Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-157 March 24, 1949
FELICIDAD LEGASPI, plaintiff-appellee, EL AHORRO INSULAR, defendant-appellant.
Garcia & Martin for appellant.
BENGZON, J.:
This is a review by certiorari decision of the Court of Appeals ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of three pesos with interest.
It appears that in September of 1929, plaintiff executed in favor of defendant a mortgage on certain real property belonging to her for the sum of thirty thousand pesos. The document authorized extrajudicial foreclosure. By reason of the default of the mortgagor the property was sold by the defendant at auction without court proceedings in May, 1930. The plaintiff was informed only to pay the indebtedness. However, plaintiff discovered in 1939 that out of the money obtained at the sale the defendant had charged her the amount of three thousand pesos as attorney's fees in connection with the foreclosure. In August, 1941, she instituted this action maintaining that defendant had no right to charge her for attorney's fees.
The Court of Appeals found for plaintiff saying there is no proof that attorney's service had been rendered.
The defendant appellant claims here that under the contract the debtor is chargeable with attorney's fees not only when the foreclosure is judicially made but also when it is done out of court. A part of the mortgage contract is cited in support of this claim. But appellee's attorney correctly observes that contract is not before us in the record. Anyway the Court of Appeals having found that no attorney had intervened in the foreclosure wemust respect that finding of fact.
Another question raised in the litigation relate to the matter of prescription. Defendant point out that more than ten years had elapsed from May 1930, to August 1941. But the court of Appeals stated as fact that plaintiff came to know of the unauthorized deduction in 1939, and that when she instituted this suit about two years had passed. Consequently plaintiff cause of action has not prescribed.
The appealed decision being in accordance with law is affirmed. No costs.
Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes,JJ., concur.
Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 24, 1949, in G.R. No. L-157. The case involves Felicidad Legaspi, the plaintiff-appellee, who filed a complaint against El Ahhorro Insular, the defendant-appellant, for charging attorney's fees without authorization. In 1929, the plaintiff executed a mortgage on her property to secure a loan of thirty thousand pesos from the defendant with a provision for extrajudicial foreclosure. The property was sold in 1930 due to the plaintiff's default, and the defendant charged the plaintiff three thousand pesos as attorney's fees in connection with the foreclosure. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had no right to charge her for attorney's fees, and the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, stating that there was no proof that attorney's service had been rendered. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, finding that the plaintiff's cause of action had not prescribed as she only discovered the unauthorized deduction in 1939, and the lawsuit was filed two years later. The Supreme Court also deferred to the Court of Appeals' finding of fact that no attorney had intervened in the foreclosure.
Quick Answers
- What is Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular about?
- This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 24, 1949, in G.R. No. L-157. The case involves Felicidad Legaspi, the plaintiff-appellee, who filed a complaint against El Ahhorro Insular, the defendant-appellant, for charging attorney's fees without authorization. In 1929, the plaintiff executed a mortgage on her property to secure a loan of thirty thousand pesos from the defendant with a provision for extrajudicial foreclosure. The property was sold in 1930 due to the plaintiff's default, and the defendant charged the plaintiff three thousand pesos as attorney's fees in connection with the foreclosure. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had no right to charge her for attorney's fees, and the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, stating that there was no proof that attorney's service had been rendered. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, finding that the plaintiff's cause of action had not prescribed as she only discovered the unauthorized deduction in 1939, and the lawsuit was filed two years later. The Supreme Court also deferred to the Court of Appeals' finding of fact that no attorney had intervened in the foreclosure.
- Which court decided Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular?
- Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular decided?
- Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular (G.R. No. L-157) was decided on Mar 24, 1949.
- What is the citation for Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular?
- Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular, G.R. No. L-157, Mar 24, 1949 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- G.R. No. L-157
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular, G.R. No. L-157, Mar 24, 1949 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1949). Felicidad Legaspi vs. El Ahorro Insular (G.R. No. L-157). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/felicidad-legaspi-vs-el-ahorro-insular
Related Cases
- Legaspi v. El Ahorro InsularR-CA. No. 157 • Mar 24, 1949
- El Ahorro Insular v. AquinoG.R. No. L-11741 • Mar 18, 1959
- Government of the Philippine Islands v. El Ahorro InsularG.R. No. 37640 • Dec 21, 1933
- de Enriquez v. El Holgar FilipinoG.R. No. L-23215 • Jun 9, 1969
- De Villabona v. Court of AppealsG.R. No. L-10799 • Apr 28, 1958
- Lim Queco v. de CartegaG.R. No. 47507 • Dec 19, 1940
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case