Cabanting Vs BPI

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Contracts of Adhesion are Just As Binding as Ordinary Contracts (Cabanting vs BPI, 2016)

Facts:

Cabanting bought from Diamond Motors / BPI a car on installment basis for which a promissory note with chattel
mortgage was executed.  One of the stipulations was that any failure to pay an amount on schedule will make the
entire outstanding sum to become due and payable without prior notice and demand.  When the two Cabantings
failed to pay some monthly amortizations, BPI sued them for replevin and damages.  Decision was rendered
ordering them to pay the car’s unpaid value with damages.  The respondents appealed the decision claiming that
there has been no proof of prior demand and that the stipulation on its waiver must be deemed invalid for being a
contract of adhesion.

Issue 1:  W/N a stipulation waiving the necessity of notice and demand is valid

Held:

Yes.  Article 1169 of the Civil Code provides that one incurs in delay or is in default from the time the obligor
demands the fulfillment of the obligation from the obligee.  However, Article 1169 (1) also expressly provides that
demand is not necessary under certain circumstances, and one of these circumstances is when the parties expressly
waive demand.

You might also like