Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 485 views

    Celestina T. Naguiat vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jillian Asdala
    The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that the mortgage deed was null and void because the loan was never perfected. A loan contract requires delivery of the loan proceeds to be perfected, but there was no evidence presented that the checks issued by Naguiat to Queaño as loan proceeds were ever cashed or deposited. Without proof that the checks were encashed, resulting in Queaño receiving the loan amount, the loan contract was not perfected merely by Naguiat issuing the checks. Therefore, the mortgage securing a loan that was not actually delivered was correctly ruled null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Celestina T. Naguiat vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jillian Asdala
    485 views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that the mortgage deed was null and void because the loan was never perfected. A loan contract requires delivery of the loan proceeds to be perfected, but there was no evidence presented that the checks issued by Naguiat to Queaño as loan proceeds were ever cashed or deposited. Without proof that the checks were encashed, resulting in Queaño receiving the loan amount, the loan contract was not perfected merely by Naguiat issuing the checks. Therefore, the mortgage securing a loan that was not actually delivered was correctly ruled null and void.

    Original Description:

    Credit Transactions

    Original Title

    Celestina t. Naguiat vs. Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that the mortgage deed was null and void because the loan was never perfected. A loan contract requires delivery of the loan proceeds to be perfected, but there was no evidence presented that the checks issued by Naguiat to Queaño as loan proceeds were ever cashed or deposited. Without proof that the checks were encashed, resulting in Queaño receiving the loan amount, the loan contract was not perfected merely by Naguiat issuing the checks. Therefore, the mortgage securing a loan that was not actually delivered was correctly ruled null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    485 views1 page

    Celestina T. Naguiat vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jillian Asdala
    The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that the mortgage deed was null and void because the loan was never perfected. A loan contract requires delivery of the loan proceeds to be perfected, but there was no evidence presented that the checks issued by Naguiat to Queaño as loan proceeds were ever cashed or deposited. Without proof that the checks were encashed, resulting in Queaño receiving the loan amount, the loan contract was not perfected merely by Naguiat issuing the checks. Therefore, the mortgage securing a loan that was not actually delivered was correctly ruled null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA QUEA?

    O,
    respondents. G.R. No. 118375 | 2003-10-03

    Doctrine: A loan contract is a real contract, not consensual, and, as such, is perfected only upon
    the delivery of the object of the contract.

    Facts:

    Queaño obtained a loan amounting to 200,000 due on 11 September 1980 evidenced by a


    promissory note from Naguiat and issued for a loan secured by a real estate mortgage. in the
    amount of P200,000.00, which is secured by a real estate mortgage. The loan proceeds was
    endorsed by Nuguiat through two checks amounting 95,000. Aside from the PN, Nugiat issued a
    Security Bank check amounting to 200,000 due on due date. On maturity date, the check was
    dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Queaño received a letter from Naguiat’s lawyer, demanding
    settlement of the loan. Shortly thereafter, Queaño and Ruebenfeldt met with Naguiat. At the
    meeting, Queaño told Naguiat that she did not receive the proceeds of the loan, adding that the
    checks were retained by Ruebenfeldt, who purportedly was Naguiat’s agent. Naguiat applied for
    the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Queaño filed the case before the RTC, seeking the
    annulment of the mortgage deed. RTC declared the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage null and void
    which the CA affirmed.

    Issue:
    Whether Queaño had actually received the loan proceeds which were supposed to be covered by
    the two checks Naguiat had issued or indorsed.

    Held: No.
    No evidence was submitted by Naguiat that the checks she issued or endorsed were actually
    encashed or deposited. The mere issuance of the checks did not result in the perfection of the
    contract of loan. For the Civil Code provides that the delivery of bills of exchange and mercantile
    documents such as checks shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed. It
    is only after the checks have produced the effect of payment that the contract of loan may be
    deemed perfected. Art. 1934 of the Civil Code provides: "An accepted promise to deliver
    something by way of commodatum or simple loan is binding upon the parties, but the
    commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be perfected until the delivery of the object of the
    contract." A loan contract is a real contract, not consensual, and, as such, is perfected only upon
    the delivery of the object of the contract. In this case, the objects of the contract are the loan
    proceeds which Queaño would enjoy only upon the encashment of the checks signed or indorsed
    by Naguiat. If indeed the checks were encashed or deposited, Naguiat would have certainly
    presented the corresponding documentary evidence, such as the returned checks and the pertinent
    bank records. Since Naguiat presented no such proof, it follows that the checks were not encashed
    or credited to Queaño’s account.

    You might also like