. And this
was registered to become the a fore
mentioned sum less what the
balance of P11,345.75 and in case
of default the Chattel Mortgage
was based upon all non existing
subtract matter as consideration
and C.M was null and void. The
lower court rendered judgment of
lower court. Hence, this petition
for review by certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not there was a
valid contract made?
Held: There is a valid contract in
this case. A contract is to be
judged by its characteristics and
courts will look to the substance.
In the case at bar, the object of
contract does not in anyway
militate against public good.
Neither does it contravene the
policy of law as interest of society.
There is sufficient consideration in
this contract. A pre-existing
admitted liability is a good
consideration for a promise. It
has satisfactorily established that it
was executed voluntarily by the
latter to guarantee the deficiencies
resulting from his erroneous
appraisals of the jewels. The
exception to this rule is where the
inadequacy by is gross as to
amount to fraud, oppression /of
undue
influence as when statutes requires
the consideration to be inadequate.
We are not convinced that the
instant case falls within the
exception. Therefore, the petition
is dismissed
Article 1306
Gabriel vs. Monte de Piedad 71
Phil.497
Facts: Petitioner Leoncio Gabriel
was employed as appraiser of
jewels in the pawnshop of Monte
Piedad defendant from 1913-1933
on December 13, 1932, he
executed a chattel mortgage to
secure
the part of deficiencies which
resulted from his erroneous
appraisal of jewels amounting to P
4,679.07 with interest and
promised to pay the appellee the
sum of P300 amount until the P
4,679.07
with interest is fully paid. And this
was registered to become the a fore
mentioned sum less what the
balance of P11,345.75 and in case
of default the Chattel Mortgage
was based upon all non existing
subtract matter as consideration
and C.M was null and void. The
lower court rendered judgment of
lower court. Hence, this petition
for review by certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not there was a
valid contract made?
Held: There is a valid contract in
this case. A contract is to be
judged by its characteristics and
courts will look to the substance.
In the case at bar, the object of
contract does not in anyway
militate against public good.
Neither does it contravene the
policy of law as interest of society.
There is sufficient consideration in
this contract. A pre-existing
admitted liability is a good
consideration for a promise. It
has satisfactorily established that it
was executed voluntarily by the
latter to guarantee the deficiencies
resulting from his erroneous
appraisals of the jewels. The
exception to this rule is where the
inadequacy by is gross as to
amount to fraud, oppression /of
undue
influence as when statutes requires
the consideration to be inadequate.
We are not convinced that the
instant case falls within the
exception. Therefore, the petition
is dismissed
Please study CONTRACTS
Written Case Digests to be submitted on May 7, 2010
Written take home exam to follow. (If Necessary)

1306 Gabriel vs. Monte de Piedad 71 Phil.497

1310 Garcia vs. Legarda 21 SCRA 555

1311 Araneta v. Montelibano 14 Phil 117

1315 Avelino Baluran vs. Ricardo Navarro and Antonio Obendencio GR


No. L-44428

1317 Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Orense 28 Phil 571

1318 Lim vs. Sun Life Insurance 41 Phil 263

1319 Montinola vs. Victorias Milling Co. 54 Phil 782

1324 Sanchez vs. Rigos 45 SCRA 368

1326 Leoquinco vs. Postal Savings Bank 47 Phil 670

1327 Hermosa vs.Zobel 104 Phil 769

1329 Miguel vs. Catalino 26 SCRA 234

1331 Dumasog vs. Modelo 34 Phil 252

1332 Hermedes vs. CA 316 SCRA 349

1338 Eguaras vs. Great Eastern Life Assurance Co. 33 Phil 263

1339 Strong vs. Gutierrez Repide 41 Phil 947

1340 Azzaraga vs. Gay 52 Phil 599

1341 Songco vs. Sellner 37 Phil 254

1342 Rural Bank of Caloocan City vs. CA 104 Phil 151

1344 Valdez vs. Sibal 46 Phil 930


1349 Osorio vs. Osorio 41 Phil 531

1351 Fisher vs. Rob 69 Phil 101

1355 Carrantes vs. CA 76 Phil 514

1390 Felipe vs. Heirs of Aldon 120 SCRA 514

1397 Ibanez vs. HSBC 22 Phil 572

1398 Dumasug vs. Modelo 34 Phil 252

1399 Uy Soo Lim vs. Tan Unchuan 38 Phil 552

1403 Luna vs. Linatoc 74 Phil 15

Atty. Jopito O. Agualada

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