compilation.docx - 1 Paray v Rodriguez(CARO Petitioners Sps Bonifacio and Faustina Paray Vidal Espeleta Respondents Dr Abdulia Rodriguez Miguela Jariol

compilation.docx - 1 Paray v Rodriguez(CARO Petitioners Sps...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 21 pages.

1) Paray v. Rodriguez (CARO) Petitioners: Sps. Bonifacio and Faustina Paray, Vidal Espeleta Respondents: Dr. Abdulia Rodriguez, Miguela Jariol, Leonora Nolasco, Dolores Soberano, Julia Generoso, Teresita Natividad, Genoveva Soronio [girl power] Pledge – personal property! Doctrine/s: Pledged shares, being personal property, cannot be exercised under the right of redemption. For consignation of amounts under pledge to have the effect of extinguishing a loan obligation, pledgor must consign principal amount + monthly interest thereon. Facts - Respondents owned, in their personal capacities, shares of stock in a corporation: Quirino-Leonor-Rodriguez Realty Inc. - They pledged some of their shares of stock to Sps. Paray to secure payment of their loans. - When Sps. Paray attempted to foreclose the pledges due to respondent’s failure to pay their loans, respondents filed complaints against them, seeking to nullify the pledge agreements. - TC Sps. Paray, giving due course to the foreclosure and sale at public auction of the pledges. - When respondents received Notices of Sale, they consigned various amounts with the RTC, claiming that they tendered these payments to Sps. Paray but were not accepted. - The public auction still took place. - Respondents then filed a complaint seeking the declaration of nullity of the concluded public auction on the ground that their tender of payment served to extinguish their loan obligations and discharged the pledge contracts. o Sps. Paray countered that the auction was valid and that the tender of payment and consignation were made long after the obligations became due - TC Sps. Paray, ruling that respondents failed to tender payment within a reasonable time after default. - CA, 8 th division respondents. It reversed the TC’s ruling on the ground that the consignations extinguished the loan obligations and the pledge contracts, and that the public auction was null and void. It upheld the liberal construction on redemption laws—that the attempted payments were construed as an exercise of the right of redemption. - CA respondents. It found fault with auction sale, ruling that there was a need to individually sell the various shares because they belonged to different pledgors. Issue: W/N consignations made by respondents prior to the auction sale are sufficient to extinguish the loan obligations and the subject pledge contracts? Held: NO. CA made 3 crucial errors in conclusion: 1. That consignation is deemed an exercise of respondents’ right of redemption a. Right of redemption, under Rule 39, ROC, applies only to execution sales of real property. b. Thus, the pledged shares, being personal properties, are not covered under the right of redemption. c. CA, therefore had no reason to invoke such inexistent right 2. That the buyer at public auction does not ipso facto become the owner of the pledged shares pending lapse of 1yr redemption period, a. Obviously, since there is no right to redeem personal property, rights of ownership vested onto the purchaser at the auction are not tied to the redemption period 3.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture