Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Hermojina Estores Vs Sps. Supangan

    Uploaded by

    Jomarco Santos
    1) On October 3, 1993, Hermojina Estores agreed to sell a parcel of land to Arturo and Laura Supangan for PHP 4.7 million. The Supangans paid PHP 3.5 million but Estores failed to fulfill her obligations under their contract. 2) The contract specified that if Estores failed to complete necessary documents, the Supangans were entitled to a full refund of their down payment. They demanded return of the PHP 3.5 million in September 2000 but Estores only offered to return the principal without interest. 3) The courts ruled that the Supangans were entitled to interest. Although the contract did not specify an interest rate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Hermojina Estores Vs Sps. Supangan

    Uploaded by

    Jomarco Santos
    73 views4 pages
    1) On October 3, 1993, Hermojina Estores agreed to sell a parcel of land to Arturo and Laura Supangan for PHP 4.7 million. The Supangans paid PHP 3.5 million but Estores failed to fulfill her obligations under their contract. 2) The contract specified that if Estores failed to complete necessary documents, the Supangans were entitled to a full refund of their down payment. They demanded return of the PHP 3.5 million in September 2000 but Estores only offered to return the principal without interest. 3) The courts ruled that the Supangans were entitled to interest. Although the contract did not specify an interest rate

    Original Description:

    credit transactions

    Original Title

    Hermojina Estores vs Sps. Supangan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) On October 3, 1993, Hermojina Estores agreed to sell a parcel of land to Arturo and Laura Supangan for PHP 4.7 million. The Supangans paid PHP 3.5 million but Estores failed to fulfill her obligations under their contract. 2) The contract specified that if Estores failed to complete necessary documents, the Supangans were entitled to a full refund of their down payment. They demanded return of the PHP 3.5 million in September 2000 but Estores only offered to return the principal without interest. 3) The courts ruled that the Supangans were entitled to interest. Although the contract did not specify an interest rate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views4 pages

    Hermojina Estores Vs Sps. Supangan

    Uploaded by

    Jomarco Santos
    1) On October 3, 1993, Hermojina Estores agreed to sell a parcel of land to Arturo and Laura Supangan for PHP 4.7 million. The Supangans paid PHP 3.5 million but Estores failed to fulfill her obligations under their contract. 2) The contract specified that if Estores failed to complete necessary documents, the Supangans were entitled to a full refund of their down payment. They demanded return of the PHP 3.5 million in September 2000 but Estores only offered to return the principal without interest. 3) The courts ruled that the Supangans were entitled to interest. Although the contract did not specify an interest rate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    HERMOJINA ESTORES,

    vs.
    SPOUSES ARTURO and LAURA SUPANGAN

    Sky Blue: Di Importante pero baka itanong

    Black: Importante

    Red: Super Importante

    Red and Bold: Key Words

    Green: Comment ni Jom

    Facts:

    On October 3, 1993, petitioner Hermojina Estores and respondent-spouses Arturo


    and Laura Supangan entered into a Conditional Deed of Sale 5 whereby petitioner
    offered to sell, and respondent-spouses offered to buy, a parcel of land covered by
    Transfer Certificate of Title No. TCT No. 98720 located at Naic, Cavite for the sum
    of 4.7 million.

    After almost seven years from the time of the execution of the contract and
    notwithstanding payment of 3.5 million on the part of respondent-spouses,
    petitioner still failed to comply with her obligation as expressly provided in
    paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the contract.

    4. Vendee shall be informed as to the status of DAR clearance within 10 days upon
    signing of the documents.

    xxxx

    6. Regarding the house located within the perimeter of the subject [lot] owned by
    spouses [Magbago], said house shall be moved outside the perimeter of this subject
    property to the 300 sq. m. area allocated for [it]. Vendor hereby accepts the
    responsibility of seeing to it that such agreement is carried out before full payment of
    the sale is made by vendee.

    7. If and after the vendor has completed all necessary documents for registration of the
    title and the vendee fails to complete payment as per agreement, a forfeiture fee of 25%
    or downpayment, shall be applied. However, if the vendor fails to complete necessary
    documents within thirty days without any sufficient reason, or without informing the
    vendee of its status, vendee has the right to demand return of full amount of down
    payment.

    x xxx
    9. As to the boundaries and partition of the lots (15,018 sq. m. and 300 sq. m.) Vendee
    shall be informed immediately of its approval by the LRC.

    10. The vendor assures the vendee of a peaceful transfer of ownership.

    Petitioner averred that they are willing to return the principal amount of 3.5
    million but without any interest as the same was not agreed upon. They argued
    that since the Conditional Deed of Sale provided only for the return of the
    downpayment in case of breach, they cannot be held liable to pay legal interest as
    well.

    the RTC and CA rendered its Decision finding respondent-spouses entitled to


    interest but only at the rate of 6% per annum and not 12% as prayed by them
    from demand (September 27, 2000)

    ISSUE: Whether or not the claim of spouses entitled to interest?


    Up to what extent? 6% or 12%?

    HELD

    Interest may be imposed even in the absence of stipulation in the contract. Article
    2210 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "interest may, in the discretion of
    the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract." Petitioner
    enjoyed the use of the money from the time it was given to her30 until now. Thus,
    she is already in default of her obligation from the date of demand, i.e., on
    September 27, 2000.

    The general rule is that the applicable rate of interest "shall be computed in
    accordance with the stipulation of the parties."31 Absent any stipulation, the
    applicable rate of interest shall be 12% per annum "when the obligation arises out
    of a loan or a forbearance of money, goods or credits. In other cases, it shall be six
    percent (6%) as provided in Art. 2209 If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum
    of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no
    stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the
    absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum.

    The contract involved in this case is admittedly not a loan but a Conditional Deed
    of Sale.

    Forbearance" was defined as a "contractual obligation of lender or creditor to


    refrain during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to
    repay a loan or debt then due and payable." This definition describes a loan where
    a debtor is given a period within which to pay a loan or debt. In such case,
    "forbearance of money, goods or credits" will have no distinct definition from a
    loan.

    We believe however, that the phrase "forbearance of money, goods or credits" is


    meant to have a separate meaning from a loan, otherwise there would have been
    no need to add that phrase as a loan is already sufficiently defined in the Civil
    Code.

    (So pano naiba yung Forbearance of money sa Loan? Yung susunod na paragraph)

    Forbearance of money, goods or credits should therefore refer to arrangements


    other than loan agreements, where a person acquiesces to the temporary use
    of his money, goods or credits pending happening of certain events or fulfillment
    of certain conditions.

    In this case, the respondent-spouses parted with their money even before the
    conditions were fulfilled. They have therefore allowed or granted forbearance to
    the seller (petitioner) to use their money pending fulfillment of the
    conditions. They were deprived of the use of their money for the period
    pending fulfillment of the conditions and when those conditions were breached,
    they are entitled not only to the return of the principal amount paid, but also to
    compensation for the use of their money. And the compensation for the use of
    their money, absent any stipulation, should be the same rate of legal interest
    applicable to a loan since the use or deprivation of funds is similar to a loan.

    Petitioners unwarranted withholding of the money which rightfully pertains to


    respondent-spouses amounts to forbearance of money which can be considered as
    an involuntary loan

    Since the date of demand which is September 27, 2000 was satisfactorily
    established during trial, then the interest rate of 12% should be reckoned from
    said date of demand until the principal amount and the interest thereon is fully
    satisfied.
    1wp h

    Naging tanong dito sa kaso mo kung 12% or 6%.

    Ang sabi ng batas pag loan OR forbearance of money, goods or credits ay 6%.

    E kaso ang kontrata Conditional sale diba?


    Pero since nagdownpayment yung spouses ng 3.5million, at na-enjoy ni seller
    yung pera from that moment at hindi naisoli upon breach of contract, papasok sya
    ngayon dun sa forbearance of money. Therefore, 6% interest ang ia-apply natin.

    Ngayon baka tanungin ka ano pinagkaiba ng Loan at Forbearance of money?


    I-define mo lang nyan yung Loan (pakicheck nalang sa book) at yung forebearnce
    of money (Forbearance of money, goods or credits should therefore refer to
    arrangements other than loan agreements, where a person acquiesces to the
    temporary use of his money, goods or credits pending happening of certain
    events or fulfillment of certain conditions)

    Bale ang Forbearance daw ay considered Involuntary Loan

    You might also like