Scribd
Upload
281 views1 page

Flores v. Lindo

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case regarding a loan and mortgage agreement. The petitioner had loaned money to the respondent, who used a property owned by her and her husband as collateral. However, the husband did not initially consent to the mortgage. The lower courts previously ruled against allowing the petitioner to foreclose on the mortgage or file a personal case for the debt. The Supreme Court held that [1] the petitioner could pursue both remedies of personal action and foreclosure, [2] the wife's later authorization perfected the mortgage agreement, and [3] disallowing the case would result in unjust enrichment for the respondent. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and ordered the case to

Uploaded by

Kim Guevarra
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
281 views1 page

Flores v. Lindo

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case regarding a loan and mortgage agreement. The petitioner had loaned money to the respondent, who used a property owned by her and her husband as collateral. However, the husband did not initially consent to the mortgage. The lower courts previously ruled against allowing the petitioner to foreclose on the mortgage or file a personal case for the debt. The Supreme Court held that [1] the petitioner could pursue both remedies of personal action and foreclosure, [2] the wife's later authorization perfected the mortgage agreement, and [3] disallowing the case would result in unjust enrichment for the respondent. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and ordered the case to

Uploaded by

Kim Guevarra
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

183984

April 13, 2011

Issue: W/N Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in dismissing the complaint Held: Petition has merit Ratio: 1. Each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, an election to bring a personal action will leave open to him all the properties of the debtor for attachment and execution, even including the mortgaged property itself. And, if he waives such personal action and pursues his remedy against the mortgaged property, an unsatisfied judgment thereon would still give him the right to sue for deficiency judgment, in which case, all the properties of the defendant, other than the mortgaged property, are again open to him for the satisfaction of the deficiency. 2. Art. 124 of Family code(administration of property), in the absence of consent or authority, disposition and encumbrance is void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. 3. Although the SPA on 4 November cannot be applied to retroact, such act perfected the contract, making the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage a valid contract. 4. Art. 22 of Civil Code (Unjust Enrichment); the principle against unjust enrichment, being a substantive law, should prevail over the procedural rule on multiplicity of suits. The Court of Appeals, in the assailed decision, found that Edna admitted the loan, except that she claimed it only amounted to P340,000. Edna should not be allowed to unjustly enrich herself because of the erroneous decisions of the two trial courts when she questioned the validity of the Deed. 5. RTC 33 and CA Resolutions are set aside and Branch 42 is directed to proceed with the case.

ARTURO SARTE FLORES, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ENRICO L. LINDO, JR. and EDNA C. LINDO, Respondents. Facts: 1. On 31 October 1995, Respondent obtained a loan from petitioner amounting to P400,000 payable on 1 December 1995 with 3% compounded monthly interest & 3% surcharge in case of late payment. Edna executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (the Deed) covering a property in the name of Edna and her husband Enrico (used SPA [Special power of Attorney] on 4 November 1995). 2. RTC Branch 33 ruled that petitioner was not entitled to judicial foreclosure of the mortgage. It found that the Deed was executed was without the consent and authority of Enrico. Furthermore, it ruled that petitioner was not precluded from recovering the loan from Edna as he could file a personal action against her. However, it did not have the jurisdiction, as it should be filed where the defendant resides. 3. On 8 September 2004, petitioner filed a Complaint for Sum of Money with Damages against respondents. It was raffled to Branch 42. 4. Respondent filed counterclaims that it only amounted to 340,000; Along with the prayer for dismissal on the grounds of improper venue, res judicata and forum-shopping, invoking the Decision of the RTC, Branch 33. Branch 42 denied the motion of the respondent. 5. The Court of Appeals ruled that under Section 3, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one on a judgment upon the merits in any one is available ground for the dismissal of the others. (It must be either a personal action for the collection of debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage, but not both)

You might also like