Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    2) Yuliongsiu V PNB

    Uploaded by

    kathreenmonje
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that PNB validly took physical possession of the pledged vessels and conducted a private sale of the vessels to itself without notifying the plaintiff. The Court held that: 1) PNB, as the pledgee, was entitled to actual possession of the vessels even though the plaintiff continued operating them, because the plaintiff's possession was subject to PNB's order per their contract. 2) The private sale was valid because the law on real estate foreclosure did not apply to pledges of personal property. 3) PNB was allowed to purchase the vessels in a private sale under its corporate charter, and the plaintiff could have redeemed the vessels

    Copyright:

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

    2) Yuliongsiu V PNB

    Uploaded by

    kathreenmonje
    21 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that PNB validly took physical possession of the pledged vessels and conducted a private sale of the vessels to itself without notifying the plaintiff. The Court held that: 1) PNB, as the pledgee, was entitled to actual possession of the vessels even though the plaintiff continued operating them, because the plaintiff's possession was subject to PNB's order per their contract. 2) The private sale was valid because the law on real estate foreclosure did not apply to pledges of personal property. 3) PNB was allowed to purchase the vessels in a private sale under its corporate charter, and the plaintiff could have redeemed the vessels

    Original Description:

    credit

    Original Title

    2) Yuliongsiu v PNB

    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 trial court's ruling that PNB validly took physical possession of the pledged vessels and conducted a private sale of the vessels to itself without notifying the plaintiff. The Court held that: 1) PNB, as the pledgee, was entitled to actual possession of the vessels even though the plaintiff continued operating them, because the plaintiff's possession was subject to PNB's order per their contract. 2) The private sale was valid because the law on real estate foreclosure did not apply to pledges of personal property. 3) PNB was allowed to purchase the vessels in a private sale under its corporate charter, and the plaintiff could have redeemed the vessels

    Copyright:

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

    2) Yuliongsiu V PNB

    Uploaded by

    kathreenmonje
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that PNB validly took physical possession of the pledged vessels and conducted a private sale of the vessels to itself without notifying the plaintiff. The Court held that: 1) PNB, as the pledgee, was entitled to actual possession of the vessels even though the plaintiff continued operating them, because the plaintiff's possession was subject to PNB's order per their contract. 2) The private sale was valid because the law on real estate foreclosure did not apply to pledges of personal property. 3) PNB was allowed to purchase the vessels in a private sale under its corporate charter, and the plaintiff could have redeemed the vessels

    Copyright:

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

    CredTrans | Atty.

    Migallos | G01 | CAL


    Yuliongsiu v PNB 2. There was constructive delivery when Diosdado took possession of the boats, subject to
    G.R. No. L-19227 | February 17, 1968 | Bengzon, J.P., J the order of PNB. The type of delivery will depend upon the nature and the peculiar
    Plaintiff-Appellant: Diosdado Yuliongsiu circumstances of each case. In this case, the parties here agreed that the vessels be
    Defendant-Appellee: Philippine National Bank (Cebu Branch) delivered by the "pledgee to the pledgor who shall hold said property subject to the order
    TOPIC: Pledge, Mortgage and Antichresis: Provisions Applicable to Pledge Only of the pledgee." Considering the circumstances of this case and the nature of the objects
    DOCTRINE: Act 3135 refers only, and is limited, to foreclosure of real estate mortgages. So, pledged, i.e., vessels used in maritime business, such delivery is sufficient since PNB
    whatever formalities there are in Act 3135 do not apply to pledge. had full control of the pledged vessels.
    FACTS:
    1. Plaintiff-appellant Diosdado Yuliongsiu was the owner of 2 vessels, namely: The M/S 3. Since PNB was in full control of the vessels thru the Diosdado, the former could take
    Surigao and the M/S Don Dino and operated the FS-203, valued at P210,672.24, which actual possession at any time during the life of the pledge to make more effective its
    was purchased by him from the Philippine Shipping Commission (PSC), by installment or security. Its taking of the vessels was not unlawful.
    on account.
    2. Diosdado had paid to the PSC only the sum of P76,500 and the balance of the purchase Validity of the Private Sale
    price was payable at P50,000 a year, due on or before the end of the current year. 4. Diosdado claims that prior notice in connection with foreclosure proceedings are required
    3. He obtained a loan of P50,000 from the defendant PNB, Cebu Branch. To guarantee its in view of the passage of Act 3135 and that the charter of PNB does not allow it to buy
    payment, he pledged the M/S Surigao, M/S Don Dino and its equity in the FS-203 to the the property object of foreclosure in case of private sales.
    PNB, as evidenced by a pledge contract.
    4. He effected partial payment of P20K. The remaining balance was renewed by the There is no merit in the claims. Act 3135 refers only, and is limited, to foreclosure of real
    execution of 2 promissory notes, one worth P20K and the other worth P10K. He failed to estate mortgages. So, whatever formalities there are in Act 3135 do not apply to pledge.
    pay the remaining balance on their due dates.
    5. PNB took physical possession of 3 pledged vessels while they were at the Port of Cebu. 5. Regarding the bank's authority to be the purchaser in the foreclosure sale, Sec. 33 of Act
    And when the first PN fell due, Cebu Branch Manager of PNB, acting as attorney-in-fact 2612, as amended by Acts 2747 and 2938 only states that if the sale is public, the bank
    of Diosdado pursuant to the terms of the pledge contract, executed a document of sale, could purchase the whole or part of the property sold " free from any right of redemption
    transferring the 2 pledged vessels and Diosdado’s equity in FS-203, to PNB. on the part of the mortgagor or pledgor." This even argues against Diosdado's case since
    6. The FS-203 was subsequently surrendered by the PNB to the PSC, who rescinded the the import thereof is this if the sale were private and the bank became the purchaser, the
    sale to Diosdado, while the other 2 boats were sold by PNB to third parties. mortgagor or pledgor could redeem the property. Hence, plaintiff could have recovered
    7. Diosdado commenced action in the CFI to recover the 3 vessels or their value and the vessels by exercising this right of redemption. He is the only one to blame for not
    damages from PNB. doing so.
    8. The CFI ruled that PNB’s taking of physical possession of the vessels and the private
    sale of the pledged vessels by PNB to itself without notice to the Diosdado were both WHEREFORE, the CFI judgement is AFFIRMED.
    valid as stipulated in the pledge contract.
    9. When his MR and motion for new trial was denied, this appeal was brought to the SC.

    ISSUES:
    1) W/N PNB as pledgee was entitled to the actual possession of the vessels.
    2) W/N the private sale in favour of PNB itself was valid.

    HELD: YES to both.

    Possession of Pledged Chattels by Pledgee


    1. While it is true that Diosdado continued operating the vessels after the pledge contract
    was entered into, his possession was expressly made subject to the order of the
    pledgee. On the other hand, the pledgee can temporarily entrust the physical possession
    of the chattels pledged to the pledgor without invalidating the pledge. In such a case, the
    pledgor is regarded as holding the pledged property merely as trustee for the pledgee.

    You might also like