A.10. Calibo Vs CA

Reizel S.
Dela Peña #10

2C-Credit Transactions PLEDGE AND MORTGAGE CASES
I. SHORT TITLE: Calibo vs CA
II. FULL TITLE: Atty. Dionisio Calibo, Jr., versus Court Of Appeals And Dr. Pablo U.
Abella, G.R. No. 120528, January 29, 2001, Quisumbing, J.
III. TOPIC: Credit Transactions – Provisions Common to Pledge and Mortgage
IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
Private respondent (Pablo) purchased an MF 210 agricultural tractor which he

used in his farm in Dagohoy, Bohol. Mike Abella (Mike), Pablos’ son, rented for
residential purpose the house of the herein petitioner in Tagbilaran City. Pablo pulled
out his aforementioned tractor from his farm in Dagohoy, Bohol, and left it in the
safekeeping of his son in Tagbilaran City. The latter kept the tractor in the garage of the
house he was leasing from the petitioner (Calibo).
Since Mike started renting Calibo's house, the former had been religiously paying the
monthly rentals therefor, but later on had stopped doing so as well as the electric and
water bill. Thus, Calibo confronted Mike about the unpaid rentals and bill. During this
confrontation, Mike informed Calibo that he would be staying in the leased property until
a certain period of time. Mike also assured Calibo that he would be settling his account
with the latter, offering the tractor as security. Mike even asked Calibo to help him find a
buyer for the tractor so he could sooner pay his outstanding obligation.
Apprehensive over Mike's unsettled account, Calibo visited him in his house in Cebu
City and tried to collect payment was unable to talk to Mike. The following week, Mike
saw Calibo in Tagbilaran City to inquire about the possible tractor buyer. The sale,
however, did not push through as the buyer did not come back anymore. When again
confronted with his outstanding obligation, Mike reassured Calibo that the tractor would
stand as a guarantee for its payment. That was the last time Calibo saw or heard from
Mike.
After a long while, Pablo came to Tagbilaran City to claim and take possession of the
tractor. Calibo, however, informed Pablo that Mike left the tractor with him as security
for the payment of Mike's obligation to him. Pablo offered to write Mike a check for
P2,000.00 in payment of Mike's unpaid lease rentals, in addition to issuing post-dated
checks to cover the unpaid electric and water bills the correctness of which Pablo said
he still had to verify with Mike. Calibo told Pablo that he would accept the check only if
the latter would execute a promissory note in his favor to cover the amount of the
unpaid electric and water bills. Pablo was not amenable to this proposal. The two of
them having failed to come to an agreement, Pablo left and went back to Cebu City,
unsuccessful in his attempt to take possession of the tractor."
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
Pablo instituted an action for replevin, claiming ownership of the tractor and
seeking to recover possession thereof from petitioner. The trial court ruled in favor of
Pablo; so did the Court of Appeals when Calibo appealed. The Court of Appeals
sustained the ruling of the trial court that Mike could not have validly pledged the subject
tractor to Calibo since he was not the owner thereof, nor was he authorized by its owner
to pledge the tractor.
VI. ISSUE:
WON the tractor was validly pledged to Calibo by Pablo’s son (Mike) to answer
for the latter's monetary obligations to the former.
VII. RULING:
NO
In a contract of pledge, the creditor is given the right to retain his debtor's
movable property in his possession, or in that of a third person to whom it has been
delivered, until the debt is paid. For the contract to be valid, it is necessary that: (1) the
pledge is constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation; (2) the pledgor be
the absolute owner of the thing pledged; and (3) the person constituting the pledge has
the free disposal of his property, and in the absence thereof, that he be legally
authorized for the purpose.
As found by the trial court and affirmed by respondent court, the pledgor in this
case, Mike, was not the absolute owner of the tractor that was allegedly pledged to
Calibo. The tractor was owned by his father, Pablo, who left the equipment with him for
safekeeping. Clearly, the second requisite for a valid pledge, that the pledgor be the
absolute owner of the property, is absent in this case. Hence, there is no valid pledge.
VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39705 is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.

A.10. Calibo Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.10. Calibo Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.10. Calibo Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reizel S.

Dela Peña #10

I. SHORT TITLE: Calibo vs CA

III. TOPIC: Credit Transactions – Provisions Common to Pledge and Mortgage

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:

Private respondent (Pablo) purchased an MF 210 agricultural tractor which he

VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

You might also like