Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 202 views

    CABANTING Vs BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.

    Uploaded by

    Mac Soriano
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals ruling in favor of BPI Family Savings Bank in its case for replevin and damages against Vicente and Lalain Cabanting. The Cabantings had purchased a vehicle on installment from Diamond Motors, signing a promissory note with BPI that waived the need for notice or demand in case of non-payment. When the Cabantings failed to pay, BPI filed the replevin case without prior demand. The Supreme Court held that no prior demand was necessary as the promissory note legally waived this requirement, making the obligation immediately due, citing previous cases where similar waivers were upheld.

    Copyright:

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

    CABANTING Vs BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.

    Uploaded by

    Mac Soriano
    202 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals ruling in favor of BPI Family Savings Bank in its case for replevin and damages against Vicente and Lalain Cabanting. The Cabantings had purchased a vehicle on installment from Diamond Motors, signing a promissory note with BPI that waived the need for notice or demand in case of non-payment. When the Cabantings failed to pay, BPI filed the replevin case without prior demand. The Supreme Court held that no prior demand was necessary as the promissory note legally waived this requirement, making the obligation immediately due, citing previous cases where similar waivers were upheld.

    Original Title

    CABANTING vs BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.

    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 affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals ruling in favor of BPI Family Savings Bank in its case for replevin and damages against Vicente and Lalain Cabanting. The Cabantings had purchased a vehicle on installment from Diamond Motors, signing a promissory note with BPI that waived the need for notice or demand in case of non-payment. When the Cabantings failed to pay, BPI filed the replevin case without prior demand. The Supreme Court held that no prior demand was necessary as the promissory note legally waived this requirement, making the obligation immediately due, citing previous cases where similar waivers were upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    202 views2 pages

    CABANTING Vs BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.

    Uploaded by

    Mac Soriano
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals ruling in favor of BPI Family Savings Bank in its case for replevin and damages against Vicente and Lalain Cabanting. The Cabantings had purchased a vehicle on installment from Diamond Motors, signing a promissory note with BPI that waived the need for notice or demand in case of non-payment. When the Cabantings failed to pay, BPI filed the replevin case without prior demand. The Supreme Court held that no prior demand was necessary as the promissory note legally waived this requirement, making the obligation immediately due, citing previous cases where similar waivers were upheld.

    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 2

    Replevin and Damages

    VICENTE D. CABANTING AND LALAINE V. CABANTING,


    v.
    BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.

    G.R. No. 201927


    Third Division
    February 17, 2016
    Peralta, J.

    Facts:

    Cabanting bought a Mitsubishi Adventure from Diamond Motors on installment basis. He also
    executed a Promissory note with Chattel Mortgage on the vehicle in favor of Diamond Motors wherein the
    parties stipulated that in case of failure to pay “the entire sum outstanding under this note shall
    immediately become due and payable without the necessity of notice or demand which I/We hereby
    waive."  On the same day, Diamond motors assigned to BPI Bank all its right, title and interest to the
    Promissory note.

    When Cabanting failed to pay his monthly amortizations, BPI filed a case for Replevin and
    damages against Cabanting. RTC rendered a decision in favor of BPI and ordered Cabanting to pay his
    unpaid balance. The decision was affirmed by the CA on appeal. Cabanting now raised as error that there
    was no proof of prior demand and that the stipulation on its waiver must be deemed invalid for being a
    contract of adhesion.

    Issues:

    Whether or not prior demand by the respondent bank is necessary before the obligation of
    Cabating becomes due and demandable.

    Ruling:

    No. The Supreme Court held that no prior demand was necessary. Decision of the CA affirmed.
    According to the SC:

    Petitioners are bound by the aforementioned stipulation in the Promissory Note with Chattel
    Mortgage waiving the necessity of notice and demand to make the obligation due and payable. Agner v.
    BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., which is closely similar to the present case, is squarely applicable.
    Petitioners therein also executed a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage containing the stipulation
    waiving the need for notice and demand. The Court ruled:

    xxx Even assuming, for argument's sake, that no demand letter was sent by respondent, there is
    really no need for it because petitioners legally waived the necessity of notice or demand in the
    Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage, which they voluntarily and knowingly signed in favor of
    respondent's predecessor-in-interest. Said contract expressly stipulates:

    In case of my/our failure to pay when due and payable, any sum which I/We are obliged to pay
    under this note and/or any other obligation which I/We or any of us may now or in the future owe to the
    holder of this note or to any other party whether as principal or guarantor xxx then the entire sum
    outstanding under this note shall, without prior notice or demand, immediately become due and payable.

    A provision on waiver of notice or demand has been recognized as legal and valid in Bank of the
    Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, wherein We held:
    The Civil Code in Article 1169 provides that one incurs in delay or is in default from the
    time the obligor demands the fulfillment of the obligation from the obligee. However, the law
    expressly provides that demand is not necessary under certain circumstances, and one of these
    circumstances is when the parties expressly waive demand. Hence, since the co-signors expressly
    waived demand in the promissory notes, demand was unnecessary for them to be in default.

    Further, the Court even ruled in Navarro v. Escobido that prior demand is not a condition
    precedent to an action for a writ of replevin, since there is nothing in Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of
    Court that requires the applicant to make a demand on the possessor of the property before an action for
    a writ of replevin could be filed.

    Clearly, as stated above, Article 1169 (1) of the Civil Code allows a party to waive the need for
    notice and demand. Petitioners' argument that their liability cannot be deemed due and payable for lack of
    proof of demand must be struck down.

    You might also like