Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Algarme, Danielle Kym Marie R.

Topic: Contract of Loan

Celistina Naguiat v. Court of Appeals


G.R. No. 118375 | October 23, 2003
Tinga, J.
FACTS:

 Aurora Queao, private respondent, was granted a loan of PhP 200,000 from Naguiat.
Naguiat then indorsed Queao Associated Bank check of PhP 95,000 which was earlier
issued to Naguiat by Corporate Reources Fiancing Corporation. Naguiat then issued her
own Filmanbank Check of PhP 95,000 to constitute the loan granted on Sept 11.
 To secure the loan, Queao executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of Naguiat
and surrendered to her the owners duplicate of the titles covering the mortgage property.
It was notarized on the same day the checks were issued. Queao then issued a
promissory note for the loaned amount, payable Sept 11 1980. Queao also issued
Security Bank and Trust Company a postdated check of PhP 200,000.
 Sept. 12 1980, upon the maturity of the loan, the Security Bank check presented by
Naguiat was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Queao then requested to the bank to
stop payment for the postdated check which the bank rejected.
 October 1980 Queao received letters from Naguiat’s lawyer to settle the loan. They then
met with Ruby Ruebenfeldt, who allegedly was Naguiat’s agent, where Queao told
Naguiat that she did not receive the proceeds of the loan since Ruby retained the
checks.
 Naguiat applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. Pasay RTC
rendered a favorable judgement to Queao and declared the Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage null and void.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the notarized documents be rebuttable
2. Whether there was a loan contract between Naguiat and Queao
3. Whether the mortgage contract was valid
HELD
1. Yes the notarized documents which enjoys a presumption of truthfulness is rebuttable
with clear and convincing evidence. Naguiat capitalized that Queao received the
proceeds of the loan by capitalizing on the notarized mortgage deed. The Court of
Appeals correctly ruled that the public document was defeated because Naguiat did not
present any convincing evidence, in this case the absence of consideration, that Queao
did receive the loan proceeds such as bank statements or check returns which Naguiat
can easily produce. Since Naguiat presented no proof it follows that Queao did not
receive the proceeds of the loan
2. There was no loan contract between the parties. A loan contract is a real contract that
requires the delivery of the object for its perfection. Art 1334 states that the
commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be perfected until the delivery of the object
of the contract. With no proof that Queao did receive the proceeds of the loan, which is
the object of the contract, the loan contract was not perfected.
Algarme, Danielle Kym Marie R. Topic: Contract of Loan

3. The Mortgage contract is not valid. A mortgage contract is an accessory contract to the
loan contract therefore the consideration of the mortgage contract is the same with the
principal contract that gives it life. The case being that the loan contract is not perfected
follows that the mortgage contract which is used to secure the loan is null and void. The
mortgage contract being a mere accessory contract, its validity would depend on the
validity of the loan secured by it.