Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 272 views

    Central Visayas Finance Corp v. Sps. Adlawan

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    Central Visayas Finance Corp filed a replevin case against the Spouses Adlawan to recover possession of a dump truck used as collateral for an unpaid loan. The trial court ruled in favor of Central Visayas. Central Visayas then filed a second case seeking a deficiency judgment for the unpaid balance of the loan. The Supreme Court ruled that Central Visayas had a single cause of action regarding the loan and was not allowed to split it into multiple cases. By filing the replevin case, Central Visayas had chosen its remedy and was now barred from pursuing a collection case. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Central Visayas Finance Corp v. Sps. Adlawan

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    272 views1 page
    Central Visayas Finance Corp filed a replevin case against the Spouses Adlawan to recover possession of a dump truck used as collateral for an unpaid loan. The trial court ruled in favor of Central Visayas. Central Visayas then filed a second case seeking a deficiency judgment for the unpaid balance of the loan. The Supreme Court ruled that Central Visayas had a single cause of action regarding the loan and was not allowed to split it into multiple cases. By filing the replevin case, Central Visayas had chosen its remedy and was now barred from pursuing a collection case. The petition was denied.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Central Visayas Finance Corp filed a replevin case against the Spouses Adlawan to recover possession of a dump truck used as collateral for an unpaid loan. The trial court ruled in favor of Central Visayas. Central Visayas then filed a second case seeking a deficiency judgment for the unpaid balance of the loan. The Supreme Court ruled that Central Visayas had a single cause of action regarding the loan and was not allowed to split it into multiple cases. By filing the replevin case, Central Visayas had chosen its remedy and was now barred from pursuing a collection case. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Central Visayas Finance Corp v. Sps. Adlawan

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    Central Visayas Finance Corp filed a replevin case against the Spouses Adlawan to recover possession of a dump truck used as collateral for an unpaid loan. The trial court ruled in favor of Central Visayas. Central Visayas then filed a second case seeking a deficiency judgment for the unpaid balance of the loan. The Supreme Court ruled that Central Visayas had a single cause of action regarding the loan and was not allowed to split it into multiple cases. By filing the replevin case, Central Visayas had chosen its remedy and was now barred from pursuing a collection case. The petition was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Galedo, Abegail P.

    78. CENTRAL VISAYAS FINANCE VS. SPS. ADLAWAN

    PETITIONER : Central Visayas Finance Corp.


    RESPONDENT : Spouses Adlawan
    DATE : March 25, 2019
    PONENTE : Del Castillo, J.
    TOPIC : Rule 2

    FACTS:

     Respondents Adlawan obtained 3,669,685 loan from petitioner Central Visayas Finance Corp by
    promissory note, chattel mortgage over a dump truck. Respondents failed to pay so petitioner
    filed an action for replevin before RTC Cebu.
     Trial court ruled in favor of petitioners. Respondents were ordered to deliver possession of dump
    truck to petitioner.
     Petitioners commenced a 2nd case before RTC for collection of sum of money/deficiency
    judgment.

    ISSUE:

    WON CA erred in applying doctrine of res judicata

    HELD:

     In case of a loan secured by mortgage, creditor has a single cause of action against
    debtor. Recovery of credit with execution upon security. But creditor cannot split his cause
    of action by filing a complaint on the loan and then complaint for foreclosure of mortgage.
     Replevin is the right of plaintiff to obtain possession of specific personal property by
    means of his being the owner or of his having special interest.
     The effect of respondents election of remedy of extrajudicial foreclosure whether
    deficiency remains applying proceeds of auction sale to loan obligation may still be
    recovered by respondent. But to recover, the claim should atleast be included in the pre-
    trial brief.
     The rule that prohibits mortgage creditors from pursuing both remedies of personal action
    or real action is not only in multiplicity of suits but also subjecting defendant to vexation of
    being sued in the place of his residence or of residence of plaintiff and in the place where
    property lies. A remedy is chosen upon filing of complaint for collection or complaint in an
    action for foreclosure of mortgage.
     Petitioner is now barred from availing action for collection. Petition is denied.

    You might also like