Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Rose Packing Company vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Mae Faustino
    The Rose Packing Company received loan approvals from the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) and the National Investment & Development Corporation (NIDC) that were conditional on NIDC releasing further loan proceeds. However, NIDC refused to make further releases. PCIB then tried to foreclose on Rose Packing's mortgaged property, claiming default. The Court ruled that there was no default by Rose Packing yet, as the loans were not actually due until the conditions of NIDC releasing further proceeds were met. For there to be a valid default, a demand for payment must generally be made by the creditor first.

    Copyright:

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

    Rose Packing Company vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Mae Faustino
    61 views1 page
    The Rose Packing Company received loan approvals from the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) and the National Investment & Development Corporation (NIDC) that were conditional on NIDC releasing further loan proceeds. However, NIDC refused to make further releases. PCIB then tried to foreclose on Rose Packing's mortgaged property, claiming default. The Court ruled that there was no default by Rose Packing yet, as the loans were not actually due until the conditions of NIDC releasing further proceeds were met. For there to be a valid default, a demand for payment must generally be made by the creditor first.

    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 Rose Packing Company received loan approvals from the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) and the National Investment & Development Corporation (NIDC) that were conditional on NIDC releasing further loan proceeds. However, NIDC refused to make further releases. PCIB then tried to foreclose on Rose Packing's mortgaged property, claiming default. The Court ruled that there was no default by Rose Packing yet, as the loans were not actually due until the conditions of NIDC releasing further proceeds were met. For there to be a valid default, a demand for payment must generally be made by the creditor first.

    Copyright:

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

    Rose Packing Company vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Mae Faustino
    The Rose Packing Company received loan approvals from the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) and the National Investment & Development Corporation (NIDC) that were conditional on NIDC releasing further loan proceeds. However, NIDC refused to make further releases. PCIB then tried to foreclose on Rose Packing's mortgaged property, claiming default. The Court ruled that there was no default by Rose Packing yet, as the loans were not actually due until the conditions of NIDC releasing further proceeds were met. For there to be a valid default, a demand for payment must generally be made by the creditor first.

    Copyright:

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

    ROSE PACKING COMPANY, INC. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    G.R. No. L-33084


    PARAS, J.

    FACTS
    A letter request by petitioner for the reactivation of its overdraft line and a letter of credit-trust was
    approved by the respondent bank, Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB). It also
    approved an application of loan on fully secured real estate and chattel mortgage and on the
    further condition that respondent PCIB appoint as it did appoint its executive vice-president
    Roberto S. Benedicto as its representative in petitioner's board of directors. A P2.6 million loan
    application of petitioner was approved with certain conditions by the National Investment &
    Development Corporation (NIDC), the wholly owned investment subsidiary of the Philippine
    National Bank. A total of P200,000.00 was released by the NIDC to the petitioner. Thereafter, the
    NIDC refused to make further releases on the approved loan of petitioner. A complaint was filed by
    PCIB against petitioner and Rene Knecht, its president for the collection of petitioner's indebtedness
    to respondent bank. PCIB gave petitioner notice that it would cause the real estate mortgage to be
    foreclosed at an auction sale thus, respondent Sheriff served notice of sheriffs sale.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not the petitioner corporation was in default, justifying the foreclosure of mortgaged
    property

    HELD
    No. The loans of petitioner corporation from respondent bank were supposed to become due only
    at the time it receives from the NIDC and PDCP the proceeds of the approved financing scheme. As
    it is, the conditions did not happen. The efficacy or obligatory force of a conditional obligation is
    subordinated to the happening of a future and uncertain event so that if the suspensive condition
    does not take place  the parties would stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed. For
    an obligation to become due, there must generally be a demand. Default generally begins from the
    moment the creditor demand the performance of the obligation. Without such demand, judicial or
    extrajudicial, the effects of default will not arise.

    You might also like