Facts: Manila Trading and Supply Co., the plaintiff sold to Santos Saez, the defendant a determinate equipment. There was an unpaid balance amounting to P2,200.00. Defendant executed 20 promissory notes, the first three installments for P150 each and the others for P100 payable on the 16th day of every month beginning November 16, 1933 and mortgage the said equiptment as a security.The defendant failed to pay any of the promissory notes, the plaintiff attached the chattel mortgage and was sold in public auction in accordance with Act No.1508 for P700.00 in favor of the plaintiff as the highest bidder.
Defendant still owed the plaintiff for P1,897.55. The plaintiff filed an action for the payment of the unpaid balance. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s action will not prosper because it is contrary to Act No.4122. The lower court favored the plaintiff, hence this appeal was filed.
Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff had a right to a deficiency in conformity with the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No.4122)?
RULING: The court held that Act No.4122 has no application with this case otherwise it would be given a retroactive effect. The said act is not applicable to this case for the reason that the mortgage which gave rise to the plaintiff’s requirements was executed on October 3, 1933 and the aforesaid act took effect on December 9, 1933. The action is the correlative of a right and is nothing more than a remedy conceded by law to protect.
If the plaintiff was entitled to the deficiency, judgment under Act No 1508, this right already existed when Act No.4122 was approved and cannot be effected by the prohibition contained in the latter Act. The court did not err in declaring AAct No.4122 to be inapplicable and in ruling that the plaintiff is entitled to the deficiency jjudgment in accordance with Act No.1508.
No comments:
Post a Comment