Professional Documents
Culture Documents
118375 October 3, perfected only upon the delivery of the Appeals, 193 SCRA 198 [1991] citing validity in the absence of a full, clear and
2003 object of the contract. Raneses vs. IAC, 187 SCRA 397 [1990] convincing evidence to overcome such
and Remalante vs. Tibe, 158 SCRA 138 presumption (Favor vs. Court of Appeals,
CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT, petitioner, It is an accepted promise to deliver [1988]). 194 SCRA 308 [1991] citing Antonio vs.
vs. something by way of simple loan. Estrella, 156 SCRA 68 [1987]). Merely
COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA 3. ID.; ID.; RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE; A preponderant evidence may not destroy
QUEAÑO, respondents. PUBLIC DOCUMENT. — A residence such presumption because strong
G.R. No. 96770. March 30, certificate, being a receipt prescribed by evidence is required to prove a defect of
1993. the government to be issued upon a public instrument.
The mere issuance of the checks did not
receipt of money for public purposes
result in the perfection of the contract of HERMENEGILDO AGDEPPA (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, G.R. No. 85909 February 9, 1993
loan. For the Civil Code provides that the (substituted by his heirs Vol. 6, 1980 ed., p. 101), is a public
delivery of bills of exchange and MAGDALENA S. AGDEPPA, document. TERESITA C. GERALES, CESAR DELA
mercantile documents such as checks EMMANUEL S. AGDEPPA, NELIA A.
shall produce the effect of payment only FUENTE, MARCELA GOLDING, MARIA
UNISA, MARILYN A. LEONES, 4. ID.; ID.; PROOF OF DOCUMENTS; VERGARA and PERLITO
when they have been cashed. It is only EVANGELINE A. PIMENTEL, EDWIN S. CONTENTS OF RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE, TRIGERO, petitioners,
after the checks have produced the AGDEPPA EDNA A. AGDEPPA EDNA A. HOW PROVED. — As such, presentation vs.
effect of payment that the contract of ABELLA, JOCELYN A. VICUNA, MA. of the same document would suffice to HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE E.
loan may be deemed perfected. Art. THERESA S. AGDEPPA and VIVIANNE prove its contents. As part of the public PIMENTEL and LETICIA FIDELDIA,
1934 of the Civil Code provides: S. AGDEPPA, petitioners, vs. record, it may also be proved by the respondents.
EMILIANO IBE (substituted by her presentation of a copy attested by the
"An accepted promise to deliver husband FRUCTUOSO IBE and officer having legal custody of the
A notarized instrument is admissible in
something by way of commodatum or children LOLITA and CESAR IBE), duplicates (Sec. 25, Rule 132, Rules of evidence without further proof of its due
simple loan is binding upon the parties, BENJAMIN IBE and FERDINAND IBE, Court) if, as in this case, a certified copy execution and is conclusive as to the
but the commodatum or simple loan respondents. of the residence certificate itself cannot truthfulness of its contents, although not
itself shall not be perfected until the be presented. Exhibit F, upon which the absolute but rebuttable by clear and convincing
delivery of the object of the contract." Cabio and Rabanes Law Offices for trial court relied in nullifying the evidence to the contrary (Baranda v. Baranda,
petitioners. questioned documents, is, as correctly 150 SCRA 59 [1987], citing Antillon v. Barcelon,
A loan contract is a real contract, not pointed out by the Court of Appeals, 37 Phil. 148 [1917] and Mendezona v. Phil
Public Attorney's Office for private
consensual, and, as such, is perfected merely a secondary evidence. It is even Sugar Estate Development Corporation. 41
only upon the delivery of the object of respondents. based on the lost pages of an abstract of Phil. 475 [1921]). A public document executed
the contract the residence certificates issued by the and attested through the intervention of the
2. ID.; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS municipal treasurer of Sinait. The notary public is evidence of the facts in clear,
OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, evidentiary value of Exh. F is therefore
G.R. No. 133632 : February 15, 2002 unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has
GENERALLY CONCLUSIVE; EXCEPTIONS. — suspect. in its favor the presumption of regularity. To
The findings of fact of the Court of
BPI INVESTMENT CORPORATION,, contradict all these, there must be evidence
Appeals are conclusive upon this Court 5. ID.; ID.; NOTARIZED DEEDS OF
Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF that is clear and convincing more than merely
(Ronquillo vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA CONVEYANCES, PRESUMED VALID;
APPEALS and ALS MANAGEMENT & preponderant (Collantes v. Capuno, 123 SCRA
433 [1991]). However, there are PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE, NOT
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 652 [1983]).
exceptions to this rule such as when SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME
Respondents. there is a conflict between the factual PRESUMPTION. — The questioned deeds
findings of the Court of Appeals and the G.R. No. L-24968 April 27, 1972
of conveyances, being public documents
A loan contract is not a consensual trial court. The resolution of such conflict as they are duly notarized (Moran,
contract but a real contract. It is requires the review of the same factual Comments on the Rules of Court, supra), SAURA IMPORT and EXPORT CO., INC.,
findings by this Court (Co vs. Court of therefore retain the presumption of plaintiff-appellee,
vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS properties being offered as a loan security. The It has been held that the elements of
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE and THE PHILIPPINE BANK OF recent rush of events where collaterals for usury are (1) a loan, express or implied;
PHILIPPINES, defendant-appellant. COMMERCE, respondents bank loans turn out to be non-existent or
(2) an understanding between the
grossly over-valued underscore the importance
of this responsibility. The mere reliance by parties that the money lent shall or may
The trial court rendered judgment for the A contract of loan being a consensual contract,
plaintiff, ruling that there was a perfected the herein contract of loan was perfected at the bank officials and employees on their be returned; that for such loan a greater
contract between the parties and that the same time the contract of mortgage was customer's representation regarding the loan rate or interest that is allowed by law
defendant was guilty of breach thereof. The executed. The promissory note executed on collateral being offered as loan security is a shall be paid, or agreed to be paid, as
defendant pleaded below, and reiterates in this December 12, 1966 is only an evidence of patent non-performance of this responsibility. If the case may be; and (4) a corrupt
appeal: (1) that the plaintiff's cause of action indebtedness and does not indicate lack of ever bank officials and employees totally reIy
intent to take more than the legal rate
had prescribed, or that its claim had been consideration of the mortgage at the time of its on the representation of their customers as to
the valuation of the loan collateral, the bank for the use of money loaned. Unless
waived or abandoned; (2) that there was no execution.
perfected contract; and (3) that assuming there shall bear the risk in case the collateral turn out these four things concur in every
was, the plaintiff itself did not comply with the the provision 2 of the contract of mortgage to be over-valued. transaction, it is safe to affirm that no
terms thereof. which prohibits the sale, disposition of, case of usury can be declared.
mortgage and encumbrance of the mortgaged G.R. No. L-48349 December 29, 1986
We hold that there was indeed a perfected properties, without the written consent of the CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, in
consensual contract, as recognized in Article mortgagee, as well as the additional proviso FRANCISCO HERRERA, plaintiff- substitution of Filipinas Compania de
1934 of the Civil Code, which provides: that if in spite of said stipulation, the mortgaged Seguros, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAUSTINO
appellant,
property is sold, the vendee shall assume the
vs. LICHAUCO ET AL., Defendants-
ART. 1954. An accepted promise to deliver mortgage in the terms and conditions under
PETROPHIL Appellants.
something, by way of commodatum or simple which it is constituted. These provisions are
loan is binding upon the parties, but the expressly made part and parcel of the Deed of CORPORATION, defendant-appellee.
Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Jose a. Espiritu for Appellants.
commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be
perferted until the delivery of the object of the The difference between a discount and
contract. G.R. No. L-45710 October 3, 1985 Feria & La O and P. J. Sevilla for Appellee.
a loan or forbearance is that the former
does not have to be repaid. The loan or
There was undoubtedly offer and acceptance CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES The interest due at the time of the filing of the
forbearance is subject to repayment and
in this case: the application of Saura, Inc. for a and ACTING DIRECTOR ANTONIO T. complaint for the recovery thereof, earns legal
loan of P500,000.00 was approved by is therefore governed by the laws on
CASTRO, JR. OF THE DEPARTMENT interest from said date, under article 1109 of
resolution of the defendant, and the usury. 10 the Civil Code, although the obligation is
OF COMMERCIAL AND SAVINGS
corresponding mortgage was executed and silent on this point, and the action of the trial
registered. But this fact alone falls short of BANK, in his capacity as statutory
To constitute usury, "there must be loan court is in accordance with law, which
resolving the basic claim that the defendant receiver of Island Savings
or forbearance; the loan must be of includes in its judgment an order for the
failed to fulfill its obligation and the plaintiff is Bank, petitioners,
money or something circulating as payment of legal interest upon the interest due
therefore entitled to recover damages.. vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF money; it must be repayable absolutely on the amount claimed, at the time of the filing
APPEALS and SULPICIO M. and in all events; and something must of the complaint.
TOLENTINO, respondents be exacted for the use of the money in
G.R. No. L-49101 October 24, 1983 excess of and in addition to interest
It is the obligation of the bank's officials and allowed by law." 11 The consideration of the mortgage
RAOUL S.V. BONNEVIE and HONESTO V. employees that before they approve the loan contract is the same as that of the
BONNEVIE, petitioners, application of their customers, they must
principal contract from which it receives
vs. investigate the existence and evaluation of the
life, and without which it cannot exist as mortgage is
independent contract. nevertheless binding
between the parties.
G.R. No. L-68010 May 30, 1986
As regards the second assignment of
FILIPINAS MABLE error, we agree with the petitioner
CORPORATION, petitioner, that a mortgage is a mere accessory
vs. contract and, thus, its validity would
THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE depend on the validity of the loan
APPELLATE COURT, THE secured by it. We, however, reject
HONORABLE CANDIDO the petitioner's argument that since
VILLANUEVA, Presiding Judge of the chattel mortgage involved was
Br. 144, RTC, Makati, not registered, the same is null and
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE void.
PHILIPPINES (DBP), BANCOM
SYSTEMS CONTROL, INC. The petitioner cannot invoke the
(Bancom), DON FERRY, above provision to nullify the chattel
CASIMERO TANEDO, EUGENIO mortgage it executed in favor of
PALILEO, ALVARO TORIO, JOSE T. respondent DBP.
PARDO, ROLANDO ATIENZA,
SIMON A. MENDOZA, Sheriff
NORVELL R. LIM, respondents