Sochayseng vs.

Trujillo

RULING:

Facts:

The surviving spouse is obliged upon the death of the other to

settle the conjugal partnership. In this settlement a deduction
should be made of the debts incurred during the marriage, and
what remains should be divided into two parts, the part
corresponding to the deceased spouse, together with his own
property, being that which should be submitted to the probate court
in the special proceedings for the settlement of the wifes estate.
The decision of this court is based upon this principle. It say: When
a conjugal partnership is dissolved by the death of the wife, the
surviving husband, and not the judicial administrator appointed in
the proceedings for the settlement of the estate, is entitled to the
possession of the property of the conjugal partnership until he has
liquidated its affairs. It is an error to settle the affairs of a conjugal
partnership, dissolved by the death of the wife, in the special
proceedings for the settlement of the wifes estate.

Paulina sochayseng (daughter) left the defendants house with the

latters knowledge and consent for the purpose of being attended
by her mother during her sickness who later died. The cost of care
and subsitence and her burial expense was shouldered solely by the
plaintiff. the conjugal partnership between her and the defendant
was a piece of real estate valued at P1,000, which property is now
in defendants possession; that the latter did not paid plaintiff the
whole nor any part of the P730 which the latter expended for the
purposes above specified. In his written answer defendant admitted
all the facts alleged in the complaint, except those that his wife left
his house without his knowledge or consent; During the time his
wife was living in her mothers house, he sent her P12 a month for
her support. In a cross-complaint defendant demanded that plaintiff
delivers to him certain articles belonging to the conjugal
partnership, valued at P615. Subsequently defendant filed an
additional answer wherein he alleged that the claim for P730,
presented by plaintiff, should have been made to the
commissioners of appraisal appointed in the proceedings for the
settlement of the intestate estate of Marcela Yatco. He therefore
prayed the court to dismiss the said claim.

Yek Ton Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co. vs.

Yusingco
Facts:
plaintiff, Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd and
defendant Vicente Madrigal appealed from the judgment of CFI

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is held liable for the debt

 Pelagio Yusingco authorized Yu Seguioc to administer his

properties and mortgaged the steamship to Yek Tong Lin Fire &
Marine Insurance Co (P45k)
steamhip was repaired by Earnshaw Docks & Honolulu Iron Works
and V.M. was the guarantor and was asked to pay the P8k
bec. Plaintaiff wasnt able to pay V.M., a judicial proceeding was
instituted assigning the rights to V.M. to sell the steamship
Plaintiff filed a 3rd-party claim as it was mortgaged to him,
however auction was done and plaintiff was the winning bidder
lower court: defendant Pelgio Yusingco pay P17k, V.M. to turn over
the money received by him in sheriff (was absolved) of Surigao
Issue:
WON preference of credits belong to the creditor-assignee or to the
creditor-mortgagee
WON there was merger of rights
Ruling:
SC: The defendant and appellant V. M. enjoys preference in the
payment of his judgment credit with the proceeds of the sale of the
steamship Yusingco, by virtue of the assignment to him, because it
is so provided not only in article 1922 of the Civil code but also in

article 1926, rule 4, which provides that credits secured by a pledge

exclude all others to the extent of the value of the thing pledged,
even if mortgage contains a clause to the effect that if the
proceeds of the sale of the steamship Yusingco, in case it is sold by
reason of default in the performance of the conditions thereof,
should be insufficient, the plaintiff could collect its credit on other
property of the debtors.
Plaintiffs only right with respect to said vessel was to sell it
judicially or extrajudicially in accordance with law, upon default in
the performance of the conditions of the mortgage contract entered
into between it and the owners thereof, in order to apply the
proceeds of the sale to its mortgage credit against said owners, or
at least against P. Y., if such proceeds are sufficient (Bachrach Motor
co. vs. summers, 42 Phil., 3), and if insufficient, to collect the
balance thereof on other property belonging to said defendants,
under the circumstances, it could neither take possession thereof
nor sell it pursuant to the conditions of its mortgage contract.
After the steamship Yusingco had been sold by virtue of the
judicial writ issued in civil case No. 41654 for the execution of the
judgment rendered in favor of V. M., the only right left to the
plaintiff was to collect its mortgage credit from the purchaser
thereof at public auction, inasmuch as the rule is that a mortgage
directly and immediately subjects the property on which it is
imposed, whoever its possessor may be, to the fulfillment of the
obligation for the security of which it was created (article 1876, Civil

Code); but it so happens that it can not take such steps now
because it was the purchaser of the steamship Yusingco at public
auction, and it was so with full knowledge that it had a mortgage
credit on said vessel. Obligations are extinguished by the merger of
the rights of the creditor and debtor (articles 1156 and 11922, Civil
Code).

SILAHIS MARKETING CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and
GREGORIO DE LEON, doing business under the
name and style of "MARK INDUSTRIAL SALES",
respondents.

Facts:

Gregorio de Leon (De Leon for short) doing business under

the name and style of Mark Industrial Sales sold and
delivered to Silahis Marketing Corporation (Silahis for short)
various items of merchandise in the aggregate amount of
P22,213.75. Allegedly due to Silahis' failure to pay its account
upon maturity despite repeated demands, de Leon filed
before the then Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint
for the collection of the said accounts including accrued

interest thereon in the amount of P661.03 and attorney's

fees of P5,000.00 plus costs of litigation.
The answer admitted the allegations of the complaint insofar
as the invoices were concerned but presented as affirmative
defenses; [a] a debit memo for P22,200.00 as unrealized
profit for a supposed commission that Silahis should have
received from de Leon for the sale of sprockets in the amount
of P111,000.00 made directly to Dole Philippines,
Incorporated nd [b] Silahis' claim that it is entitled to return
the stainless steel screenwhich was found defective by its
client, Borden International, Davao City, and to have the
corresponding amount cancelled from its account with de
Leon.
The lower court confirmed the liability of Silahis for the claim
of de Leon but at the same time ordered that it be partially
offset by Silahis' counterclaim as contained in the debit
memo for unrealized profit and commission.

Issue:
WON partial compensation is valid
Ruling:

The debit memo upon which petitioner's counterclaim rests

and found nothing contained therein to show that private
respondent obligated himself to set-off or compensate
petitioner's outstanding accounts with the alleged unrealized

commission from the assailed sale of sprockets in the amount

of P111,000.00 to Dole Philippines, Inc.
Two of the requisites in Art. 1279 for proper compensation
require that "the two debts be due and "they be liquidated
and demandable."
Compensation is not proper where the claim of the person
asserting the set-off against the other is not clear nor
liquidated as what it is presented in the case at bar.

Upon the discovery of the death, the U.S. Department of

Treasury requested petitioner bank for a refund. For the first
time petitioner bank came to know of the death of
Fernandez.
Petitioner bank informed client and private respondent herein
verbally authorized the petitioner bank to debit the amount
from his other joint account .

Issue:
WON not the legal compensation was proper

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and GRACE

ROMERO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and EDVIN F. REYES , respondents.

Ruling:

Facts:

Private respondent is a client of the petitioner bank with 1

joint and/or account with his wife and 1 joint and/or
saving account with his grandmother where he regularly
deposited the US Treasury Warrants payable to his
grandmother as her monthly pension.
The grandmother died without the knowledge of the US
Treasury Department and continued to send US Treasury
Warrants.

SC ruled that the elements of legal compensation are all

present in the case at bar.
Petitioner bank stands as a debtor of the private respondent,
a depositor. At the same time, said bank is the creditor of the
private respondent with respect to the dishonoured U.S.
Treasury Warrant which the latter illegally transferred to his
joint account. The debts involved consist of a sum of money.
They are due, liquidated, and demandable. They are not
claimed by a third person.