Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MYRNA RAMOS v. SUSANA S. SARAO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 194548 2016-02-10	JUANA VDA. DE ROJALES v. MARCELINO DIME PERALTA, J.
We have consistently decreed that the nomenclature used by the contracting parties to describe a contract does not determine its nature.[64] The decisive factor is their intention - as shown by their conduct, words, actions and deeds - prior to, during, and after executing the agreement.[65] Thus, even if a contract is denominated as apacto de retro, the owner of the property may still disprove it by means of parole evidence,[66] provided that the nature of the agreement is placed in issue by the pleadings filed with the trial court.[67]
	GR No. 177260 2011-03-30	LOTTO RESTAURANT CORPORATION v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK ABAD, J.
As to BPI's right to foreclose, the records show that Lotto defaulted in its obligation when it unjustifiably stopped paying its amortizations after the first year. Consequently, there is no question that BPI (which succeeded DBS) had a clear right to foreclose on Lotto's collateral. The Court held in Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. OJ-Mark Trading, Inc.[16] that foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of mortgage indebtedness. The creditor-mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage, sell the property, and apply the proceeds of the sale to the satisfaction of the unpaid loan.[17]
	GR No. 166051 2008-04-08	SOLID HOMES v. EVELINA LASERNA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a final point. Based on the records of this case, respondents have tendered payment in the amount of P11,584.41,[40] representing the balance of the purchase price of the subject property, as determined in the 10 August 1994 Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners, and affirmed by both the Office of the President and the Court of Appeals. However, the petitioner, without any justifiable reason, refused to accept the same. In Ramos v. Sarao,[41] this Court held that tender of payment is the manifestation by debtors of their desire to comply with or to pay their obligation. If the creditor refuses the tender of payment without just cause, the debtors are discharged from the obligation by the consignation of the sum due. Consignation is made by depositing the proper amount with the judicial authority, before whom the tender of payment and the announcement of the consignation shall be proved. All interested parties are to be notified of the consignation. Compliance with these requisites is mandatory.[42] In the case at bar, after the petitioner refused to accept the tender of payment made by the respondents, the latter failed to make any consignation of the sum due. Consequently, there was no valid tender of payment and the respondents are not yet discharged from the obligation to pay the outstanding balance of the purchase price of the subject property.
	GR No. 170115 2008-02-19	PROVINCE OF CEBU v. HEIRS OF RUFINA MORALES YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Finally, petitioner cannot raise the issue of prescription and laches at this stage of the proceedings. Contrary to petitioner's assignment of errors, the appellate court made no findings on the issue because petitioner never raised the matter of prescription and laches either before the trial court or Court of Appeals. It is basic that defenses and issues not raised below cannot be considered on appeal.[31] Thus, petitioner cannot plead the matter for the first time before this Court.
	GR NO. 166714 2007-02-09	AMELIA S. ROBERTS v. MARTIN B. PAPIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
In an equitable mortgage, the mortgagor retains ownership over the property but subject to foreclosure and sale at public auction upon failure of the mortgagor to pay his obligation.[51] In contrast, in a pacto de retro sale, ownership of the property sold is immediately transferred to the vendee a retro subject only to the right of the vendor a retro to repurchase the property upon compliance with legal requirements for the repurchase. The failure of the vendor a retro to exercise the right to repurchase within the agreed time vests upon the vendee a retro, by operation of law, absolute title over the property.[52]
	GR NO. 172259 2006-12-05	SPS. JAIME BENOS AND MARINA BENOS v. SPS. GREGORIO LAWILAO AND JANICE GAIL LAWILAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As matters stand, no valid tender of payment and/or consignation of the P150,000.00 which the Appellant (Lawilaos) still owes the Appellee (Benos) has been effected by the former. The amount of P159,000.00 deposited with the MCTC is in relation to Civil Case No. 310 earlier dismissed by said court, and not to the instant action. Hence, this Court cannot automatically apply such sum in satisfaction of the aforesaid debt of the Appellant and order the Appellee creditor to accept the same.[12] (Emphasis supplied) The Lawilao spouses did not appeal said finding, and it has become final and binding on them. Although they had repeatedly alleged in their pleadings that the amount of P159,000.00 was still with the trial court which the Benos spouses could withdraw anytime, they never made any step to withdraw the amount and thereafter consign it. Compliance with the requirements of tender and consignation to have the effect of payment are mandatory. Thus Tender of payment is the manifestation by debtors of their desire to comply with or to pay their obligation. If the creditor refuses the tender of payment without just cause, the debtors are discharged from the obligation by the consignation of the sum due. Consignation is made by depositing the proper amount to the judicial authority, before whom the tender of payment and the announcement of the consignation shall be proved. All interested parties are to be notified of the consignation. Compliance with these requisites is mandatory.[13] (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, records show that the Lawilao spouses filed the petition for consignation against the bank in Civil Case No. 310 without notifying the Benos spouses. The petition was dismissed for lack of cause of action against the bank. Hence, the Lawilao spouses failed to prove their offer to pay the balance of the purchase price and consignation. In fact, even before the filing of the consignation case, the Lawilao spouses never notified the Benos spouses of their offer to pay.
	GR NO. 141311 2005-05-26	BERNICE LEGASPI v. SPS. RITA AND FRANCISCO ONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We have consistently decreed that the nomenclature used by the contracting parties to describe a contract does not determine its nature.[31] Decisive for the proper determination of the true nature of the transaction between the parties is the intent of the parties,[32] as shown not necessarily by the terminology used in the contract but by all the surrounding circumstances, such as the relative situations of the parties at that time; the attitudes, acts, conduct, and declarations of the parties; the negotiations between them leading to the deed; and generally, all pertinent facts having a tendency to fix and determine the real nature of their design and understanding.[33]