Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Facts:: Tan v. CA, October 19, 2001

    Uploaded by

    JoVic2020
    This case involves a loan obtained by petitioner Antonio Tan from respondent Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) in 1978. Tan defaulted on the loan and it was restructured in 1979 but he failed to pay any installments. In 1984, CCP filed a collection case against Tan. The issue was whether CCP could demand fulfillment of the obligation and penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that CCP could demand fulfillment and penalties, as Tan did not make any payments and his proposed payment plans did not constitute partial or irregular performance of the contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Facts:: Tan v. CA, October 19, 2001

    Uploaded by

    JoVic2020
    12 views2 pages
    This case involves a loan obtained by petitioner Antonio Tan from respondent Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) in 1978. Tan defaulted on the loan and it was restructured in 1979 but he failed to pay any installments. In 1984, CCP filed a collection case against Tan. The issue was whether CCP could demand fulfillment of the obligation and penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that CCP could demand fulfillment and penalties, as Tan did not make any payments and his proposed payment plans did not constitute partial or irregular performance of the contract.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Tan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a loan obtained by petitioner Antonio Tan from respondent Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) in 1978. Tan defaulted on the loan and it was restructured in 1979 but he failed to pay any installments. In 1984, CCP filed a collection case against Tan. The issue was whether CCP could demand fulfillment of the obligation and penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that CCP could demand fulfillment and penalties, as Tan did not make any payments and his proposed payment plans did not constitute partial or irregular performance of the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    12 views2 pages

    Facts:: Tan v. CA, October 19, 2001

    Uploaded by

    JoVic2020
    This case involves a loan obtained by petitioner Antonio Tan from respondent Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) in 1978. Tan defaulted on the loan and it was restructured in 1979 but he failed to pay any installments. In 1984, CCP filed a collection case against Tan. The issue was whether CCP could demand fulfillment of the obligation and penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that CCP could demand fulfillment and penalties, as Tan did not make any payments and his proposed payment plans did not constitute partial or irregular performance of the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tan v.

    CA, October 19, 2001


    FACTS: On

    May 14, 1978 and July 6, 1978, petitioner Antonio Tan obtained two (2) loans
    each in the principal amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), or in the total
    principal amount of Four Million Pesos (P4,000,000.00) from respondent Cultural Center
    of the Philippines (CCP, for brevity) evidenced by two (2) promissory notes with maturity
    dates on May 14, 1979 and July 6, 1979, respectively. Petitioner defaulted but after a few
    partial payments he had the loans restructured by respondent CCP, and petitioner
    accordingly executed a promissory note (Exhibit A) on August 31, 1979 in the amount of
    Three Million Four Hundred Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-One Pesos and
    Thirty-Two Centavos (P3,411,421.32) payable in five (5) installments.Petitioner Tan
    failed to pay any installment on the said restructured loan of Three Million Four Hundred
    Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-One Pesos and Thirty-Two Centavos
    (P3,411,421.32), the last installment falling due on December 31, 1980. In a letter dated
    January 26, 1982, petitioner requested and proposed to respondent CCP a mode of paying
    the restructured loan, i.e., (a) twenty percent (20%) of the principal amount of the loan
    upon the respondent giving its conformity to his proposal; and (b) the balance on the
    principal obligation payable in thirty-six (36) equal monthly installments until fully
    paid. On October 20, 1983, petitioner again sent a letter to respondent CCP requesting for
    a moratorium on his loan obligation until the following year allegedly due to a substantial
    deduction in the volume of his business and on account of the peso devaluation. No
    favorable response was made to said letters. Instead, respondent CCP, through counsel,
    wrote a letter dated May 30, 1984 to the petitioner demanding full payment, within ten
    (10) days from receipt of said letter, of the petitioners restructured loan which as of April
    30, 1984 amounted to Six Million Eighty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-Five
    Pesos and Three Centavos (P6,088,735.03). On August 29, 1984, respondent CCP filed in
    the RTC of Manila a complaint for collection of a sum of money, docketed as Civil Case
    No. 84-26363, against the petitioner after the latter failed to settle his said restructured
    loan obligation. The petitioner interposed the defense that he merely accommodated a
    friend, Wilson Lucmen, who allegedly asked for his help to obtain a loan from respondent
    CCP. Petitioner claimed that he has not been able to locate Wilson Lucmen. While the
    case was pending in the trial court, the petitioner filed a Manifestation wherein he
    proposed to settle his indebtedness to respondent CCP by proposing to make a down
    payment of One Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P140,000.00) and to issue twelve (12)
    checks every beginning of the year to cover installment payments for one year, and every
    year thereafter until the balance is fully paid. However, respondent CCP did not agree to
    the petitioners proposals and so the trial of the case ensued.
    Whether the creditor CCP can demand the fulfillment of the obligation and
    demandinf the satisfaction of penalty?
    ISSUE:

    In affirming the decision of the trial court imposing surcharges and interest,
    the appellate court held that. TheSCareunabletoacceptappellants(petitioners)claim
    formodification onthe basis ofalleged partial orirregular performance, there being
    none.Appellantsofferortenderofpaymentcannotbedeemedasapartialorirregular
    performance of the contract, not a single centavo appears to have been paid by the
    defendant.
    RULING: No,

    You might also like