Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Jazzie Sarona) 1
3RD EXAM COVERAGE - CASES
CORDOVA v. REYES
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 146555
July 3, 2007
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
He asserts that, as a preferred creditor, he was entitled
to the entire monetary value of his shares.
Petitioners argument is incorrect. Article 2241 refers
only to specific movable property. His claim was for the
payment of money, which, as already discussed, is
generic property and not specific or determinate.
Considering that petitioner did not fall under any of the
provisions applicable to preferred creditors, he was
deemed an ordinary creditor under Article 2245:
Credits of any other kind or class, or by any other right
or title not comprised in the four preceding articles,
shall enjoy no preference.
This being so, Article 2251 (2) states that:
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-14938
SYLLABUS
1.
CIVIL
LAW;
CREDIT
TRANSACTION;
CONCURRENCE AND PREFERENCE OF CREDITS;
INSUFFICIENT ASSETS OF DEBTOR RAISES
QUESTION OF PREFERENCE AS WELL AS
QUESTION
OF
CONSEQUENCE
IN
CONCURRENCE OF CREDITS. Concurrence of
credits occurs when the same specific property of the
debtor or all of his property is subjected to the claims
of several creditors. The concurrence of credits raises
no questions of consequence were the value of the
property or the value of all assets of the debtor is
sufficient to pay in fall all the creditors. However, it
becomes material when said assets are insufficient for
then some creditors of necessity will not be paid or
some creditors will not obtain the full satisfaction of
their claims. In this situation, the question of
preference will then arise, that is to say who of the
creditors will be paid the all of the others (Caguioa,
Comments and Cases on Civil Law, 1970 ed., Vol. VI,
p.
472).
2. ID.; ID.; PREFERENCE OF CREDITS; ARTICLES
2249 AND 2242 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES; CONSTRUED. Under the system
established by Article 2249 of the civil Code of the
Philippines, only taxes and assessments upon
immovable property enjoy absolute preference. All the
remaining specified classes of preferred creditors
under Article 2242 enjoy no priority among themselves.
Their credits shall be satisfied pro-rata, i.e., in
proportion to the amount of the respective credits.
3. ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 2249 AND 2242 OF THE NEW
CIVIL CODE; PAIL REQUISITE TO THEIR FULL
APPLICATION UNDER THE DE BARRETO CASE.
Under the De Barreto decision, the full application of
Articles 2242 and 2249 demands that there must first
be some proceeding where the class of all the
preferred creditors may be bindingly adjudicated, such
as insolvency, the settlement of a decedents estate
under Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, or other
liquidation
proceedings
of
similar
import.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS
AND SETTLEMENT OF A DECEDENTS ESTATE;
BOTH
PROCEEDINGS
IN
REM,
OTHER
EQUIVALENT GENERAL LIQUIDATION OF SIMILAR
NATURE. Insolvency proceedings end settlement of
a decedents estate are both proceedings in rem which
are binding the whole world. All persons having
interest in the subject matter involved, whether they
were notified or not, are equally bound. Consequently,
a liquidation of similar import or other equivalent
general liquidation must also necessarily be a
proceeding in rem so that all interested persons
DECISION
Taxes
due
upon
the
land
or
building;
"(2) For the unpaid price of real property sold, upon the
immovable
sold;
"(3) Claims of laborers, masons, mechanics and other
workmen, as well as of architects, engineers and
contractors,
engaged
in
the
construction,
reconstruction or repair of buildings, canals or other
works, upon said buildings, canals or other works;
"(4) Claims of furnishers of materials used in the
construction reconstruction, or repair of buildings,
canals or other works upon said buildings, canals or
other
works;
"(5) Mortgage credits recorded in the Registry of
Property, upon the real estate mortgaged;
"(6) Expenses for the preservation or improvement of
real property when the law authorizes reimbursement,
upon the immovable preserved or improved;
"(7) Credits annotated in the Registry of Property, in
virtue of a judicial order, by attachments or executions,
upon the property affected, and only as to later credits;
"(8) Claims of co-heirs for warranty in the partition of
an immovable among them, upon the real property
thus
divided;
"(9) Claims of donors of real property for pecuniary
charges or other conditions imposed upon the donee,
upon
the
immovable
donated;
"(10) Credits of insurers upon the property insured, for
the insurance premium for two years."cralaw virtua1aw
library
Both the petitioner bank and private respondent
Ramos rely on the case of De Barreto v. Villanueva (6
SCRA
928).
The petitioner bank would impress upon this Court that
the proceedings had before the court below is not one
pertinent
ruling
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
J.L. BERNARDO v. CA
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 105827. January 31, 2000]
J.L. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION, represented by
attorneys-in-fact Santiago R. Sugay, Edwin A.
Sugay and Fernando S.A. Erana, SANTIAGO R.
SUGAY, EDWIN A. SUGAY and FERNANDO S. A.
ERANA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
MAYOR JOSE L. SALONGA, respondents.
DECISION
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeks to annul
and set aside the following:
1. Decision dated February 6, 1992 issued by the
Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. 26336 which nullified the order of the Regional
Trial Court of Cabanatuan City in Civil Case No. 1016AF granting plaintiffs (petitioners herein) a writ of
attachment and a contractors lien upon the San
Antonio Public Market; and
2. Resolution dated June 10, 1992 issued by the
former Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. 26336 denying the motions for
reconsideration filed by both parties.
The factual antecedents of this case, as culled from
the pleadings, are as follows:
Sometime in 1990, the municipal government of San
Antonio, Nueva Ecija approved the construction of the
San Antonio Public Market. The construction of the
market was to be funded by the Economic Support
Fund Secretariat (ESFS), a government agency
working with the USAID. Under ESFS "grant-loanequity" financing program, the funding for the market
would be composed of a (a) grant from ESFS, (b) loan
extended by ESFS to the Municipality of San Antonio,
or
counterpart
funds
from
the
[18]
the
case
are
xxx
xxx
the
sum
the
sum
7.
To x x x pay plaintiff the sum equivalent of
25% of the total money claim plus P200,000.00
acceptance fee and P2,500.00 per court appearance;
8.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
SO ORDERED.
DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CA
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 126200
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
of lower
satisfied
property
exhaust
REPUBLIC v. PERALTA
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-56568
FELICIANO, J.:
The Republic of the Philippines seeks the review on
certiorari of the Order dated 17 November 1980 of the
Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No.
108395 entitled "In the Matter of Voluntary Insolvency
of Quality Tobacco Corporation, Quality Tobacco
Corporation, Petitioner," and of the Order dated 19
January 1981 of the same court denying the motion for
reconsideration of the earlier Order filed by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs for the
Republic.
In the voluntary insolvency proceedings commenced in
May 1977 by private respondent Quality Tobacco
Corporation (the "Insolvent"), the following claims of
creditors were filed:
(i) P2,806,729.92, by the USTC Association of
Employees and workers Union-PTGWO USTC as
separation pay for their members. This amount plus an
additional sum of P280,672.99 as attorney's fees had
been awarded by the National Labor Relations
Commission in NLRC Case No. RB-IV-9775-77. 1
(ii) P53,805.05 by the Federacion de la Industria
Tabaquera y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas
("FOITAF), as separation pay for their members, an
amount similarly awarded by the NLRC in the same
NLRC Case.
(iii) P1,085,188.22 by the Bureau of Internal Revenue
for tobacco inspection fees covering the period 1
October 1967 to 28 February 1973;
(iv) P276,161.00 by the Bureau of Customs for
customs duties and taxes payable on various
importations by the Insolvent. These obligations
appear to be secured by surety bonds. 2 Some of
these imported items are apparently still in customs
custody so far as the record before this Court goes.
In its questioned Order of 17 November 1980, the trial
court held that the above-enumerated claims of USTC
and FOITAF (hereafter collectively referred to as the
"Unions") for separation pay of their respective
members embodied in final awards of the National
Labor Relations Commission were to be preferred over
the claims of the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of
Internal Revenue. The trial court, in so ruling, relied