GR 42416; (April, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42416 ; April 9, 1935
MACONDRAY & CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. PRAXEDES R. DE SANTOS, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff Macondray & Co., Inc. filed a complaint against defendant Praxedes R. de Santos to recover an unpaid balance on a promissory note secured by a chattel mortgage on an automobile. The complaint alleged two causes of action: (1) that the mortgaged automobile was totally wrecked while in the defendant’s possession, triggering a mortgage condition allowing foreclosure, and after foreclosure and sale of the wreck, a deficiency balance remained; and (2) alternatively, that the wreck was due to the defendant’s negligence. The defendant demurred (challenged the legal sufficiency of the complaint), claiming that under Article 1454-A of the Civil Code ( Act No. 4122 ), which governs installment sales of personal property, the plaintiff had no cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer and, after the plaintiff elected to stand on its complaint, dismissed the case.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint based on Article 1454-A of the Civil Code.
RULING
Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Article 1454-A applies only where there is (1) a contract for the sale of personal property payable in installments, and (2) a failure to pay two or more installments. The complaint did not allege a failure to pay installments. Instead, it alleged the wreck of the automobile and foreclosure based on a condition of the mortgage unrelated to installment default. Therefore, the demurrer was improperly sustained. The Court did not reach the constitutional challenge to Act No. 4122 raised by the plaintiff.
AI Generated by Armztrong.