Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    Melecio Emata V.hon IAC Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Jamiah Obillo Hulipas
    The petitioner purchased a car through installment payments but stopped paying. The original seller endorsed the promissory note and assigned the chattel mortgage to Filinvest Credit Corporation. Filinvest then assigned the remaining installment payments to Servicewide Specialists, who filed for replevin after the petitioner stopped paying. The petitioner claimed fraud by the original seller in inflating the car's value. The court allowed the petitioner to implead Filinvest as a third party since they retained interest in the account, but the petitioner failed to file the third party complaint against Filinvest.

    Copyright:

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

    Melecio Emata V.hon IAC Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Jamiah Obillo Hulipas
    82 views1 page
    The petitioner purchased a car through installment payments but stopped paying. The original seller endorsed the promissory note and assigned the chattel mortgage to Filinvest Credit Corporation. Filinvest then assigned the remaining installment payments to Servicewide Specialists, who filed for replevin after the petitioner stopped paying. The petitioner claimed fraud by the original seller in inflating the car's value. The court allowed the petitioner to implead Filinvest as a third party since they retained interest in the account, but the petitioner failed to file the third party complaint against Filinvest.

    Original Title

    Melecio Emata v.hon IAC et al

    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 petitioner purchased a car through installment payments but stopped paying. The original seller endorsed the promissory note and assigned the chattel mortgage to Filinvest Credit Corporation. Filinvest then assigned the remaining installment payments to Servicewide Specialists, who filed for replevin after the petitioner stopped paying. The petitioner claimed fraud by the original seller in inflating the car's value. The court allowed the petitioner to implead Filinvest as a third party since they retained interest in the account, but the petitioner failed to file the third party complaint against Filinvest.

    Copyright:

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

    Melecio Emata V.hon IAC Et Al

    Uploaded by

    Jamiah Obillo Hulipas
    The petitioner purchased a car through installment payments but stopped paying. The original seller endorsed the promissory note and assigned the chattel mortgage to Filinvest Credit Corporation. Filinvest then assigned the remaining installment payments to Servicewide Specialists, who filed for replevin after the petitioner stopped paying. The petitioner claimed fraud by the original seller in inflating the car's value. The court allowed the petitioner to implead Filinvest as a third party since they retained interest in the account, but the petitioner failed to file the third party complaint against Filinvest.

    Copyright:

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

    MELECIO V.

    EMATA VS HON IAC ET AL,


    G.R. NO. L-72714, JUNE 29, 1989
    FACTS:
    Petitioner purchased a car on installment from Vialago Motor Sales Corp, with a downpayment
    and a promissory note and chattel mortgage as security. After the execution of the documents, Vialago
    endorsed the promissory note and assigned the chattel mortgage to Filinvest Credit Corporation (hereafter,
    Filinvest for short) upon payment by the latter the unpaid balance of the list cash price of the car. Three years
    later, Filinvest assigned to private respondent Servicewide Specialists, Inc. the remaining installment balance
    due on and corresponding to the period from February 25,1981 to August 25,1981.
    After alleging its non-payment, the private respondent filed for replevin. Herein petitioner, in answer
    thereto alleged that the promissory note did not express true intent and procured through fraud by inflating the
    value and charging more.
    Petitioner filed a "Motion to Implead Filinvest Credit Corporation" on the theory that "for all legal
    purposes the corporation sought to be impleaded is the real party in interest" because it retained interest over
    the balance of the petitioner’s account in spite of its assignment to private Respondent. He was given 15 days
    to file the third-party complaint against Filinvest but petitioner did not comply. He filed an urgent motion to
    cancel the scheduled pre-trial and the trial court
    ISSUE:

    RULING:

    You might also like