CAPITULO 2 DESCRIPCION Y ANALISIS DE LA SOLUCION PROPUESTA
2.1 Selección y argumentación de los requisitos funcionales y no funcionales del sistema propuesto
• Bucton is the owner of land located in Bucton is the owner of land located in Cagayan de Oro. Concepcion borrowed the title of the Cagayan de Oro. Concepcion borrowed the title of the landland on the pretext that she is going to show it to an interested buyer.
on the pretext that she is going to show it to an interested buyer.
•
• Concepcion obtained a loan from Rural Bank of El Salvador and as a security for the loan, sheConcepcion obtained a loan from Rural Bank of El Salvador and as a security for the loan, she mortgaged the property of Bucton using a SPA which was allegedly executed in favor of mortgaged the property of Bucton using a SPA which was allegedly executed in favor of Concepcion.
Concepcion.
•
• When Concepcion failed to pay thWhen Concepcion failed to pay the loan, the house and lot e loan, the house and lot of Bucton were foreclosed.of Bucton were foreclosed.
•
• Bucton insisted that she did not obtain any loan from the bank and that Concepcion forged herBucton insisted that she did not obtain any loan from the bank and that Concepcion forged her signature.
signature.
•
• The bank on the other hand maintains that it was not negligent in inspecting the properties andThe bank on the other hand maintains that it was not negligent in inspecting the properties and relied on presumption of regularity of the notarized SPA.
relied on presumption of regularity of the notarized SPA.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:Whether or not the Real Estate Mortgage Whether or not the Real Estate Mortgage was entered into by Concepcion in her personal capacitywas entered into by Concepcion in her personal capacity HELD:
HELD:Yes, this is a void and unenforceable Real Estate Mortgage against Bucton. The authorized agentYes, this is a void and unenforceable Real Estate Mortgage against Bucton. The authorized agent failed to indicate in the mortgage that she was acting for and on behalf of her principal.
failed to indicate in the mortgage that she was acting for and on behalf of her principal.
•
• Moreover, the Real Estate Mortgage, explicitly shows on its face, that Moreover, the Real Estate Mortgage, explicitly shows on its face, that it was signed by it was signed by ConcepcionConcepcion in her own name and in her own personal capacity. In fact, there is nothing in the document to in her own name and in her own personal capacity. In fact, there is nothing in the document to show that she was acting or signing as an agent of
show that she was acting or signing as an agent of Bucton and as a consequence, the same cannotBucton and as a consequence, the same cannot be bound by the acts
be bound by the acts of Concepcion.of Concepcion.
•
• Even if the SPA was valid, the Even if the SPA was valid, the Real Estate Mortgage would still not bind petitioner as it was signedReal Estate Mortgage would still not bind petitioner as it was signed by Concepcion in her personal capacity and not as an
by Concepcion in her personal capacity and not as an agentagent..
•
• Furthermore, Rural Bank of El Salvador was negligent and acted with undue haste when it grantedFurthermore, Rural Bank of El Salvador was negligent and acted with undue haste when it granted and released the loan in less
and released the loan in less than three days, it also acted negligently in than three days, it also acted negligently in preparing the Real Estatepreparing the Real Estate Mortgage as it failed to indicate that
Mortgage as it failed to indicate that Concepcion was signing it for and on behalf of Concepcion was signing it for and on behalf of Bucton.Bucton.
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
SPOUSES PALADA v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION SPOUSES PALADA v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION
G.R. No. 172227| 29 June 2011 G.R. No. 172227| 29 June 2011
Loan and Mortgage Loan and Mortgage DOCTRINE:
DOCTRINE: A mortgagor is allowed to take a second or subsequent mortgage on a property alreadyA mortgagor is allowed to take a second or subsequent mortgage on a property already mortgaged, subject to the prior rights of the
mortgaged, subject to the prior rights of the previous mortgagesprevious mortgages..
FACTS:
FACTS:
•
• The petitioner spouses Palada obtained a loan from The petitioner spouses Palada obtained a loan from respondenrespondent Solidbank Corporation secured byt Solidbank Corporation secured by a real estate mortgage over certain properties.
a real estate mortgage over certain properties.
•
• Due to the failure of the spouses to pay the loan, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold theDue to the failure of the spouses to pay the loan, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold the properties at public auction
properties at public auction..
•
• As a recourse, the spouses Palada filed a As a recourse, the spouses Palada filed a complaint for nullity of the real complaint for nullity of the real estate mortgage allegingestate mortgage alleging that:
that:
o
o The bank, without the knowledge and consent of the spouses, included two (2) otherThe bank, without the knowledge and consent of the spouses, included two (2) other properties not among the list
properties not among the list of properties mortgages.of properties mortgages.
o
o Furthermore, that these two (2) properties were not intended to be included since theyFurthermore, that these two (2) properties were not intended to be included since they were still mortgaged to PNB at the
were still mortgaged to PNB at the time of the execution of the real estate mortgage.time of the execution of the real estate mortgage.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:Whether or not the contract Whether or not the contract of loan was perfectedof loan was perfected HELD:
HELD:Yes. Under Art. 1934 of the Civil Code, a contract of loan is perfected upon delivery of the object ofYes. Under Art. 1934 of the Civil Code, a contract of loan is perfected upon delivery of the object of the contract. In this
the contract. In this case, upon receipt of the approved loan, the spouses Palada immediately executed thecase, upon receipt of the approved loan, the spouses Palada immediately executed the real estate mortgage over
real estate mortgage over their properties as security.their properties as security. As such, the loan is deemed perfected when spousesAs such, the loan is deemed perfected when spouses Palada received the loan from Solidbank.
Palada received the loan from Solidbank.
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not the properties previously mortgaged to PNB can be subsequently mortgaged to Whether or not the properties previously mortgaged to PNB can be subsequently mortgaged to another
another HELD:
HELD: Yes. As a rule, a mortgagor is allowed to take a second or subsequent mortgage on a propertyYes. As a rule, a mortgagor is allowed to take a second or subsequent mortgage on a property already mortgaged, subject to the prior rights
already mortgaged, subject to the prior rights of the previous mortgages. In this case, although the of the previous mortgages. In this case, although the subjectsubject properties were previously mortgaged to PNB, such does not constitute a bar for it to be subsequently properties were previously mortgaged to PNB, such does not constitute a bar for it to be subsequently mortgaged in favor of Solidbank. However, the mortgage in favor of Solidbank shall be subject to the prior mortgaged in favor of Solidbank. However, the mortgage in favor of Solidbank shall be subject to the prior rights of PNB.
rights of PNB.
ESTORES v. SUPANGAN ESTORES v. SUPANGAN
G.R. No. 175139 | 18 April 2018 G.R. No. 175139 | 18 April 2018
Loan Loan DOCTRINE:
DOCTRINE: Absent any stipulation, the applicable rate of interest shall be 12% per annum when the Absent any stipulation, the applicable rate of interest shall be 12% per annum when the obligation arises out of a loan or
obligation arises out of a loan or a forbearance of money, goods or credits.a forbearance of money, goods or credits.
FACTS:
FACTS:
•
• Petitioner and respondePetitioner and respondent entered into nt entered into a Conditional Deed of Sale whereby petitioner offered toa Conditional Deed of Sale whereby petitioner offered to sell a parcel of land.
sell a parcel of land.
•
• Respondent paid 3.5M as downpayment but Respondent paid 3.5M as downpayment but petitioner was not able to comply with herpetitioner was not able to comply with her obligations provided in the contract.
obligations provided in the contract.
•
• Respondent demanded the return of the amount of P3.5 million. When petitioner still failed toRespondent demanded the return of the amount of P3.5 million. When petitioner still failed to return the amount despite demand, respondent spouses were constrained to file a
return the amount despite demand, respondent spouses were constrained to file a Complaint forComplaint for sum of money.
sum of money.
•
• Petitioner does not deny the obligation to pay the 3.5M but Petitioner does not deny the obligation to pay the 3.5M but denies liability to pay for the interest.denies liability to pay for the interest.
They argued that since the Conditional Deed of Sale provided only for the return of the down They argued that since the Conditional Deed of Sale provided only for the return of the down payment in case of breach, they cannot be held liable
payment in case of breach, they cannot be held liable to pay legal interest as well to pay legal interest as well since it is neithersince it is neither a loan or forbearance.
a loan or forbearance.
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is liable Whether or not the petitioner is liable for interestfor interest HELD:
HELD: Yes, stipulation is not required in order to be liable for interest. The general rule is that theYes, stipulation is not required in order to be liable for interest. The general rule is that the applicable rate of interest shall be computed in accordance with the stipulation of the parties. Absent any applicable rate of interest shall be computed in accordance with the stipulation of the parties. Absent any stipulation, the applicable rate of interest shall be 12% per annum when the obligation arises out of a loan stipulation, the applicable rate of interest shall be 12% per annum when the obligation arises out of a loan or a forbearance of money, goods or credits. In other
or a forbearance of money, goods or credits. In other cases, it shall be six cases, it shall be six percent (6%).percent (6%).
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not the stipulation may be considered as forbearance Whether or not the stipulation may be considered as forbearance HELD:
HELD:Yes, the stipulation as to the return of Yes, the stipulation as to the return of the down payment in case of the down payment in case of non-fulfillnon-fulfillment of obligation ment of obligation isis in the nature of a forbearance. Forbearance of money, goods or credits refers to arrangements other than in the nature of a forbearance. Forbearance of money, goods or credits refers to arrangements other than loan agreements, where a person acquiesces to the temporary
loan agreements, where a person acquiesces to the temporary use of his money, use of his money, goods or credits pendinggoods or credits pending happening of certain events or fulfillment of certain conditions. In this case, the respondentspouses parted happening of certain events or fulfillment of certain conditions. In this case, the respondentspouses parted
with their money even before the conditions were fulfilled. They have therefore allowed or granted with their money even before the conditions were fulfilled. They have therefore allowed or granted forbearance to the seller (petitioner) to use their money pending fulfillmen
forbearance to the seller (petitioner) to use their money pending fulfillment of the t of the conditions.conditions.
•
• Even if the transaction involved a Conditional Deed of Sale, the stipulation governing the returnEven if the transaction involved a Conditional Deed of Sale, the stipulation governing the return of the money may be considered as a
of the money may be considered as a forbearance of money which required payment of interest atforbearance of money which required payment of interest at the rate of 12%.
the rate of 12%.
SUN LIFE OF CANADA v. TAN KIT SUN LIFE OF CANADA v. TAN KIT
G.R. No. 183272 | 15 October 2014 G.R. No. 183272 | 15 October 2014
Loan Loan DOCTRINE:
DOCTRINE: Monetary interest refers to the compensation set by the parties for the use or Monetary interest refers to the compensation set by the parties for the use or forbearance offorbearance of money while compensatory interest refers to the penalty or indemnity for damages imposed by law or by money while compensatory interest refers to the penalty or indemnity for damages imposed by law or by the courts.
the courts.
FACTS:
FACTS:
•
• Respondent was the widow of Respondent was the widow of Norberto Tan Kit, a client of Sun Life Canda, hNorberto Tan Kit, a client of Sun Life Canda, herein Petitioner.erein Petitioner.
•
• Norberto applied for a life insurance policy with a face value of Php 300,000, which was grantedNorberto applied for a life insurance policy with a face value of Php 300,000, which was granted by petitioner.
by petitioner.
•
• Within the two-year contestability period, Norberto died of Within the two-year contestability period, Norberto died of disseminadisseminated gastric carcinomated gastric carcinoma
•
• Respondent tried to claim the whole amount of the insurance premium but was denied byRespondent tried to claim the whole amount of the insurance premium but was denied by Petitioner due to the fact that
Petitioner due to the fact that Norberto lied in his insurance application when heNorberto lied in his insurance application when he answered “No”answered “No”
in his application regarding whether he had
in his application regarding whether he had smoked cigarettes or cigars within the last smoked cigarettes or cigars within the last 12 months12 months prior to the filling out of the
prior to the filling out of the said application.said application.
•
• The Petitioner gave Respondent the premium to be refunded instead of the face value of theThe Petitioner gave Respondent the premium to be refunded instead of the face value of the premium which is Php 300,000
premium which is Php 300,000
•
• The RTC ruled in favor of The RTC ruled in favor of RespondeRespondent (awarded them Php 3nt (awarded them Php 300,000) and imposed 6% interest.00,000) and imposed 6% interest.
•
• The CA reversed the said decision (awarded them Php 13,080.93) but imposed a 12% interest onThe CA reversed the said decision (awarded them Php 13,080.93) but imposed a 12% interest on the premium to be paid by petitioner (from the time of the death of Norberto until the insured is the premium to be paid by petitioner (from the time of the death of Norberto until the insured is fully paid).
fully paid).
•
• The petitioner argued that no interest should be imposed because the CA decision does not provideThe petitioner argued that no interest should be imposed because the CA decision does not provide any legal or factual basis therefor; petitioner directly and timely tendered to respondents an any legal or factual basis therefor; petitioner directly and timely tendered to respondents an amount representin
amount representing the premium refund but they g the premium refund but they rejected it since they opted to rejected it since they opted to pursue their claimpursue their claim for the proceeds of the insurance policy.
for the proceeds of the insurance policy.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:Whether or not petitioner should be made to pay Whether or not petitioner should be made to pay interestinterest HELD:
HELD: No, petitioner did not incur delay or unjustifiably deny the claim of respondents. With this, theNo, petitioner did not incur delay or unjustifiably deny the claim of respondents. With this, the Court held that petitioner should not be held liable to pay compensatory interest because it properly Court held that petitioner should not be held liable to pay compensatory interest because it properly complied with its obligations under the law and contract when it
complied with its obligations under the law and contract when it gave the gave the amount due to the respondentamount due to the respondent despite the latter’s refusal to accept the said payment.
despite the latter’s refusal to accept the said payment.
LIM v. DBP LIM v. DBP
G.R. No. 177050 | 1 July 2013 G.R. No. 177050 | 1 July 2013
Loan Loan DOCTRINE:
DOCTRINE:Art. 1956 of the NCC provides that penalties and interest rates should be expressly stipulatedArt. 1956 of the NCC provides that penalties and interest rates should be expressly stipulated in writing.
in writing.
FACTS:
FACTS:
•
• Petitioner Lim (Lim & Diamond L Ranch accounts) obtained a Petitioner Lim (Lim & Diamond L Ranch accounts) obtained a loan from Developmeloan from Development Bank nt Bank of theof the Philippines (DBP) to finance their cattle raising business. Petitioner Lim executed a promissory Philippines (DBP) to finance their cattle raising business. Petitioner Lim executed a promissory note to pay annual amortization with an interest of 9%
note to pay annual amortization with an interest of 9% pa pa and penalty charge of 11% and penalty charge of 11% pa pa..
•
• Petitioner Lim’s business collapsed and they failed to pay the amortizations due to violentPetitioner Lim’s business collapsed and they failed to pay the amortizations due to violent confrontations betwe
confrontations between the en the government and the Muslim government and the Muslim Rebels in Mindanao.Rebels in Mindanao.
•
• DBP, in the course of negotiations with the petitioner for their restructuring agreement, imposedDBP, in the course of negotiations with the petitioner for their restructuring agreement, imposed additional interests and penalties not stipulated in the
additional interests and penalties not stipulated in the promissory note.promissory note.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:Whether or not the imposition of additional interests and penalties is validWhether or not the imposition of additional interests and penalties is valid HELD:
HELD:No, the petitioners never agreed to pay additional inNo, the petitioners never agreed to pay additional interest and penalties, hence, the court declaredterest and penalties, hence, the court declared the same to be illegal and thus void.
the same to be illegal and thus void. Thus, the payment of interest and penalties in loans is allowed only ifThus, the payment of interest and penalties in loans is allowed only if the parties agreed to it and
the parties agreed to it and reduced their agreement in writing.reduced their agreement in writing.
DELA PAZ v. L&J DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DELA PAZ v. L&J DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
G.R. No. 183360 | 8 September 2014 G.R. No. 183360 | 8 September 2014
Loan Loan DOCTRINE:
DOCTRINE: No interest shall be due unless it No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.has been expressly stipulated in writing.
FACTS:
FACTS:
•
• De La Paz lent L&J DevelopmDe La Paz lent L&J Development Php350,000 with no security.ent Php350,000 with no security.
•
• The loan, with no maturity date, carried 6% interest. As L&J failed to pay despite repeatedThe loan, with no maturity date, carried 6% interest. As L&J failed to pay despite repeated
• The loan, with no maturity date, carried 6% interest. As L&J failed to pay despite repeatedThe loan, with no maturity date, carried 6% interest. As L&J failed to pay despite repeated