7/3/24, 5:25 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. 34385 and 34386 - Torres vs.

Limjap

Title
Torres vs. Limjap

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 34385 and 34386 JOHNSON, J Sep 20, 1931

In Torres v. Limjap, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming
the validity of the chattel mortgages and granting them possession of the drug
stores covered by the mortgages, while dismissing the defendant's
counterclaims.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 34385 & 34386)

Comprehensive

Facts:
In the consolidated cases of Torres v. Limjap, G.R. Nos. 34385 & 34386, decided on
September 21, 1931, the plaintiffs-appellees, Alejandra Torres et al., and Sabina Vergara
Vda. de Torres et al., sought to secure possession of two drug stores in Manila through
chattel mortgages executed by the deceased Jose B. Henson. The defendant-appellant,
Francisco Limjap, was the Special Administrator of Henson's estate. The chattel
mortgages in question were executed to secure loans: one for P7,000 (though the
instrument stated P20,000) on Farmacia Henson at Nos. 101-103 Calle Rosario, and
another for P50,000 (later reduced to P26,000) on three drug stores, with Henson's
Pharmacy at Nos. 71-73 Escolta remaining as the only security. The plaintiffs alleged that
the defendant violated the mortgage terms, entitling them to possession and foreclosure.
The Court of First Instance of Manila, after hearing the evidence, found in favor of the
plaintiffs, confirming the attachment and delivery of the drug stores by the sheriff. The
defendant appealed, raising issues about the sufficiency of the property description in
the mortgages, the validity of the mortgages concerning after-acquired property, and the
lower court's failure to address his counterclaims for damages.

Issue:
1. Are the chattel mortgages null and void due to insufficient description of the
mortgaged property?
2. Does the stipulation in the chattel mortgages extend to after-acquired property, and
is such a stipulation valid under the Chattel Mortgage Law?
3. Is the defendant estopped from contesting the validity of the chattel mortgages?
4. Did the lower court err in failing to address the defendant's counterclaims for
damages?
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/torres-v-limjap#_ 1/2
7/3/24, 5:25 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. 34385 and 34386 - Torres vs. Limjap

Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to discuss the sufficiency of the
property description due to the estoppel issue.
2. The stipulation extending the mortgages to after-acquired property is valid and
binding.
3. The defendant is estopped from contesting the validity of the chattel mortgages.
4. The lower court's judgment implicitly dismissed the counterclaims, and this was
upheld by the Supreme Court.

Ratio:
The Supreme Court, through Justice Johnson, upheld the validity of the chattel
mortgages, emphasizing the intent of the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No. 1508) to
promote business and economic development. The Court reasoned that the law's
provision against covering after-acquired property does not apply to businesses like
drug stores, where goods are constantly sold and replaced. The stipulation in the
mortgages, which explicitly included after-acquired property, was deemed valid as it
facilitated the continuous operation of the business without hindrance. The Court also
held that the defendant was estopped from questioning the mortgages' validity because
of his actions and the circumstances surrounding the case. Lastly, the Court affirmed the
lower court's decision, including the implicit dismissal of the defendant's counterclaims,
as consistent with the facts and law.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/torres-v-limjap#_ 2/2