Banzon v. Sellner
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiffs-appellees, Jose P. Banzon and Lucila Rosauro, filed a complaint against the defendant-appellant, George C. Sellner, seeking payment of P35,000 with interest and attorney's fees, and in case of non-payment, the sale of certain parcels of land. The defendant appealed from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Bataan. Procedural History: The trial court rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs P35,000 with 10% interest per annum from March 1, 1931, plus 5% attorney's fees, and costs. Failure to pay within three months would result in the sale of the parcels of land. The Petition: The defendant appealed, assigning several errors allegedly committed by the trial court, including the denial of a motion for postponement due to illness, rendering judgment for an obligation not yet due, ordering payment of a penal clause despite novation, and abuse of discretionary power.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for postponement of the trial based on the defendant's alleged serious illness. Whether the mortgage creditor can institute foreclosure proceedings for the full amount of the loan when not all installments have become due. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to pay the penal clause specified in the mortgage deed despite alleged novation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, finding no error in the decision. The appeal was deemed frivolous, and double costs were assessed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for postponement: The Court held that the denial of the motion for postponement, which was based on the alleged serious illness of the defendant and supported only by an unsworn medical certificate, did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Section 130 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants the trial judge discretion in granting or denying postponements. The Court reiterated its previous rulings that such a motion, to be granted, must be accompanied by a sworn statement, either an affidavit or a sworn medical certificate. The unsworn nature of the medical certificate presented by the defense was fatal to the motion. On the foreclosure of the full amount of the loan: The Court ruled that even though the mortgage deed stipulated installments and the last installment was not yet due at the time the complaint was filed, the creditors could still foreclose for the full amount. This was based on the stipulation of facts entered into by the parties, which established new installment payments. While the former two installments were already due and demandable, the third installment fell due before the defendant filed his answer. The Court noted that if such installments fall due during the pendency of the suit and are included in the complaint, and no demurrer is filed for their exclusion, they are validly included in the judgment. The principle is that while individual installments not yet due cannot be demanded in isolation, if the complaint seeks recovery of all installments, including those not yet due, and they subsequently mature during the litigation, they become part of the recoverable amount. On the payment of the penal clause despite novation: The Court found that the penal clause was not cancelled by the novation. The stipulation of facts, which modified the payment terms, explicitly stated, "Without prejudice to the rights derived by the plaintiffs from the mortgage on the land described in the complaint." The penal clause was considered one of those rights that the plaintiffs reserved for themselves in the stipulation. Therefore, the plaintiffs retained the right to demand compliance with the penal clause as part of their secured rights under the mortgage.
Main Doctrine
A motion for postponement based on the alleged serious illness of a party, if accompanied only by an unsworn medical certificate, does not constitute an abuse of discretion when denied by the court. Furthermore, when a complaint for foreclosure includes installments not yet due, and no demurrer is filed for their exclusion, such installments become validly included if they fall due during the pendency of the suit.