Yuliongsiu vs.

PNB
Petitioner was the owner of 2 vessels and
operated FS-203 (purchased from Philippine
Shipping Commission by installment only the
sum of P76,500 and the balance of the
purchase price was payable at P50,000 a year,
due on or before the end of the current year.)
P obtained a loan of P50,000 from PNB. To
guarantee its payment, plaintiff pledged its 2
vessels and its equity in the FS-203, as
evidenced by the pledge contract
P effected partial payment of the loan in the
sum of P20,000
The remaining balance was renewed by the
execution of 2 promissory notes in the bank's
favor. These two notes were never paid at all
by P on their respective due dates.
PNB filed criminal charges against P and two
other accused for estafa thru falsification of
commercial documents, and they were
convicted by the trial court and sentenced to
indemnify PNB in the sum of P184,000
PNB took physical possession of three pledged
vessels
The FS-203 was subsequently surrendered by
PNB to the Philippine Shipping which rescinded
the sale to Yuliongsiu, for failure to pay the
remaining installments on the purchase price.
The other two boats were sold by PNB to third
parties
W/N the contract was a pledge
Yes
PNB as pledgee was therefore entitled to the
actual possession of the vessels. While it is true
that Yuliongsiu continued operating the vessels
after the pledge contract was entered into, his
possession was expressly made "subject to the
order of the pledgee.
P urges to rule that constructive delivery is
insufficient to make pledge effective. The type
of delivery will depend upon the nature and the
peculiar circumstances of each case. The
parties here agreed that the vessels be
delivered by the "pledgor to the pledgor who
shall hold said property subject to the order of
the pledgee." Considering the circumstances of
this case and the nature of the objects
pledged, i.e., vessels used in maritime
business, such delivery is sufficient
Since PNB was, pursuant to the terms of pledge
contract, in full control of the vessels thru
Yuliongsiu, the former could take actual
possession at any time during the life of the
pledge to make more effective its security
Paray vs. Rodriguez
Respondent Rodriguez were owners of shares
of stock in a corpoaration known as QuirinoLeonor-Rodriguez Realty Inc.
Rodriguez secured by way of pledge some of
their stock to the Parays for the payment of
certain loan obligations
Parays attempted to foreclose the pledge when
Rodriguez failed to pay
Rodriguez filed a complaint to the RTC which
sought the nullity of the pledge agreements
and cosigned payments to the RTC and invoked
their right to redemption
Despite consignation, the public auction took
place as scheduled
W/N the Parays may refuse consigned payment
Yes
Being an extrajudicial sale, all the creditor
needs to do is to proceed before a notary
public to the sale of the thing pledged
The things pledged are not subject to
redemption
Thus, the things pledged may not be redeemed
from the persons who had bought the same
through the public auction.

Manila Surety vs. Velayo

Velayo had a pending case against Granados
Velayo secured a bond worth 2800 to Manila
Surety for the dissolution of the writ of
attachment obtained by Granados, with an
annual premium of 112.00
Velayo also delivered 4 pieces of jewelry to
Manila Surety as added protection with power
to sell the same
Judgment having been rendered in favor of
Granados, Manila surety was forced to pay
2800
Manila Surety then sold the jewelry but was
only able to obtain 235.00 from it
Manila surety filed a case against Velayo for
collection
W/N article 2115 applies?
Yes
Art. 2115 - the thing pledged shall extinguish
the principal obligation, whether or not the
proceeds are equal or not to the principal
obligation
The principal obligation being the bond
The provision is clear and unmistakable, and its
effect can not be evaded. By electing to sell
the articles pledged, instead of suing on the
principal obligation, the creditor has waived
any other remedy, and must abide by the
results of the sale. No deficiency is
recoverable.
Tambuting vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Tambunting Pawnshop was found to have a
deficiency of Documentary Stamp Tax of
50,910
Tambunting filed its written protest to the
assessment notice alleging that it was not
subject to documentary stamp tax under
Section 1957 of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC) because documentary stamp taxes
were applicable only to pledge contracts, and
the pawnshop business did not involve
contracts of pledge
W/N DST is applicable to pawn tickets
Yes
True, the pawn ticket is neither a security nor a
printed evidence of indebtedness. But,
precisely being a receipt for a pawn, it
documents the pledge. Consequently, the
issuance of the pawn ticket by the pawnshop
means that the thing pledged has already been
placed in its possession and that the pledge
has been constituted.
Good faith, thus charges deleted