STUDY FRIA LAW

- The significant allegations that must be stated in the petition to avail of FRIA:

a) Identification of the debtor, its principal activities and its addresses;

(b) Statement of the fact of and the cause of the debtor's insolvency or inability to pay its obligations
as they become due;

(c) The specific relief sought pursuant to this Act;

(d) The grounds upon which the petition is based;

(e) Other information that may be required under this Act depending on the form of relief requested;

(f) Schedule of the debtor's debts and liabilities including a list of creditors with their addresses,
amounts of claims and collaterals, or securities, if any;

(g) An inventory of all its assets including receivables and claims against third parties;

(h) A Rehabilitation Plan;

(i) The names of at least three (3) nominees to the position of rehabilitation receiver; and

(j) Other documents required to be filed with the petition pursuant to this Act and the rules of
procedure as may be promulgated by the Supreme Court.

A group of debtors may jointly file a petition for rehabilitation under this Act when one or more of its
members foresee the impossibility of meeting debts when they respectively fall due, and the financial
distress would likely adversely affect the financial condition and/or operations of the other members
of the group and/or the participation of the other members of the group is essential under the terms
and conditions of the proposed Rehabilitation Plan.

2.) No. what characterizes a contract is its content and not the caption nor the title. The PN is not a
guaranty but a surety contract as the note provides a solidary obligation. Since it is a surety contract,
Praning and Baning are solidarily liable for the death. The defense of Praning is untenable because he is a
surety, for the civil code provides that the defense of exhaustion is only available to guarantors

3.) YHT REALTY CASE

- as the lawyer of the foreigner, sue the Hotel The trial court also found that defendants acted with gross
negligence in the performance and exercise of their duties and obligations as innkeepers and were
therefore liable to answer for the losses incurred by McLoughlin. They should be responsible for all
damages which may be attributed to the non-performance of their contractual obligations.

- as the lawyer of the hotel, Petitioners point out that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the
fact of prior existence of the dollars and the jewelry which had been lost while deposited in the safety
deposit boxes of Tropicana, the basis of the trial court and the appellate court being the sole testimony
of McLoughlin as to the contents thereof. Likewise, petitioners dispute the finding of gross negligence on
their part as not supported by the evidence on record.
ALSO, granting, for the sake of argument, that the items lost were really from the deposited box of the
hotel and that Tan was the immediate party who caused the loss thereof, the hotel is still NOT liable.
Under Art 2002 of the NCC, if cause of the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or
visitors. Thus, hotel-keepers may not be liable for compensation.

4.) Art 1970 & 1971 of the NCC.

5.) Claim of Del Prieto is not valid. See Art 1980. The savings deposit account of Prieto with the PBX bank
is in the nature of the contract of loan. As being governed by the contract of simple loan, such savings
deposit is part of the assets of the bank since ownership of the money is transferred. Subject only to the
right of Del Prieto to withdraw the money.

6.) Benefit of excussion is not applicable when:

Art 2059

1) If the guarantor has expressly renounced it;

(2) If he has bound himself solidarily with the debtor;

(3) In case of insolvency of the debtor;

(4) When he has absconded, or cannot be sued within the Philippines unless he has left a manager or
representative;

(5) If it may be presumed that an execution on the property of the principal debtor would not result in the
satisfaction of the obligation

7.) Nature of Transaction; deposit of students. Page 116, Aquino.

8.) The Residential BLDG is deemed included in the mortgage of the 2 parcels of land since the same is an
accession of the soil of said lands. See Art 2127, NCC. M’s continued possession of the residential building
defeats PNB’s right to possess the acquired mortgaged properties. Hence, M should vacate the property,
without prejudice to his right to reimbursement as regards the cost which exceeded the fulfillment of the
principal obligation of M to PNB

M should have clearly indicated its intention not to mortgage the subject residential bldg., for if it were
silent, it is deemed included in the real mortgage.

9.) When Dungol became insolvent, Catulpo may demand payment from the 3 of them. Assuming that
the debt remains still, the 3 guarantors should divide among themselves the payment of the remaining
debt. If one of them pays the whole in such a case, the payer shall have the right to reimbursement from
his co-guarantors the amount which exceeded in his obligation to pay.

10.) The order of the judge is not proper. Esteban as a guarantor enjoys the benefit of excussion. Unless
there was exhaustion of all the legal remedies against the properties of S and Co, Esteban cannot be made
to pay the indebtedness of S and Co.
11.) Although disadvantageous to the surety company, case law provides that rights may be waives as
long as such waiver is not contrary to law, nor to public policy. After all, there is no law which prohibits
the surety to etc… (People’s Bank & Trust Co. vs. Tambunting, 42 SCRA 119 [1971].) Thus, where under
the terms of the bond executed by a surety company it had agreed to guarantee that a non-immigrant
Chinese student “would actually depart from the Philippines on or before April 7, 1958, or within such
period as, in his discretion, the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative may
properly allow,” this amounts to the surety’s consent to all the extensions granted to the non-immigrant
student referred to. Similarly, the extensions of loans do not release the surety where the “continuing
guarantee’’ executed by the surety provides that he consents and agrees that the bank “may, at any time
or from time to time, extend or change the time of payments and/or the manner, place or terms of
payment of all such instruments loans, advances, credits, or other obligations guaranteed by the surety.’’
(Tañedo vs. Allied Banking Corporation, 344 SCRA 100 [2002].)

12.) Benigno is correct. Anselmo cannot demand the return of the thing pledged until fulfillment of the
principal obligation. Furthermore, no stipulation was agreed as to the partial fulfillment of the pledge nor
its substitution.

Next question pls search. WHAT WILL BENIGNO as regards the things pledged if ANSELMO failed to pay
the remaining balance.

13.) Payment shall be applied to the principal. There was no contract of lease to speak of. It is clear that
the land serves as security for the principal obligation. The intention of the defendant is to pay for the
principal obligation not for the rents. SEARCH CODAL.

14.) Contract of loan vs contract of deposit

15.) Producers bank case