Saura Import and Export Co. Inc. v. DBP

CASE # 3 Title: Saura Import and Export Co. Inc. v. DBP GR No. G.R. No.
L-24968 Date: April 27, 1972 TOPIC: Contract to Loan, Art. 1934 PONENTE: MAKALINTAL, J. FACTS: 1. Saura Inc., is engaged in manufacturing jute sacks. It purchased jute mill machinery on the strength of a letter of credit extended by the Prudential Bank and Trust Co.; and that to secure its release without first paying the draft, Saura, Inc. executed a trust receipt in favor of the said bank. 2. In order to support its business, Saura, Inc. applied to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC), before its conversion into DBP, for an industrial loan of P500,000.00 to be used for construction of factory building, for payment of the balance of the purchase price of the jute machinery and equipment and as additional working capital. In Resolution No.145, the loan application was approved to be secured first by mortgage on the factory buildings, the land site, and machinery and equipment to be installed. 3. The mortgage was registered and documents for the promissory note were executed. However, when one of the guarantors withdrew from such contract of loan, RFC decided to reduce the amount of P500,000.00 to P300,000.00. Saura Inc. did not agree to it, thus it exerted efforts to regain the signature of the withdrawal guarantor which was successfully made. 4. RFC passed Resolution No. 9083, restoring the loan to the original amount of P500,000.00, but with the following proviso: That in view of observations made of the shortage and high cost of imported raw materials, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall certify to the following: 1. That the raw materials needed by the borrower corporation to carry out its operation are available in the immediate vicinity; and 2. That there is prospect of increased production thereof to provide adequately for the requirements of the factory." 5. With the foregoing letter, Saura, Inc. did not pursue the matter further. Instead, it requested RFC to cancel the mortgage, and so, RFC executed the corresponding deed of cancellation. It appears that the cancellation was requested to make way for the registration of a mortgage contract over the same property in favor of the Prudential Bank and Trust Co., under which contract Saura, Inc. had up to December 31 of the same year within which to pay its obligation on the trust receipt heretofore mentioned. 6. 9 years after the mortgage in favor of RFC was cancelled at the request of Saura, Inc., the latter commenced the present suit for damages, alleging failure of RFC (as predecessor of the defendant DBP) to comply with its obligation to release the proceeds of the loan applied for and approved, thereby preventing the it from completing or paying contractual commitments it had entered into, in connection with its jute mill project. (Ibig sabihin kinasuhan sya ng Prudential Bank for failing to pay its obligation) ISSUE: Whether or not there was a perfected contract of loan between the parties. HELD: YES. The Court held in the affirmative. Article 1934 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 delivery of the object of the contract. RATIO: There was undoubtedly offer and acceptance in this case: the application of Saura, Inc. for a loan of P500,000.00 was approved by resolution of the defendant, and the corresponding mortgage was executed and registered. When an application for a loan of money was approved by resolution of the respondent corporation and the responding mortgage was executed and registered, there arises a perfected
consensual contract. The imposition of those conditions was by no means a deviation from the terms of the agreement, but rather a step in its implementation. When RFC turned down the request in its letter of January 25, 1955 the negotiations which had been going on for the implementation of the agreement reached an impasse. Saura, Inc. obviously was in no position to comply with RFC's conditions. So instead of doing so and insisting that the loan be released as agreed upon, Saura, Inc. asked that the mortgage be cancelled, which was done on June 15, 1955. The action thus taken by both parties was in the nature cf mutual desistance what Manresa terms "mutuo disenso" 1 which is a mode of extinguishing obligations. It is a concept that derives from the principle that since mutual agreement can create a contract, mutual disagreement by the parties can cause its extinguishment. CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: The Court held in the affirmative. Article 1934 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 delivery of the object of the contract. When an application for a loan of money was approved by resolution of the respondent corporation and the responding mortgage was executed and registered, there arises a perfected consensual contract. DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION: N/A KEYWORDS/NOTES: Contract of loan is consensual. This case illustrates the importance of a definitive acceptance of an offer, as opposed to a counter-offer, for the perfection of the consensual contract of loan.

Saura Import and Export Co. Inc. v. DBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saura Import and Export Co. Inc. v. DBP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Saura Import and Export Co. Inc. v. DBP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE # 3 Title: Saura Import and Export Co. Inc. v. DBP GR No. G.R. No.

You might also like