13 South City Homes vs. BA Financial

13 South City Homes Inc. vs. BA Financial Corp. Dec.
7, 2001 AUTHOR: MAGO

G.R. No 135462 Notes:
TOPIC: Trust Receipts
PONENTE:
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
A trust receipt is a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or
resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be able to acquire credit except through
utilization, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or purchased. 9 In the event of default by the entrustee on his obligations
under the trust receipt agreement, it is not absolutely necessary that the entruster cancel the trust and take possession of the goods
to be able to enforce his rights thereunder.
Emergency Recit:
Petitioners Fortune Motors Corp., Palawan Lumber Manuf. Corp. and South City Homes Inc. as represented by its officers executed a
Continuing Suretyship Agreement in which, said corporations "jointly and severally unconditionally" guaranteed the "full, faithful
and prompt payment and discharge of any and all indebtedness of Fortune Motors Corporation to BA Finance Corporation. Fortune
Motors Corporation thereafter executed trust receipts covering the motor vehicles delivered to it by CARCO under which it agreed
to remit to the Entruster (CARCO) the proceeds of any sale and immediately surrender the remaining unsold vehicles. The drafts and
trust receipts were assigned to BA Finance, under Deeds of Assignment executed by CARCO. Upon failure of the Fortune Motors
Corporation to pay the amounts due under the drafts and to remit the proceeds of motor vehicles sold or to return those remaining
unsold in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt agreements, BA Finance Corporation sent demand letters to Rodrigueza,
South City Homes, Inc., Tablante, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation, Chua, Tan and Baltazar. Since the petitioners failed
to settle their outstanding account with the respondent (BA Finance), the latter filed on December 22, 1983 a complaint for a sum of
money with prayer for preliminary attachment, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. RTC and CA both ruled in favor of BA
Finance. SC reversed saying that BA Finance should have first demand the return of the unsold vehicles pursuant to the terms of the
trust receipts, having failed to do so deprives it of cause of action to sue for an action for collection of sum of money as the same is
still premature.
FACTS:
Chua, President of Fortune Motors Corp., Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation represented by Chua, Tan, Rodrigueza and
Baltazar and South City Homes, Inc. represented Rodrigueza and Tablante executed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement in which,
said corporations "jointly and severally unconditionally" guaranteed the "full, faithful and prompt payment and discharge of any and
all indebtedness of Fortune Motors Corporation to BA Finance Corporation.
Fortune Motors Corporation thereafter executed trust receipts covering the motor vehicles delivered to it by CARCO under which it
agreed to remit to the Entruster (CARCO) the proceeds of any sale and immediately surrender the remaining unsold vehicles. The
drafts and trust receipts were assigned to BA Finance, under Deeds of Assignment executed by CARCO
Upon failure of the Fortune Motors Corporation to pay the amounts due under the drafts and to remit the proceeds of motor
vehicles sold or to return those remaining unsold in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt agreements, BA Finance
Corporation sent demand letters to Rodrigueza, South City Homes, Inc., Tablante, Palawan Lumber Manufacturing Corporation,
Chua, Tan and Baltazar. Since the petitioners failed to settle their outstanding account with the respondent (BA Finance), the latter
filed on December 22, 1983 a complaint for a sum of money with prayer for preliminary attachment, with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila.
RTC: Ruled in favor of BA Finance
CA: Affirmed
ISSUE(S): (1) Whether the suretyship agreement is valid; (2) Whether there was a novation of the obligation so as to extinguish the
liability of the sureties; and (3) Whether respondent BAFC has a valid cause of action for a sum of money following the drafts and
trust receipts transactions. (the one most related to the topic)
HELD: 1.) Yes 2.) No, obligation is not extinguished 3.) No, the action was premature
RATIO:
1.) On the first issue, petitioners assert that the suretyship agreement they signed is void because there was no principal obligation
at the time of signing as the principal obligation was signed six (6) months later. The Civil Code, however, allows a suretyship
agreement to secure future loans even if the amount is not yet known.
Article 2053 of the Civil Code provides that:
"Art. 2053. A guaranty may also be given as security for future debts, the amount of which is not yet known. x x x"
2.) Petitioners next posit (second issue) that a novation, as a result of the assignment of the drafts and trust receipts by the creditor
(CARCO) in favor of respondent BAFC without the consent of the principal debtor (Fortune Motors), extinguished their liabilities.
An assignment of credit is an agreement by virtue of which the owner of a credit, known as the assignor, by a legal cause,
such as sale, dacion en pago, exchange or donation, and without the consent of the debtor, transfers his credit and
accessory rights to another, known as the assignee, who acquires the power to enforce it to the same extent as the assignor
could enforce it against the debtor.7 As a consequence, the third party steps into the shoes of the original creditor as
subrogee of the latter. Petitioners' obligations were not extinguished.
3.) Petitioners finally posit (third issue) that as an entruster, respondent BA Finance must first demand the return of the unsold
vehicles from Fortune Motors Corporation, pursuant to the terms of the trust receipts. Having failed to do so, petitioners had no
cause of action whatsoever against Fortune Motors Corporation and the action for collection of sum of money was, therefore,
premature. A trust receipt is a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have
sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be able to acquire credit
except through utilization, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or purchased. 9 In the event of default by the entrustee on his
obligations under the trust receipt agreement, it is not absolutely necessary that the entruster cancel the trust and take possession
of the goods to be able to enforce his rights thereunder. We ruled:
"x x x Significantly, the law uses the word "may" in granting to the entruster the right to cancel the trust and take
possession of the goods. Consequently, petitioner has the discretion to avail of such right or seek any alternative action,
such as a third party claim or a separate civil action which it deems best to protect its right, at any time upon default or
failure of the entrustee to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the trust agreement."
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

13 South City Homes vs. BA Financial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 South City Homes vs. BA Financial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 South City Homes vs. BA Financial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 South City Homes Inc. vs. BA Financial Corp. Dec.

7, 2001 AUTHOR: MAGO

RTC: Ruled in favor of BA Finance

Article 2053 of the Civil Code provides that:

You might also like