Bulos Jr. vs. Yasuma

  • Published on
    03-Jun-2018

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • 8/12/2019 Bulos Jr. vs. Yasuma

    1/12

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT

    Manila

    THIRD DIVISION

    G.R. No. 164159 July 17, 2007

    HONORIO C. BULOS, JR.,Petitioner,

    vs.

    OJI !"SUM",Respondent.

    D ! I S I O N

    CHICO#N"$"RIO, J.:

    This is a Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari#

    under Rule $% of the #&&' Revised Rules of!ivil Procedure see(in) to set aside and to declare null and void *#+ the Decision,dated

    % -anuar //$, of the !ourt of 0ppeals in !012.R. !V No. %$&3&, "hich affir4ed theDecision,5dated 5/ 0u)ust #&&3, of the Ma(ati !it Re)ional Trial !ourt *RT!+, 6ranch

    #$7, in !ivil !ase No. &/1#/%58 and *+ the Resolution$of the !ourt of 0ppeals, dated ##

    -une //$, "hich denied the petitioner9s Motion for Reconsideration.

    Herein petitioner Honorio !. 6ulos *petitioner+ "as one of the defendants in a !o4plaintfor collection of su4 of 4one plus da4a)es "ith praer for a "rit of preli4inar

    attach4ent, doc(eted as !ivil !ase No. &/1#/%5, entitled, :;oi4, Honorio !. 6ulos and 6ede S. Tabalin)cos,: filed "ith the RT! b herein

    respondent ;oi4 *Dr. >i4+ and 0tt. 6ede S. Tabalin)cos

    *0tt. Tabalin)cos+, obtained a loan fro4 ;oi4 per a)ree4ent a4on) the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos.3The said

    pro4issor note provides for the follo"in) conditions? *#+ pa4ent of interest at the rate

    of $@ for a period of three 4onths or until #/ -anuar #&7&8 *+ in case of a :roll over:for failure of the borro"ers to pa on the a)reed period, the eAtension "ill be considered

    runnin) 4onthl under the sa4e ter4s and rate of interest until the principal a4ount hasbeen full paid8 and *5+ should the said pro4issor note be brou)ht to court forcollection, the borro"ers a)ree to pa an additional a4ount eBuivalent to #/@ of the

    principal a4ount plus attorne9s fee, "hich in no case shall be less than P#/,///.//. 0s a

    securit for the said loan, both petitioner and Dr. >i4 eAecuted Real state Mort)a)es'over their respective properties.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt7
  • 8/12/2019 Bulos Jr. vs. Yasuma

    2/12

    On #3 Dece4ber #&77, petitioner and Dr. >i4 eAecuted a Deed of 0ssu4ption,7to the

    effect that petitioner assu4ed the loan obli)ation of Dr. >i4 due respondent "ith the

    condition that Dr. >i4 shall first secure the respondent9s consent to and approval of thesaid Deed of 0ssu4ption. Ho"ever, the confor4it of respondent to the said Deed of

    0ssu4ption "as not obtained b Dr. >i4. Chen the loan obli)ation beca4e due and

    de4andable on #/ -anuar #&7&, respondent de4anded pa4ent fro4 the petitioner, Dr.>i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos, but the failed and refused to pa the sa4e. Respondent then

    4ade a de4and in "ritin) and throu)h telephone calls to 0tt. Tabalin)cos. 0tt.

    Tabalin)cos i4 and 0tt.

    Tabalin)cos, respondent reBuested 0tt. Tabalin)cos, "ho happened to be his le)aladviser at that ti4e, to foreclose the Real state Mort)a)es eAecuted b the petitioner and

    Dr. >i4 over their respective properties. 0tt. Tabalin)cos failed to do so. Instead, he

    4ade a proposal to respondent that the petitioner had certain properties in ParaaBue !it"hich he "as "illin) to sell to the respondent to cover the obli)ation of the petitioner, Dr.

    >i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos. Out of respondent9s desperation to collect the loan that he had

    eAtended to the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos, respondent a)reed to the

    aforesaid proposal. Thus, on $ Eebruar #&7&, a Deed of Sale,&over certain parcels ofland located in ParaaBue !it and covered b Transfer !ertificates of Title *T!Ts+ No.

    $3''5$ and 555%% in the na4e of petitioner, "as eAecuted in favor of the respondent for

    a total consideration of P#,35/,'%/.//, paid via a dacion en pa)o arran)e4ent.

    0fter the eAecution of the Deed of Sale, all the parties a)reed that there "as still abalance of P,$/,///.// o"ed to the respondent. In a !ertification#/dated ' Eebruar

    #&7&, "hich the petitioner and Dr. >i4 considered as another Deed of 0ssu4ption,petitioner assu4ed the P#,%//,///.// obli)ation of Dr. >i4. The consideration for thesaid assu4ption of obli)ation is the transfer##of the shares of stoc(s of the Rural 6an( of

    ParaaBue to the respondent to offset the obli)ation. Petitioner thus offered the said

    shares of stoc(s to the respondent. 0tt. Tabalin)cos, for his part and in his capacit as!hair4an of the 6oard of the said ban(, issued a certification#to the effect that the

    respondent holds P#,%/,///.// "orth of shares of stoc(s, eBuivalent to /@

    shareholdin)s in the Rural 6an( of ParaaBue. Ho"ever, durin) that ti4e, the Rural 6an(of ParaaBue 4ust first increase its authoriFed capital stoc( sub

  • 8/12/2019 Bulos Jr. vs. Yasuma

    3/12

    SubseBuentl, the respondent sent a de4and letter#$to each of the borro"ers 11 the

    petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos 11 for the full pa4ent of their outstandin)

    obli)ation8 but, to no avail. This pro4pted the respondent to file "ith the RT! a!o4plaint for Su4 of Mone "ith Da4a)es and "ith Praer for a Crit of Preli4inar

    0ttach4ent a)ainst the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos. On 5 0pril #&&/, the

    trial court issued an Order#%

    )rantin) the "rit of preli4inar attach4ent applied for b therespondent upon his filin) of a bond fiAed at P,$/,///.//. 6 virtue of the said "rit,

    several lots of the petitioner, and the house and lot of Dr. >i4 located in GueFon !it,

    "ere attached. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dissolve Crit of 0ttach4ent "hich "as)ranted b the trial court in its Order dated ' October #&conditioned upon

    petitioner9s postin) of a counter1bond in the a4ount of P,$/,///.//. Petitioner 4oved

    for the reduction of his counter1bond to P''/,///.// considerin) that the respondent

    4ade an ad4ission that the petitioner partiall paid the loan obli)ation in the a4ount ofP#,35/,'%/.//. The said 4otion "as )ranted b the court a Buo in its Order dated #

    0u)ust #&&%.#'

    On 5/ 0u)ust #&&3, the trial court rendered a Decision in favor of the respondent anda)ainst the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos, the decretal portion of "hich reads

    as follo"s?

    CHREOR, pre4ises considered, and findin) that herein respondent has full

    established not onl b preponderance of evidence b co4petent proof of his entitle4entto his clai4s in the !o4plaint, i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos.

    #7

    0))rieved b the aforesaid Decision of the trial court, the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.

    Tabalin)cos appealed to the !ourt of 0ppeals. Ho"ever, 0tt. Tabalin)cos did not file hisappellant9s brief. On % -anuar //$, the !ourt of 0ppeals rendered a Decision affir4in)

    in toto the Decision of the trial court. The petitioner 4oved for its reconsideration, but it

    "as denied in a Resolution dated ## -une //$ issued b the appellate court.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt18
  • 8/12/2019 Bulos Jr. vs. Yasuma

    4/12

    Hence, this petition b petitioner. Ho"ever, Dr. >i4 and 0tt. Tabalin)cos did not appeal

    before this !ourt.

    Petitioner sub4its the follo"in) issues for this !ourt9s resolution?

    I. Chether or not the obli)ation of petitioner to pa respondent has alread *sic+full eAtin)uished.

    II. Chether or not the offer to purchase shares of stoc( of Rural 6an( of

    ParaaBue a4ountin) to P#,%/,///.// eAtin)uished petitioner 6ulos9 obli)ation

    to pa the balance of the loan "ith *sic+ respondent.

    III. Chether or not petitioner 6ulos is entitled to clai4 for da4a)es.

    IV. Chether or not the i4position of #@ interest on P,$/,///.// and /@ of

    the said a4ount as attorne9s fees has no le)al and factual basis *sic+.

    Petitioner ar)ues that despite the partial pa4ent 4ade b hi4 in the a4ount

    P#,35/,'%/.//, and in spite of the respondent9s uneBuivocal ad4ission of the sa4e, still,the respondent did not deduct the said a4ount fro4 the total a4ount of the obli)ation due

    hi4. Instead, the respondent continuousl clai4ed the a4ount of P,$/,///.// as of %

    Dece4ber #&7&, plus interest at the rate of $@ per 4onth fro4 % Dece4ber #&7& "henhe filed his !o4plaint on ' 0pril #&&/.

    The petitioner li(e"ise avers that his obli)ation to pa the balance of the loan to the

    respondent had alread been eAtin)uished "hen he offered to the respondent the shares of

    stoc(s of the Rural 6an( of ParaaBue a4ountin) to P#,%/,///.//. Respondent9s

    assertion that he did not accept the offer of the shares of stoc(s because of his nationalitdeserves scant consideration as in fact, he had reli)iousl follo"ed up "ith petitioner and

    0tt. Tabalin)cos the issuance of the certificate for the said shares of stoc(s.

    Petitioner further alle)es that he is entitled to clai4 da4a)es for he had been sub

  • 8/12/2019 Bulos Jr. vs. Yasuma

    5/12

    !ivil Procedure to revie", eAa4ine and evaluate or "ei)h the probative value of the

    evidence presented. The i4 per a)ree4ent a4on) the

    parties8

    *b+ the act of Dr. >i4 in eAecutin) a Deed of Real state Mort)a)e in favor ofrespondent to cover the a4ount of the pro4issor note8

    *c+ the act of the petitioner in eAecutin) a second Deed of Real state Mort)a)e as

    additional securit to the loan8 and

    *d+ the act of 0tt. Tabalin)cos in issuin) a chec( in the a4ount of P, $/,///.//

    to cover the balance of the obli)ation8

    *5+ petitioner failed to pa the loan b #/ -anuar #&7&8 thus, fro4 ## October #&77 up to

    Eebruar #&7&, the loan obli)ation, includin) interest, reached a total a4ount of

    P,'//,///.//8 *$+ petitioner 4ade a partial pa4ent via a dacion en pa)o, a4ountin) toP#,35/,'%/.//, "hich "as deducted fro4 the total loan obli)ation of P,'//,///.//leavin) a balance of P#,/3&,///.// as of $ Eebruar #&7&8 *%+ b March #&7&, the

    balance of the loan be)an earnin) a %@ interest per 4onth after all the parties a)reed to

    an increase in the interest rate durin) the eAtended period8 *3+ ta(in) into considerationthe outstandin) loan balance of P#,/3&,///.//, plus interest, and 4inus a discount

    )ranted b respondent, the a4ount still due respondent "as deter4ined b the parties to

    be P,$/,///.//8 and *'+ to pa the re4ainin) indebtedness, 0tt. Tabalin)cos issued achec( coverin) the a4ount but it "as dishonored, therefore, the indebtedness re4ains at

    P,$/,///.//.

    Chen the eAistence of a debt is full established b the evidence contained in the record,the burden of provin) that it has been eAtin)uished b pa4ent devolves upon the debtor"ho offers such defense. The debtor has the burden of sho"in) "ith le)al certaint that

    the obli)ation has been dischar)ed b pa4ent.#In the present case, the petitioner failed

    to prove that indeed, his liabilit to pa the re4ainin) balance of his obli)ation "ith therespondent had been eAtin)uished b his offer to transfer to respondent his shares of

    stoc(s in the Rural 6an( of ParaaBue.

    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_164159_2007.html#fnt21
  • 8/12/2019 Bulos Jr. vs. Yasuma

    6/12

    The defense of the petitioner that the offer he 4ade to respondent of his shares of stoc(s

    in Rural 6an( of ParaaBue a4ountin) to P#,%/,///.// had alread eAtin)uished his

    obli)ation to pa the balance of the loan stands on hollo" )round.

    Section $, Republic 0ct No. '5%5, other"ise (no"n as :The Rural 6an(s 0ct of #&&,:

    provides?

    Section. $. A A A. Cith the eAception of shareholdin)s of corporations or)aniFed pri4aril

    to hold eBuities in rural ban(s as provided for under Section #1! of Republic 0ct No.55', as a4ended, and of Eilipino1controlled do4estic ban(s, the capital stoc( of an rural

    ban( shall be full o"ned and held directl or indirectl b citiFens of the Philippines or

    corporations, associations or cooperatives Bualified under Philippine la"s to o"n andhold such capital stoc(? A A A. *4phasis supplied.+

    2iven the fore)oin) provision of la", this !ourt a)rees "ith the !ourt of 0ppeals that the

    respondent, bein) a forei)ner, is not Bualified to o"n capital stoc( in the Rural 6an( of

    ParaaBue. This renders the assi)n4ent of shares of stoc(s in the Rural 6an( ofParaaBue in favor of respondent void. 0s previousl stated, the assi)n4ent of the shares

    of stoc(s in the rural ban( "as not accepted b the respondent precisel because of the

    prohibition stated under Republic 0ct No. '5%5, "hich "as eAplainedto hi4 b his

    counsel, the late 0tt. Ti4ario, -r.

    Moreover, petitioner 4entioned in his testi4on before the trial court that all the shares

    of stoc(s of the Rural 6an( of ParaaBue had alread been full subscribed and, for

    shares to be 4ade available, additional capital should be infused and the S! shouldapproved the additional shares for subscription. Here "e Buote that part of the petitioner9s

    testi4on?

    G? No", ou have stated a "hile a)o Mr. Citness, that the balance be paid b

    shares of stoc(s and as a 4atter of fact the respondent has accepted thatpreposition, "hat happened if an, after"ardsK

    0? In 4 case, I transferred 55/ so4ethin) sha...