SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245427. June 17, 2019.]
SPOUSES STEVEN T. UY AND JUDITH UY, petitioners, vs.TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated17 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245427 (Spouses Steven T. Uy and Judith Uy v. Toyota Financial Services Corporation)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 12, 2018 Decision 2 and the March 1, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107883 for failure of petitioners Spouses Steven T. Uy and Judith Uy (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the ruling 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 110. HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, the absence of a prior demand for delivery of the vehicles subject of the chattel mortgage 5 was not fatal to respondent Toyota Financial Services Corporation's (respondent) cause of action. 6 Under prevailing jurisprudence, prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for replevin. 7 Even assuming that a prior demand was required, the CA correctly observed that its necessity was validly dispensed with by the parties as stipulated in the promissory notes. 8 Likewise, the CA correctly ruled that petitioners could be held liable to pay the balance of the promissory notes in the event that recovery of the vehicles was unsuccessful. Jurisprudence provides that the barring effect under Article 1484 9 of the Civil Code operates only upon the mortgaged chattel's actual foreclosure and eventual sale at public action. 10 Hence, until the vehicles are actually foreclosed and sold, respondent may avail of the other remedies under Article 1484.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-24.
2.Id. at 27-46. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
3.Id. at 8-12.
4. See Decision dated October 13, 2015, penned by Presiding Judge Petronilo A. Sulla, Jr.; id. at 47-59.
5. See "Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage" dated June 6, 2006; id. at 91-98.
6. See id. at 41-43.
7.Spouses Agner v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., 710 Phil. 82, 86 (2013), citing Navarro v. Escobido, 621 Phil. 1, 21 (2009).
8. See Cabanting v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., 781 Phil. 164, 168 (2016).
9. Article 1484. In a contract of sale of personal property the price of which is payable in installments, the vendor may exercise any of the following remedies:
(1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail to pay;
(2) Cancel the sale, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments;
(3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing sold, if one has been constituted, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments. In this case, he shall have no further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be void.
10. See Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Colarina, 513 Phil. 357, 366 (2005); Spouses Rosario v. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., 511 Phil. 115-125 (2005); Borbon II v. Servicewide Specialists, Inc., 328 Phil. 150, 158 (1996).