Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 514 views

    The Insurance Life Assurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Paulo Peña
    This case involves a dispute between Toyota Bel-Air and Insular Life Assurance Company over possession of a property after the expiration of a lease agreement. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Insular Life and issued a writ of execution. Toyota appealed and the Regional Trial Court nullified the writ. However, the parties later entered a compromise agreement where Toyota failed to fulfill all the conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that the compromise agreement did not take effect since Toyota did not meet the suspensive conditions. Therefore, the original writ of execution issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court was valid.

    Copyright:

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

    The Insurance Life Assurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Paulo Peña
    514 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Toyota Bel-Air and Insular Life Assurance Company over possession of a property after the expiration of a lease agreement. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Insular Life and issued a writ of execution. Toyota appealed and the Regional Trial Court nullified the writ. However, the parties later entered a compromise agreement where Toyota failed to fulfill all the conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that the compromise agreement did not take effect since Toyota did not meet the suspensive conditions. Therefore, the original writ of execution issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court was valid.

    Original Title

    1. The Insurance Life Assurance Company

    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 dispute between Toyota Bel-Air and Insular Life Assurance Company over possession of a property after the expiration of a lease agreement. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Insular Life and issued a writ of execution. Toyota appealed and the Regional Trial Court nullified the writ. However, the parties later entered a compromise agreement where Toyota failed to fulfill all the conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that the compromise agreement did not take effect since Toyota did not meet the suspensive conditions. Therefore, the original writ of execution issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court was valid.

    Copyright:

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

    The Insurance Life Assurance Company

    Uploaded by

    Paulo Peña
    This case involves a dispute between Toyota Bel-Air and Insular Life Assurance Company over possession of a property after the expiration of a lease agreement. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Insular Life and issued a writ of execution. Toyota appealed and the Regional Trial Court nullified the writ. However, the parties later entered a compromise agreement where Toyota failed to fulfill all the conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that the compromise agreement did not take effect since Toyota did not meet the suspensive conditions. Therefore, the original writ of execution issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court was valid.

    Copyright:

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

    1. The Insurance Life Assurance Company, LTD, petitioner vs.

    TOYOTA BEL-
    AIR, INC, respondent

    GR 137884

    Facts:

    Private respondent, Toyota Bel-Air, Inc. (Toyota) entered into a Contract of Lease over
    lot and building owned by Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. (Insular Life) in Makati
    City, for a 5-year period, from April 16, 1992 to April 15, 1997. Upon expiration of the lease,
    Toyota remained in possession of the property. Despite repeated demands, Toyota refused to
    vacate the property. Thus, on January 28, 1998, Insular Life led a Complaint for unlawful
    detainer against Toyota in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

    MeTC ruled in favor of petitioner. It ordered among others that Toyota pay monthly
    rental of P585, 640.00. from April 16, 1997 until the subject property is returned to Insular
    Life, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. On a later date, MeTC issued a writ of execution
    in an action for ejectment against respondent where the deputy sheriff of MeTC executed the
    writ by levying on the responent’s real and personal propertes as well as granishing its bank
    account.

    Two days before auction of said properties, respondent filed a petition for certiorari
    before RTC of the MeTC’s decision and injunctive relief. RTC issued a Temporary Restraining
    Order (TRO) enjoining the auction sale of Toyota's levied properties. In its appeal,
    respondent contended that MeTC made an error in ordering respondent to pay monthly rent
    from April 16, 1997. On a later date, it also consigned 2 monthly rents to RTC. RTC nullified
    the writ issued by MeTC.

    Just 12 days from the said decision of RTC, the parties entered into a compromise
    agreement sometime in March 1999. Part of the stipulation of the parties are the following:

    In order that Insular Life (1) desist from compelling courts for the
    execution of the writ and (2) lift the granishment on Toyota’s bank accounts,
    Toyota should pay Insular :
    (1) deliver 3 vehicles of Toyota worth P1.5 M;
    (2) Issue 12 postdated corporate checks for the balance of P6.5 in 12
    monthly installments; and
    (3) Issue a surety bond which shall guarantee payment of
    installments

    However, respondent failed to comply to the last two (2) conditions. Hence, this petition.
    Petitioner prayed that RTC’s nullification of the writ be set aside and that MeTC’s order for
    the auction of respondent’s personal and real properties be executed.

    ISSUE: WON the writ of execution should be enforced despite the compromise
    agreement entered by the parties?

    RULING:

    The Court ruled in the affirmative. Jurisprudence teaches us that when a contract
    is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth or effectivity can take place only if and when the
    event which constitutes the condition happens or is fullled, 35 35 and if the suspensive
    condition does not take place, the parties would stand as if the conditional obligation has
    never existed.
    The compromise agreement of the parties provides that the Insular life will only desist
    from present litigation upon delivery of Toyota of the aforementioned deliverables.
    However, its failure to issue the postdated checks as well as the posting of surety thereof
    renders obligation on part of Insular life inexistent.

    Thus, the issuance of 12 postdated checks and the posting of a surety bond are positive
    suspensive conditions of the Compromise Agreement, the non-compliance with which was
    not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevented the obligation under
    the Compromise Agreement from acquiring obligatory force.

    For its non-fulllment, there was no contract or agreement to speak of, Toyota having
    failed to comply or perform the suspensive conditions which enforce a juridical relation.
    Since Toyota was unable to comply with the last two conditions of the agreement, which were
    suspensive conditions, Insular Life cannot be compelled to comply with its obligation to end
    the present litigation. No right in favor of Toyota arose and no obligation on the part of
    Insular Life was created.

    The validity of the writ issued by MeTC is validated.

    You might also like