RUIZ VS CA

CORAZON G. RUIZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CONSUELO TORRES
G.R. No. 146942             April 22, 2003

Facts:
          Petitioner Corazon G. Ruiz is engaged in the business of buying and selling jewelry.4 She obtained loans from private respondent Consuelo Torres on different occasions, in the following amounts: P100,000.00; P200,000.00; P300,000.00; and P150,000.00.5 Prior to their maturity, the loans were consolidated under one (1) promissory note. The consolidated loan of P750,000.00 was secured by a real estate mortgage and the lot was registered in the name of petitioner.
          Thereafter, petitioner obtained three (3) more loans from private respondent, and it was secured by three promissory notes in the amount of 100,000 each. These combined loans of P300,000.00 were secured by P571,000.00 worth of jewelry pledged by petitioner to private respondent.
          Petitioner paid the stipulated 3% monthly interest on the P750,000.00 loan, amounting to P270,000.00. After that, petitioner was unable to make interest payments as she had difficulties collecting from her clients in her jewelry business.
Due to petitioner’s failure to pay the principal loan of P750,000.00, as well as the interest payment, private respondent demanded payment not only of the P750,000.00 loan, but also of the P300,000.00 loan. When petitioner failed to pay, private respondent sought the extra-judicial foreclosure of the aforementioned real estate mortgage.
Acting Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Perlita V. Ele, Deputy Sheriff In-Charge Rolando G. Acal and Supervising Sheriff Silverio P. Bernas issued a Notice of Sheriff’s Sale of subject lot. One (1) day before the scheduled auction sale, petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC, with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO to enjoin the sheriff from proceeding with the foreclosure sale and to fix her indebtedness to private respondent to P706,000.00. The computed amount of P706,000.00 was based on the aggregate loan of P750,000.00, plus the other loans of P300,000.00, covered by separate promissory notes, plus interest, minus P571,000.00 representing the amount of jewelry pledged in favor of private respondent.
The trial court further held that the promissory note in question is a unilateral contract of adhesion drafted by private respondent. It struck down the contract as repugnant to public policy because it was imposed by a dominant bargaining party (private respondent) on a weaker party (petitioner).

Issue:
          Whether or not the promissory note of P750,000.00 is a contract of adhesion

Ruling:
          The Supreme Court held that promissory note in the case at bar is not a contract of adhesion. There are certain contracts almost all the provisions of which have been drafted only by one party, usually a corporation. Such contracts are called contracts of adhesion, because the only participation of the other party is the signing of his signature or his ‘adhesion’ thereto. Insurance contracts, bills of lading, contracts of sale of lots on the installment plan fall into this category.
          In the case at bar, the promissory note in question did not contain any fine print provision which could not have been examined by the petitioner. Petitioner had all the time to go over and study the stipulations embodied in the promissory note. Aside from the March 22, 1995 promissory note for P750,000.00, three other promissory notes of different dates and amounts were executed by petitioner in favor of private respondent. These promissory notes contain similar terms and conditions, with a little variance in the terms of interests and surcharges. The fact that petitioner and private respondent had entered into not only one but several loan transactions shows that petitioner was not in any way compelled to accept the terms allegedly imposed by private respondent. Moreover, petitioner, in her complaint dated October 7, 1996 filed with the trial court, never claimed that she was forced to sign the subject note.

          To be required is certainly different from being compelled. She could have rejected the conditions made by private respondent. As an experienced business- woman, she ought to understand all the conditions set forth in the subject promissory note

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990 Facts: Alma T. Aggabao filed  with the RTC, an information against private respondents Elvino Aggabao and Villa Suratos for the crime of concubinage. Upon being arraigned, private respondents entered a plea of not guilty. During the trial, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  They argued that concubinage, under Art. 334 of the RPC is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which is equivalent to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months, well within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, and not of the RTC The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion contending that the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime of concubinage...
Read more

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ vs. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO G.R. No. L-31703 February 13, 1930 ROMUALDEZ, J.: Facts: The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is not in dispute. The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, quoted below: Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and...
Read more

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, JULIAN L. TEVES VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG AND HILARIA CADAYDAY G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005 TINGA, J.: Facts: Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena, and after her death, with Milagros Donio Teves. Don Julian had two children with Antonia, namely: Josefa Teves Escaño and Emilio Teves. He had also four (4) children with Milagros Donio, namely: Maria Evelyn Donio Teves, Jose Catalino Donio Teves, Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro Reyes Teves. The present controversy involves a parcel of land. When Antonia died, the land was among the properties involved in an action for partition and damages, the second wife of Don Julian, participated as an intervenor. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the properties of Don Julian. Paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement, at the heart of the present dispute, lays down the effect of the eventual ...
Read more