AgencyDPFebruary32014

The note being void as to her it follows that as to

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: specifically described in the mortgage. Since the real property was already subject to a prior mortgage in favor of the religious corporation, they were made defendants in this suit. The note is long past due and owing. BPI brought an action to the CFI for the sheriff of the City of Manila to take immediate possession of the property described in the chattel mortgage and sell the same according to the Chattel Mortgage Law. The religious corporation is requesting for payment of the mortgage Jean Poizat and Gabriela de Coster y Roxas amounting to P125,000 with 10% per annum. CFI : BPI take possession of property, and that the Dominican Fathers should have judgment for the amount of their claim, and that the property should be sold and the proceeds applied to satisfy the respective judgments. Gabriella’s side: ● She is the legitimate wife of Jean Poizat; ● She had been in Paris from 1908 to April 1924; ● At the time of the filing of the complaint and issuance of the summons, she was absent from the Philippines; ● She had no knowledge of the summons and that such was delivered to her husband who was negligent such that a judgment was rendered. Furthermore, she has not been able to talk to his husband from the time she got to manila and even when she tried to look for him. ● That she has a good and legal defense to the action, which involves the validity of the order of the Dominican Fathers in this, that their mortgage does not guarantee any loan made to this defendant; that it is a security only given for a credit of a third person; that the mortgage was executed without the marital consent of the wife; and that he did not have nay authority to make her liable as surety on the debt of a third person. ● With regard to the notes to BPI: ○ it is exclusively the personal debt of the defendants Jean M. Poizat and J.M. Poizat & Co., ○ that it was executed by her husband, because the bank desired more security for the payment of her husband's debt to the bank; ○ that it was executed by her husband in excess of the powers given to him under his power of attorney; ○ that it was executed as the result of collusion between the ba...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online