Scribd
Upload
256 views3 pages

24 Miguel Vs Montanez

This case involves a loan agreement between Miguel and Montanez where Montanez failed to repay the loan. [1] Miguel filed a case with the local barangay and they created an agreement (Kasunduan Pambarangay) for Montanez to repay in installments, but he failed to comply. [2] Miguel then filed a collection case in court. The CA reversed, saying the case should be on enforcing the barangay agreement. [3] The Supreme Court set aside the CA's decision and reinstated the trial court, saying Miguel rescinded the barangay agreement by filing a collection case, so it should decide the merits based on the original loan contract.

Uploaded by

Rio Tolentino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
256 views3 pages

24 Miguel Vs Montanez

This case involves a loan agreement between Miguel and Montanez where Montanez failed to repay the loan. [1] Miguel filed a case with the local barangay and they created an agreement (Kasunduan Pambarangay) for Montanez to repay in installments, but he failed to comply. [2] Miguel then filed a collection case in court. The CA reversed, saying the case should be on enforcing the barangay agreement. [3] The Supreme Court set aside the CA's decision and reinstated the trial court, saying Miguel rescinded the barangay agreement by filing a collection case, so it should decide the merits based on the original loan contract.

Uploaded by

Rio Tolentino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

24 - Miguel vs Montanez

G.R. No. 191336 January 25, 2012


CRISANTA ALCARAZ MIGUEL, Petitioner,
vs.
JERRY D. MONTANEZ, Respondent.

FACTS:

Montanez secured a loan P 143,864 Payable in 1 year OR until


Feb 1, 2002 From Miguel Collateral – house and lot located in
Caloocan City. Failure to pay the loan Miguel filed before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Brgy San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal; Entered into a
KASUNDUANG PAGAAYOS, Respondent agreed to pay
Installments of P2K/month. Respondent failed to settle in full to pay
and the Lupong Pambarangay issued a CERTIFICATION to file
action in court in favor of Miguel filed before MTC Makati – Collection
of sum of money

The Respondent question the proper venue (petitioner was


resident of Caloocan while he lived in Rizal); MTC: ordered
Montanez to pay Appeal to RTC of Makati - Respondent raised the
same issue to RTC up until the appeal reached CA.

The petition to CA was to find out whether or not venue was


improperly laid and the kasunduang pag-aayos effectively novated
the loan agreement. The CA Reversed and set aside RTC as no
novation and merely supplemented the old agreement. CA said such
Pagaayos has the force and effect of a court judgment.

ISSUES:

Whether or not CA should have decided the case on the merits


rather the case for the enforcement of the Kasunduan Pambarangay
made in the Province of Rizal.
RULING:

NO. The Supreme Court set aside the CA's Decision and
reinstate the Trial Court's Decision.

Respondent failed to comply with the Kasunduan, agreement is


deemed RESCINDED (Art 2041 of the New Civil Code)
1. Can enforce action for collection of sum of money Cause of
action arose from the loan agreement not the pagaayos;
2. Compromise: effect and authority of res judicata but there shall
be no execution except in compliance with a judicial
compromise; Even if not judicially approved;
3. Akin to a judgment that is subject to execution;
4. Enforced within 6 months from date of settlement by filing an
action to enforce inappropriate city or municipal court, IF
BEYOND 6 MONTH PERIOD:
a. Under the LOCAL GOVT CODE and KATARUNGANG
PAMBARANGAY IRR. Punong barangay is called to hear
and determine solely the fact of noncompliance of the terms
and settlement and to give the defaulting party another
chance to VOLUNTARILY COMPLY with his obligation;
b. Proceedings are governed by the ROC.

The CA took off on the wrong premise that enforcement of the


Kasunduang Pag-aayos is the proper remedy, and therefore erred in
its conclusion that the case should be remanded to the trial court.
The fact that the petitioner opted to rescind the Kasunduang Pag-
aayos means that she is insisting upon the undertaking of the
respondent under the original loan contract. Thus, the CA should
have decided the case on the merits, as an appeal before it, and not
prolong the determination of the issues by remanding it to the trial
court. Pertinently, evidence abounds that the respondent has failed
to comply with his loan obligation. In fact, the Kasunduang Pag-
aayos is the well-nigh incontrovertible proof of the respondent’s
indebtedness with the petitioner as it was executed precisely to give
the respondent a second chance to make good on his undertaking.
And since the respondent still reneged in paying his indebtedness,
justice demands that he must be held answerable therefor.

You might also like