Scribd
Upload
189 views1 page

Seno vs. Pestolante

Florencio Seno sued Fausto Pestolante to recover a debt of P600 plus interest and attorneys fees, and to foreclose on a chattel mortgage on properties valued at P2,500 used to secure the debt. Telesforo Barimbao, who possessed the mortgaged properties, refused to surrender them because he claimed to have purchased them. The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the amount sought was under its minimum. However, the Supreme Court held that because the action also involved foreclosure of a chattel mortgage over P2,000 in property, jurisdiction was proper in the Court of First Instance, not the lower court.

Uploaded by

jamimai
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
189 views1 page

Seno vs. Pestolante

Florencio Seno sued Fausto Pestolante to recover a debt of P600 plus interest and attorneys fees, and to foreclose on a chattel mortgage on properties valued at P2,500 used to secure the debt. Telesforo Barimbao, who possessed the mortgaged properties, refused to surrender them because he claimed to have purchased them. The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the amount sought was under its minimum. However, the Supreme Court held that because the action also involved foreclosure of a chattel mortgage over P2,000 in property, jurisdiction was proper in the Court of First Instance, not the lower court.

Uploaded by

jamimai
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
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-11755 April 23, 1958


FLORENCIO SENO vs. FAUSTO PESTOLANTE and TELESFORO BARIMBAO

FACTS:
Plaintiff brought this action before the Court of First Instance of Cebu to recover from defendant Fausto Pestolante
the sum of P600, plus interest, and the sum of P250 as attorneys' fees and, in default of payment thereof, to order
the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage executed by said defendant covering personal properties valued at P2,500.
Barimbao was made party defendant for the reason that he is presently in possession of the mortgage property
and has refused to surrender the same to the plaintiff.
Defendant Barimbao, answering the complaint, stated that he refused to surrender possession of the mortgaged
property because he has purchased it from his co-defendant as evidenced by a deed of sale executed before a
notary public. Defendant Pestolante, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, it appearing that the action is only to collect a balance of P600 which
comes under the original jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court of Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental.
On August 1, 1956, the court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE: whether the action was properly dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
HELD: No. While it is true that the purpose of the action is to recover the sum of P600, plus interest, which comes
within the original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court, it is as well true that the action involves the
foreclosure of the chattel mortgage executed by defendant Fausto Pestolante to secure the payment of his
obligation, which mortgage covers personal properties valued at more than P2,000. Speaking of foreclosure of a
chattel mortgage former Chief Justice Moran says: Of course a chattel mortgage may be fore-closed judicially,
following substantially the same procedure provided in this Rule (Rule 70, Rules of Court).
Plaintiff had to institute the present action because Telesforo Barimbao has refused to surrender the possession of
the mortgaged chattel because he claims to have bought it from the mortgagor free from encumbrance by virtue
of a document executed before a notary public. And the action has to be instituted before the court of first
instance because the chattel is worth more than P2,000.

You might also like