This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-09-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In arguing that respondent Financiera's assignment of its SPPI Investment failed to extinguish its obligation to pay, petitioner Valdez cites Article 1249 of the New Civil Code and Cebu International Finance Corp. v. Court of Appeals.[32] Furthermore, he posits that the assignment of SPPI Investments by respondent Financiera did not extinguish its obligation, because he was left with no remedy against SPPI, which was not a signatory to the Compromise Agreement, and because respondent Financiera breached its warranty that the said investments had matured with cash value when in fact they had not. | |||||
|
2008-03-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the money market transaction between the petitioner and the private respondent is in the nature of a loan.[44] Lim Sio Wan, as creditor of the bank for her money market placement, is entitled to payment upon her request, or upon maturity of the placement, or until the bank is released from its obligation as debtor. Until any such event, the obligation of Allied to Lim Sio Wan remains unextinguished. | |||||