GR 182963; (June, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182963; June 3, 2013
SPOUSES DEO AGNER and MARICON AGNER, Petitioners, vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners spouses Agner executed a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage in favor of Citimotors, Inc. to finance a vehicle, agreeing to pay monthly installments. The contract stipulated that failure to pay an installment would make the entire obligation immediately due and payable without prior notice or demand, and that correspondence sent to their provided address would constitute valid notice. Citimotors assigned the note to ABN AMRO Savings Bank, which later assigned it to respondent BPI Family Savings Bank. Petitioners defaulted on four installments.
Respondent bank sent a demand letter and, upon non-payment, filed an action for Replevin and Damages. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the bank, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent lacked cause of action due to a vague deed of assignment, that default was not proven due to lack of receipt of the demand letter, and that the simultaneous actions for replevin and collection of money were improper.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the respondent had a valid cause of action; (2) whether prior demand was necessary to declare petitioners in default; and (3) whether the filing of both replevin and collection of money was a permissible remedy.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. On the first issue, the Court held that the validity of the deed of assignment involved factual determinations, which are not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court is not a trier of facts.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that no prior demand was necessary to declare petitioners in default. The Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage contained a valid waiver of notice or demand, a stipulation recognized as legal and binding. The contract also stipulated that sending correspondence to the provided address constituted valid notice, regardless of actual receipt. Therefore, petitioners’ denial of receiving the demand letter was inconsequential.
On the third issue, the Court found the simultaneous actions permissible. An action for replevin is primarily for the recovery of possession of the mortgaged chattel. The collection of the sum of money, representing the unpaid balance, is a separate and distinct cause of action that can be pursued concurrently, especially when the writ of replevin did not result in the actual seizure of the vehicle. The Court found no violation of the rule against splitting a cause of action.