Scribd
Upload
21 views1 page

Republic vs. Grijaldo Loan Collection Case

The Republic of the Philippines is attempting to collect on five loans that Grijaldo obtained from the Bank of Taiwan totaling P1,281.97. While the Bank of Taiwan's assets were originally vested in the US government and later transferred to the Republic, Grijaldo argues the Republic has no right to collect. The court held that the Republic can collect from Grijaldo because the obligation was to repay a sum of money, not deliver a specific thing, so the loss of the mortgaged crops did not nullify the debt. Additionally, prescription does not run against the State, so the passage of time does not prevent the Republic from seeking to collect the outstanding loans.

Uploaded by

Annabelle Bustamante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views1 page

Republic vs. Grijaldo Loan Collection Case

The Republic of the Philippines is attempting to collect on five loans that Grijaldo obtained from the Bank of Taiwan totaling P1,281.97. While the Bank of Taiwan's assets were originally vested in the US government and later transferred to the Republic, Grijaldo argues the Republic has no right to collect. The court held that the Republic can collect from Grijaldo because the obligation was to repay a sum of money, not deliver a specific thing, so the loss of the mortgaged crops did not nullify the debt. Additionally, prescription does not run against the State, so the passage of time does not prevent the Republic from seeking to collect the outstanding loans.

Uploaded by

Annabelle Bustamante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Republic vsGrijaldo

Facts:

Grijaldo obtained five loans from the Bank of Taiwanin the total sum of
P1,281.97 with interest at therats of 6% per annum compounded quarterly.
Thesewere evidenced by five promissory notes.
These loans were crop loans and was considered tobe due one year after they
were incurred.
As a security for the payment of the loans, a chattelmortgage was executed
on the standing crops of hisland.
The assets in the Bank of Taiwan were vested in theUS Govt which were
subsequently transferred to theRepublic of the Philippines
RP is now demanding the payment of the account.
Justice of Peace dismisses the case on the ground of prescription. CA
rendered a decision ordering theappellant to pay the appellee.

Defendants contentions:
1)Theappellee has no cause of action againstappellant since the transaction was
with Taiwan Bank.
2)That if the appellee has a cause of action at all, ithad prescribed
3)The lower court erred in ordering the appellant topay P2,377.23
Issue: Can RP still collect from Grijaldo?
Held: Yes
Ratio: The obligation of the contract was not to deliver adeterminate thing, it was a
generic thing the amount ofmoney representing the total sum of his loans.
Thedestruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguishthe obligation. The
loss of the crops did not extinguish hisobligation to pay because the account could
still be paid fromother sources aside from the mortgaged crops.
Also,prescription does not run against the State.

You might also like