In Northern Motors Inc. v. Sapinoso, the Supreme Court clarified that under the Recto Law, a seller is barred from recovering the unpaid balance of the purchase price only after an actual foreclosure sale of the chattel. Mere filing of a replevin action does not preclude accepting payments from the buyer.
Northern Motors Inc. vs. Sapinoso [May 29, 1970] Read More »
In Tajanlangit v. Southern Motors, the Supreme Court ruled that under Article 1484 of the Civil Code, a seller can choose to sue for the full purchase price if a buyer defaults on installment payments. This choice allows the seller to seek the entire amount owed, even if the purchased goods are repossessed.
In Delta Motors v. Niu Kim Duan and Chan Fue Eng, the Supreme Court ruled that installment payments in a conditional sale can be treated as rental payments if specified in the contract. However, once the seller opts for rescission and repossession, they cannot also demand the unpaid balance, as remedies under Article 1484 of the Civil Code are alternative, not cumulative.
Delta Motors vs. Niu Kim Duan and Chan Fue Eng [September 2, 1992] Read More »
In Nonato v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme Court ruled that when a seller repossesses a vehicle due to the buyer’s default on installment payments, it effectively cancels the sale. Consequently, the seller cannot demand the unpaid balance, as remedies under Article 1484 of the Civil Code are alternative, not cumulative.
Nonato vs. Intermediate Appellate Court [November 22, 1985] Read More »
In Levy Hermanos, Inc. v. Gervacio, the Supreme Court ruled that a sale with an initial payment and a promissory note for the balance is a straight-term sale, not an installment sale. Therefore, the vendor can collect the unpaid balance after repossession, as the protections for installment sales do not apply.
Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Gervacio [October 27, 1939] Read More »
In FEB Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Spouses Baylon, the Supreme Court ruled that the registered owner of a vehicle, even if leased to another party, is directly and primarily responsible for damages caused by the vehicle. This liability exists regardless of any exemption clauses in the lease contract.
FEB Leasing and Finance Corp. vs. Sps. Baylon [June 29, 2011] Read More »
In Shafer v. Judge and Makati Insurance Co., Inc., the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that in a criminal case involving reckless imprudence with a civil aspect, the accused can implead their third-party liability (TPL) insurer as a third-party defendant. This allows the insurer’s liability to be addressed within the same proceeding, promoting judicial efficiency.
Shafer vs. Judge and Makati Insurance Co., Inc. [November 14, 1988] Read More »
In Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Producers Bank, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that a bank’s insurance policy did not cover losses from a robbery involving personnel supplied by third-party agencies, as they were considered the bank’s authorized representatives.
In Philippine Home Assurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the Philippine Supreme Court held that a carrier is liable for damages to cargo caused by fire if the fire resulted from the carrier’s negligence. The Court emphasized that fire is not considered a natural disaster exempting the carrier from liability, especially when negligence is involved.
In Republic v. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that mutual life insurance companies operating as bona fide cooperatives are exempt from paying taxes on life insurance premiums and documentary stamps, even without registration with the Cooperative Development Authority.
Republic vs. Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada [October 14, 2005] Read More »
