CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MAGNA FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. CS. COLARINA, G.R. NO. 158635, 9 DECEMBER 2005, 477 SCRA 245

MAGNA FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. CS. COLARINA,

G.R. NO. 158635, 9 DECEMBER 2005, 477 SCRA 245

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Article 1484, paragraph 3, provides that if the vendor has availed himself of the right to foreclose the chattel mortgage, “he shall have no further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the purchase price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be void.” It is deemed that there has been foreclosure of the mortgage when all the proceedings of the foreclosure including the sale of the property at public auction have been accomplished.

FACTS

Elias Colarina bought on installment from Magna Financial Services Group, Inc., 1 unit of Suzuki Multicab. After making a down payment, Colarina executed a PN for the balance of P229,284.  To secure payment thereof, Colarina executed an integrated PN and deed of chattel mortgage over the motor vehicle.

Colarina failed to pay the monthly amortization beginning January 1999, accumulating an unpaid balance of P131,607.  Despite repeated demands, he failed to make the necessary payment.  Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. filed a Complaint for Foreclosure of Chattel Mortgage with Replevin  before the MTCC. Upon filing of a bond, a writ of replevin was issued. Colarina who voluntarily surrendered physical possession of the vehicle to the Sheriff.  After declaring Colarina in default, the trial court ruled against defendant and ordered him to pay the sum of P131,607 plus penalty charges, attorney’s fees and cost. In case of nonpayment, the multicab shall be sold at public auction. The RTC affirmed. The CA rendered its decision ruling that the courts erred in ordering the defendant to pay the unpaid balance of the purchase price irrespective of the fact that the complaint was for the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage.

ISSUE

What is the true nature of a foreclosure of chattel mortgage under Article 1484(3)?

 

RULING

The court held that Act 4122 amending Art. 1454, Civil Code of 1889 prevents mortgagees from seizing the mortgaged property, buying it at foreclosure sale for a low price and then bringing the suit against the mortgagor for a deficiency judgment. The almost invariable result of this procedure was that the mortgagor found himself minus the property and still owing practically the full amount of his original indebtedness.” Article 1484, paragraph 3, provides that if the vendor has availed himself of the right to foreclose the chattel mortgage, “he shall have no further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the purchase price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be void.” And it is deemed that there has been foreclosure of the mortgage when all the proceedings of the foreclosure, including the sale of the property at public auction, have been accomplished.

Extrajudicial foreclosure, as chosen by the petitioner, is attained by causing the mortgaged property to be seized by the sheriff, as agent of the mortgagee, and have it sold at public auction in the manner prescribed by Section 14 of Act No. 1508, or the Chattel Mortgage Law. Thus, in Manila Motor Co. v. Fernandez, our Supreme Court said that it is actual sale of the mortgaged chattel in accordance with Sec. 14 of Act No. 1508 that would bar the creditor (who chooses to foreclose) from recovering any unpaid balance.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459