Southern Motors Inc vs. Moscoso
2 SCRA 168
May 1961
FACTS:
In June 1957, plaintiff-appellee, Southern Motors, Inc. (Southern Motors) sold to defendant-appellant Angel Moscoso one Chevrolet truck, on installment basis, for P6,445.00. Upon making a down payment, the defendant executed a promisory note for the sum of P4,915,00, representing the unpaid balance of the purchase price to secure the payment of which, a chattel mortgage was constituted on the truck in favor of Southern Motors. Of the P4,915,00, defendant was only able to pay a total of P550.00, which P110.00 was applied to the interest up to August 15, and P400.00 to the principal, thus leaving an unpaid balance of P4,475.00. The defendant failed to pay 3 more installments on the balance of the purchase price.
In November 1957, the Southern Motors filed a complaint against the Moscoso to recover the unpaid balance of the promissory note, and the lower court issued a writ of attachment on Moscoso’s properties. The Sheriff of San Jose, Antique, attach the Chevrolet truck, as well as a house and lot belonging to Moscoso, and said truck was brought to the Southern Motors’ compound in Iloilo City for safe keeping. The Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo sold the said truck on January 2, 1958 at a public auction in which Southern Motors itself was the only bidder for P1,000.00. In March 1958, the trial court condemned the defendant Moscoso to pay the plaintiff Southern Motors the unpaid balance of P4,475.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from August 16, 1957, until fully paid. While Southern Motors claims that in filing the complaint, demanding payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price, it has availed of the first remedy provided in Article 1484 of the new Civil Code i.e. to exact fulfillment of the obligation (specific performance), Mosocoso, on the other hand, contends that Southern Motors had availed itself of the third remedy viz, the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage on the truck.
ISSUE:
Which remedy under the Civil Code did the vendor Southern Motors avail?
COURT RULING:
The Supreme Court, in affirming the decision of the lower court, found that there is nothing unlawful or irregular in appellee Southern Motors's act of attaching the mortgaged truck itself.
Since it has chosen to exact the fulfillment of the appellant Moscoso's obligation, Southern Motors may enforce execution of the judgment that may be favorable to it, on all personal and real properties of the latter not exempt from execution sufficient to satisfy such judgment. No one can successfully contest that the attachment of a house and lot at San Jose, Antique was merelly an incident to all ordinary civil action. (Sections 1 & 11, Rule 59; sec. 16 Rule 39.) The mortgage creditor may recover judgment on the mortgage debt and cause an execution on the mortgaged property and may cause an attachment to be issued and levied on such property, upon beginning his civil action.
