Scribd
Upload
33 views

Universal Case

The document discusses a case regarding a default on installment payments for a truck. The plaintiff claimed they were entitled to repossess the truck or payment of the outstanding amount plus fees. The defendant argued the sale should be cancelled under the Civil Code since there were multiple unpaid installments. The court ruled that the Civil Code article cited did not apply because this was an action for delivery of property, not a foreclosure of the mortgage on the truck.

Uploaded by

Dexter Mantos
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
33 views

Universal Case

The document discusses a case regarding a default on installment payments for a truck. The plaintiff claimed they were entitled to repossess the truck or payment of the outstanding amount plus fees. The defendant argued the sale should be cancelled under the Civil Code since there were multiple unpaid installments. The court ruled that the Civil Code article cited did not apply because this was an action for delivery of property, not a foreclosure of the mortgage on the truck.

Uploaded by

Dexter Mantos
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/ 1

G.R. No.

L-23788               May 16, 1969

UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
DY HIAN TAT, ET AL., defendants,
DY HIAN TAT, defendant-appellant.

Facts:
Cause of action alleged in appellee's complaint is to the effect that appellant-defendant
had bought a Mercedes-Benz Diesel truck from it on installments and defaulted in the
payment thereof, in consequence of which, it was entitled, by virtue of the mortgage
contract in its favor, to the possession of the said truck or, in case said truck could not
be recovered, to the payment of the amount of P37,221.22, plus attorney's fees in the
amount of P9,305.30 and the costs of the suit.

Appellant alleged that under Art. 1484 of Civil Code which states that in a contract of
sale of personal property the price of which is payable in installments, the vendor may
exercise any of the following remedies:

(1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail to pay;

(2) Cancel the sale, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more
installments;

(3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing sold if one has been constituted,
should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments. In this case, he
shall have no further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance
of the price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be void.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in adjudging Attorney’s fees in favor of plaintiff.
Ruling: No. We do not agree with the appellant that Article 1484 applies to the case at
bar. As aptly held by His Honor, this case is for delivery of personal property under the
provisions of Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Nowhere in the stipulation of facts or even
in the pleadings does it appear that appellee has foreclosed its mortgage. Appellants
would invoke the last paragraph. But there has been no foreclosure of the chattel
mortgage nor a foreclosure sale. Therefore the prohibition against further collection
does not apply.
Thus, Article 1484 of the Civil Code does not apply to this case because this is an
action of replevin under Rule 60 and not a foreclosure of mortgage under Rule 68.

You might also like