This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Before this Court, petitioners argue that: (1) respondent has no cause of action, because the Deed of Assignment executed in its favor did not specifically mention ABN AMRO's account receivable from petitioners; (2) petitioners cannot be considered to have defaulted in payment for lack of competent proof that they received the demand letter; and (3) respondent's remedy of resorting to both actions of replevin and collection of sum of money is contrary to the provision of Article 1484[9] of the Civil Code and the Elisco Tool Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals[10] ruling. | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| As we articulated in Elisco Tool Manufacturing Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[23] the remedies provided for in Article 1484 of the Civil Code are alternative, not cumulative. The exercise of one bars the exercise of the others. This limitation applies to contracts purporting to be leases of personal property with option to buy by virtue of the same Article 1485. The condition that the lessor has deprived the lessee of possession or enjoyment of the thing for the purpose of applying Article 1485 was fulfilled in this case by the filing by petitioner of the complaint for a sum of money with prayer for replevin to recover possession of the office equipment.[24] By virtue of the writ of seizure issued by the trial court, the petitioner has effectively deprived respondent of their use, a situation which, by force of the Recto Law, in turn precludes the former from maintaining an action for recovery of "accrued rentals" or the recovery of the balance of the purchase price plus interest. [25] | |||||