Echegoyen v. Collantes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, as administratrix of her deceased husband's estate, filed an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage constituted by the defendants to secure a loan of P90,000 plus interest at 10% per annum. The defendants also agreed to insure the mortgaged properties and pay a penalty of 10% in case of violation of contract terms. The mortgage was duly recorded. The defendants defaulted in the payment of interest starting October 15, 1931, and the insurance premium of P527.64, which was paid by the plaintiff. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to pay the principal loan amount with interest, the insurance premium with interest, costs, and attorney's fees. The court awarded P1,000 as attorney's fees, doubling it in case of appeal, and ordered that the mortgaged property be applied to the payment of the amounts due. The Petition: The defendants appealed the judgment, raising two main issues: (1) the nullity of the mortgage due to the concurrence of two minors not legally represented, and (2) the premature filing of the action.
Issue(s)
Whether the mortgage was null and void on the ground that two minors, who were not legally represented, concurred therein. Whether the action brought by the appellee was premature.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with double costs of this instance against the appellants on the ground that the appeal taken by them is frivolous.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the mortgage's validity concerning minors: The Court found the assignment of error regarding the intervention of the two minors to be unfounded. It was raised for the first time on appeal, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed that the guardian, Juan M. Collantes, who signed for the minors Felicidad P. Collantes and Paz P. Collantes, was duly appointed and authorized to execute the mortgage. The representation by the brother and guardian was deemed sufficient. On the issue of premature filing of the action: The Court also found this assignment of error to be unfounded. According to the terms of the mortgage contract, the interest was due and payable in advance during the first five days of every calendar month. The default in payment corresponded to the period from October 15 to December 15, 1931. Since the complaint was filed on December 17, 1931, it was evident that the action was filed after the interest for two consecutive months had fallen due and after the appellants had failed to pay it, thus satisfying the condition for judicial action stipulated in the mortgage.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the action for foreclosure was not prematurely filed as the defendants had defaulted in the payment of interest for two consecutive months, and that the mortgage was valid despite the participation of minors who were duly represented by their guardian. The appeal was deemed frivolous, warranting double costs.