Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Thus, ISBs delay started on April 28, 1965 and lasted 3 years
or when Resolution No. 967 was issued prohibiting ISB from
doing further business, which made it legally impossible
from ISB to furnish the P63,000 of the loan.
Resolution No. 1049 cannot interrupt the default of ISB
in complying with its obligation to release the P63,000 balance
because it merely prohibited ISB from making new loans and
investments, not from releasing the balance of loan
agreements previously contracted.
The mere pecuniary inability to fulfill an engagement
does not discharge the obligation of the contract, nor does it
constitute any defense to a decree of specific performance; and
the mere fact of insolvency of a debtor is never an excuse for
the nonfulfillment of an obligation, but instead, is taken as a
breach of contract.
The fact that Tolentino demanded and accepted the refund
of the pre-deducted interest cannot be taken as a waiver of his
right to collect the P63,000 balance. The act of ISB in asking
for the advance interest was improper considering that only
P17,000 out of the P80,000 loan was released.
The alleged discovery by ISB of the overvaluation of the
loan collateral cannot exempt it from complying with its
obligation to furnish the entire P80,000 loan because bank
officials/employees have the obligation to investigate the
existence and valuation of the properties being offered as a
loan security before approving the loan application.
Issues/Held/Ratio
1) WON the action of Tolenitno for specific
performance can prosper. NO.
Since ISB was in default under the agreement, Tolentino
may choose between specific performance or rescission, but
since ISB is now prohibited from doing further business, the
only remedy left is Rescission only for the P63,000 balance of
the loan.
2) WON Tolentino is liable to pay the P17,000 debt
covered by the promissory note. YES.
The bank was deemed to have complied with its
reciprocal obligation to furnish a P17,000 loan. The
promissory note gave rise to Tolentinos reciprocal obligation
to pay such loan when it falls due and his failure to pay the
overdue amortizations under the promissory note made him a
party in default, hence not entitled to rescission (Art. 1191,
CC). ISB has the right to rescind the promissory note, being
the aggrieved party.
Since both parties were in default in the performance of
their reciprocal obligations, both are liable for damages. In
case both parties have committed a breach of their reciprocal
obligations, the liability of the first infractor shall be equirably
tempered by the courts (Art. 1192, CC). The liability of ISB
for damages in not furnishing the entire loan is offset by the
liability of Tolentino for damages (penalties and surcharges)
for not paying his overdue P17,000 debt. Since Tolentino
derived some benefit for his use of the P17,000, he should
account for the interest thereon (interest was not included in
the offsetting).
3) WON Tolentinos real estate mortgage can be
foreclosed to satisfy the P17,000 if his liability to pay
therefor subsists. NO.