SYJUCO vs TECSON (CFI JUDGE) & LIMS

First Case
Facts:
-

PR executed a consolidated PN in favor of Petitioner. (2.460m)

Secured by a mortgage on 2 properties plus the improvements thereon.
Failed -> Foreclosure of the Mortgaged property and a sale by public auction
(December 27. 1968)
To stall the foreclosure, PR filed a Civil Case on Dec 24, (3 days before
auction) at the CFI to declare the mortgage void because the loan was
usurious. (SC denied review of the CA upholding the RTC. In favor of
petitioner)
To stall the foreclosure AGAIN, the instituted another Civil Case in another CFI
to declare the foreclosure sale void for lack of republication. (They lost
Initially there was a restraining order but same was lifted)
PR moved for consolidation of the two civil cases but judge did not agree to it
because the first case was already decided by the SC.
MEANWHILE PR filed in the decided first case, a suit an urgent motion to stop
the sheriff of manila from conducting the auction sale on the lack of
republication of the notice of sale.
PET comments and just to end the dispute Republish na nga lang.
Judge Restraining order on the sale and then lifted it saying that the case
had finally decided by SC. Proceed bitches (Jan 7, 1978)
Judge upon verbal motion of RES counsel and without notice to petitioner
issued an order reconsidering that order he just made and granted a
postponement of the auction sale because RES will post a bond.
PET MR Denied.
AGAAAAAAIIIIIIN, PR filed an urgent motion for extension of time to file a
bond. (15 days) only 5 days sabi ni judge. PET did not have time to oppose it
and RES Judge already granted said motion.
PET filed MR on the order granting extension of time.
PR filed their bond on March 15, 1979.
AGAAAAAIIIIIIIN, PR filed motion to discharge thee mortgage that the bond
they posted had novated the mortage.
Denied the Discharge. Denied Extension of Time
PET and PR MR-ed both denied.
PR MR-ed the Denial of the MR. Which granted the motion since no
opposition.
PET filed a manifestation and opposition that it was only served the MR on
Nov 7 and records show that the judge issued an order requiring PR to file
additional bond of 3m.
PRs no claim that petition was filed prematurely because there are still
pending in the Lower courts in connection to their motion to discharge the
mortgage in question since they have filed bonds required by Judge.

Issues: WON the pendency of the second case constituted as a bar to the
foreclosure and auction sale, the legality and validity of which was upheld by the
SC.
WON the filing of the bonds resulted in the novation of the mortage.

Held:
1.) Moot and academic Petitioner already republished the notice of sale to end all
disputes.
2.) NOPE. Bonds are guaranteeing the payment of whatever damages the
defendants may suffer because of the suspension or postponement of the
auction sale. Cannot substitute for securities for the obligation.
INSURANCE RELATED in the petitioners comment on November 23, petitioner
submitted a certification of the Insurance Commissioner to the effect that
bondsmen of respondents Travelers Multi Indemnity Insurance Corporation and
Travelers Insurance and Surety Corporation and one entity. Also, the certificate of
authority of TISC to transact non-life insurance business in the PH was not renewed
on July 1, 1981 for cause. Company was ordered to cease and desist from taking
any new risk of any kind or character until authority is restored by the Commission.
Bonds that was relied by the PR lost their force and effect as of Jily 1, 1981.
It might be true that the certification of the Insurance commissioner may not by
itself, annul the bonds filed by the PR but it is obvious that the authority of the
bonds mean to continue doing business has been suspended by proper authority.
Can be remedied -> by filing a new bond but until accepted by the petitioner all
discussions regarding the bonds are moot.
SC Continue na kasi with the foreclosure and auction.
SPOUSES BHAGWANDAS & SATI GIDWANI and SAMUEL SHARUFF, petitioners, vs.
DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES and MARINDUQUE MINING &
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (formerly Marinduque Iron Mines, Inc.) and JUDGE
FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA,
FACTS:
-

Manufacturers bank and trust company granted plastic era a discounting line
of 20k.
To secure payment of any loan the bank, PE posted a surety bond for 20k
issued by the domestic insurance co.
PE, Bhagwandas and Kishu Gidwana executed an indemnity agreement
whereby the bound themselves to indemnify Domestics insurance against all
damages losses and expenses it may incur because of having issued a surety
bond.
Sept 10, 1959 PE executed a PN in favor of the Manufacturers Bank and
Trust Company. (20k interest of 10 percent payable 120 days)
Domestic Insurance required PE to give additional security -> Wife Sati
pledge her shares of stock in 3 corporations (among which were 12k shares
of marinduque iron mines inc.) This was to secure the fulfillment by plastic
era of its undertaking to indemnify domestic insurance. (bond)
Marinduque was notified of the pledge of wife and a stop transfer was
entered in its books. Since then, a stock dividends declared and cash
dividends paid corresponding to the pldge share were deliver to Domestic
Insurance.
PE failed to pay PN. Manfacturers filed a claim against the bond issued by
Domestic Insurance. (20k)

ITO NA BES.
-

Domestic Insurance filed an action in the FCI against PE, Kishu Gidwana and
Bhagwandas Gidwani for recovery of 20k which it paid to Manufacturers
Bank.
CFI rendered judgement base on a compromise agreement. Defendants to
pay Domestic 20k with interest rate of 12% per annum.
Pursuant to a writ of execution on the civil case, Sheriff garnished the
liquidating dividends of bhagwandas gidwani in the old manila club
amounting to 3.9k.
One gustav real (alleged assignee of dividends) filed a suit in the City Court of
manila against the Sheriff and Domestic for the recovery thereof.
City Court in favor of gustav but Domestic and Sheriff appealed from the
decision ( Still pending)
Domestic requested Notary Public Manzano to sell the shares pledge to it by
wife for the satisfaction of the sum of 44k. -> All pledges were sould for 19k
to Domestic being the Highest bidder.
Domestic surrendered to Marinduque the certificate of stock of the pledged
shares and requested they be cancelled so that new certificates may be
issued in its name.
Marinduque complied but issued 232 and 46/100 shares in the name of
Domestic. (adjust par value of 15 per share)
Transfer agents of Marinduque received 2 letters signed by the spouses
gidwani. 1st letter they have assigned all their rights to 34k shares to
Samuel sharuff and requested for the notation in the corp books with a
prmise that in due time the stock certificate duly accomplished and endorsed
in favor of mr. sahruff would be forwarded to marinduque.
2nd letter not yet able to recover the stock certificates which they assigned
to sharuff so they requested it to be cancelled and new ones to be issued to
him.
May ngyari na mahaba.
Counsel for sharuff wrote the transfer agents of marinduque to cancel the
stock certificates issued to Domestic and issue new ones for client.
Transfer Agents declined -> stop order notation made at the instane of
shaurff had no basis bec the shares were pledged to domestic and such were
foreclosed and already acquired in an auction sale.
Hence this case. Plaintiffs prayed that the sale of pledge shares of Sati be
declared extinguished and that the sale of pledged shares to domestic was
null and void and marinduque to issue new shares in favor of sharuff.