Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
On November 4, 1957, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, to recover While the appellee claims that in filing the complaint, demanding payment of the
the unpaid balance of the promissory note. Upon plaintiff's petition, embodied in the unpaid balance of the purchase price, it has availed of the first remedy provided in
complaint, a writ of attachment was issued by the lower court on the properties Of the said article i.e. to exact fulfillment of the obligation (specific performance); the
defendant. Pursuant thereto, the said Chevrolet truck, and a house and lot belonging appellant, on the other hand, contends that appellee had availed itself of the third
to defendant, were attached by the Sheriff of San Jose, Antique, where defendant was remedy viz, the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage on the truck.
residing on November 25, 1957, and said truck was brought to the plaintiff's
compound in Iloilo City, for safe keeping.
The appellant argues that considering history of the law, the circumstances leading to
its enactment, the evil that the law was intended to correct and the remedy afforded
After attachment and before the trial of the case on the merits, acting upon the (Art. 1454-A of the old Civil Code; Act No. 4122; Bachrach Motor Co. vs. Reyes, 62
plaintiff's motion dated December 23, 1957, for the immediate sale of the mortgaged Phil. 461, 466-469); that the appellee did not content itself by waiting for the judgment
truck, the Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo on January 2, 1958, sold the truck at public auction on the complaint and then executed the judgment which might be rendered in its favor,
in which plaintiff itself was the only bidder for P1,000.00. The case had not been set against the properties of the appellant; that the appellee obtained a preliminary
for hearing, then. attachment on the subject of the chattel mortgage itself and caused said truck to be
sold at public auction petition, in which he was bidder for P1,000.00; the result of We perceive nothing unlawful or irregular in appellee's act of attaching the mortgaged
which, was similar to what would have happened, had it foreclosed the mortgage truck itself. Since herein appellee has chosen to exact the fulfillment of the appellant's
pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 14 of Act No. 1508 (Chattel Mortgage Law) the said obligation, it may enforce execution of the judgment that may be favorably rendered
appellee had availed itself of the third remedy aforequoted. In other words, appellant hereon, on all personal and real properties of the latter not exempt from execution
submits that the matter should be looked at, not by the allegations in the complaint, sufficient to satisfy such judgment. It should be noted that a house and lot at San
but by the very effect and result of the procedural steps taken and that appellee tried Jose, Antique were also attached. No one can successfully contest that the
to camouflage its acts by filing a complaint purportedly to exact the fulfillment of an attachment was merely an incident to an ordinary civil action. (Sections 1 & 11, Rule
obligation petition, in an attempt to circumvent the provisions of Article 1484 of the 59; Sec. 16, Rule 39). The mortgage creditor may recover judgment on the mortgage
new Civil Code. Appellant concludes that under his theory, a deficiency judgment debt and cause an execution on the mortgaged property and may cause an
would be without legal basis. attachment to be issued and levied on such property, upon beginning his civil action
(Tizon vs. Valdez, 48 Phil. 910-911).
We do not share the views of the appellant on this matter. Manifestly, the appellee had
chosen the first remedy. The complaint is an ordinary civil action for recovery of the IN VIEW HEREOF, the judgment appealed from hereby is affirmed, with costs against
remaining unpaid balance due on the promissory note. The plaintiff had not adopted the defendant-appellant.
the procedure or methods outlined by Sec. 14 of the Chattel Mortgage Law but those
prescribed for ordinary civil actions, under the Rules of Court. Had appellee elected
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Dizon, De Leon and
the foreclosure, it would not have instituted this case in court; it would not have
Natividad, JJ., concur.
caused the chattel to be attached under Rule 59, and had it sold at public auction, in
Reyes, J.B.L., J., concurs in a separate opinion.
the manner prescribed by Rule 39. That the herein appellee did not intend to foreclose
Padilla and Barrera, JJ., took no part.
the mortgage truck, is further evinced by the fact that it had also attached the house
and lot of the appellant at San Jose, Antique. In the case of Southern Motors, Inc. vs.
Magbanua, G.R. No. L-8578, Oct. 29, 1956, we held: