0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
56 просмотров3 страницы
This document summarizes a court case from 1939 regarding two loans given by El Hogar Filipino, Inc. to Tavera-Luna, Inc. that were secured by a mortgage on property. The plaintiffs argued the loans were null and void as the property was a "public building", which was unlawful as collateral under corporation law. However, the court found that while taking such security was improper, the law did not declare such loans automatically void. As the borrower benefited from the agreement, they could not later argue against its validity. The court upheld the loans and foreclosure as valid.
This document summarizes a court case from 1939 regarding two loans given by El Hogar Filipino, Inc. to Tavera-Luna, Inc. that were secured by a mortgage on property. The plaintiffs argued the loans were null and void as the property was a "public building", which was unlawful as collateral under corporation law. However, the court found that while taking such security was improper, the law did not declare such loans automatically void. As the borrower benefited from the agreement, they could not later argue against its validity. The court upheld the loans and foreclosure as valid.
This document summarizes a court case from 1939 regarding two loans given by El Hogar Filipino, Inc. to Tavera-Luna, Inc. that were secured by a mortgage on property. The plaintiffs argued the loans were null and void as the property was a "public building", which was unlawful as collateral under corporation law. However, the court found that while taking such security was improper, the law did not declare such loans automatically void. As the borrower benefited from the agreement, they could not later argue against its validity. The court upheld the loans and foreclosure as valid.
MANZANO , plaintiffs-appellants, vs . EL HOGAR FILIPINO, INC. , defendant-appellee. TAVERA-LUNA, INC. , defendant-appellant; VICENTE MADRIGAL , defendant-appellee.
Carlos P. de Tavera and E. Voltaire Garcia for plaintiffs and appellants.
Pedro Sabido and Jose Avanceña for defendant and appellant. Camus & Zavalla for appellee El Hogar Filipino. Vicente Madrigal in his own behalf.
SYLLABUS
1. CORPORATIONS; LOAN ON PUBLIC BUILDING. — Under section 171 of the
Corporation Law, a loan given on a property which may be considered as a public building, is not, in itself, null and void. It is unlawful to make loans on that kind of security, but the law does not declare the loans, once made, to be null and void. The unlawful taking of the security may constitute a misuser of the powers conferred upon the corporation by its charter, for which it may be made to answer in an action for ouster or dissolution; but certainly the stockholders and depositors of the corporation should not be punished with a loss of the money loaned nor the borrower be rewarded with it. 2. ANTICHRESIS; FORECLOSURE OF SECURITY. — Stipulations in a contract of antichresis for the extra-judicial foreclosure of the security may be allowed in the same manner as they are allowed in contracts of mortgage and of pledge. (El Hogar Filipino vs. Paredes, 45 Phil., 178; Peterson vs. Azada, 8 Phil., 432, 437.)
DECISION
MORAN , J : p
On January 17, 1931, defendant corporation, Tavera-Luna, Inc., obtained a loan of
G.R. No. 74886.december 8, 1992. Prudential Bank, Petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Philippine Rayon Mills Inc. and ANACLETO R. CHI, Respondents
New York Credit Men's Adjustment Bureau, Inc., As Trustee in Bankruptcy of Stanton Togs, Inc. v. Samuel Breiter & Co., Inc., in The Matter of Stanton Togs, Inc., Bankrupt, 253 F.2d 675, 2d Cir. (1958)