FAR EAST MARBLE (PHILS.), INC., LUIS R. TABUENA, JR. and RAMON A. TABUENA, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 94093
- Promulgated: 1993-08-10
- Ponente: Melo, J.
Doctrine
Admission of genuineness and due execution of instruments does not necessarily foreclose affirmative defenses such as prescription or lack of cause of action when facts on accrual or interruption remain disputed.
Summary judgment is inappropriate where material issues of fact—here, the date of maturity, accrual of cause of action, and interruption of prescription—remain in dispute despite admitted documents.
Facts
Far East admitted genuineness and due execution of promissory notes attached to the complaint but alleged the notes became due on 19 November 1976 and pleaded prescription and lack of cause of action as affirmative defenses.
BPI opposed the motion to hear affirmative defenses, contending its cause of action had not prescribed and attaching written extrajudicial demands and alleged acknowledgments by Far East to interrupt or renew the ten-year prescriptive period.
BPI moved for summary judgment, arguing Far East's admission of the notes and chattel mortgage eliminated any genuine issue of material fact and entitled BPI to judgment as a matter of law and foreclosure.
The trial court on 1 June 1987 ordered dismissal of the complaint against Far East for lack of cause of action and prescription; denied BPI's motions for summary judgment; recalled the writ of replevin and returned seized property; and dismissed ensuing contempt charges.
Issues
Whether Far East's affirmative defenses of prescription and lack of cause of action were properly sustained despite its admission of the genuineness and execution of the promissory notes.
Whether BPI was entitled to summary judgment based on Far East's admissions and the attached chattel mortgage.
Whether the writ of replevin previously issued should be recalled and seized property returned to Far East.
Ruling
The trial court dismissed the complaint against Far East for lack of cause of action and on grounds of prescription, thereby sustaining Far East's affirmative defenses despite its admissions regarding execution and genuineness of the notes.
The trial court denied BPI's motion for summary judgment for lack of merit, finding unresolved issues precluding judgment as a matter of law.
The trial court struck its prior order of 6 March 1987, recalled the writ of replevin, dismissed contempt charges, and ordered the sheriff to return all property seized under the writ to Far East.
Keywords
G.R. No. 94093, petition for review by certiorari, CA-G.R. CV No. 14404, foreclosure of chattel mortgage with replevin, Civil Case No. 87-39345, promissory notes, Trust Receipts, Chattel Mortgage, continuing guaranty, prescription, lack of cause of action, genuineness and due execution, extrajudicial demands, acknowledgement of debt, motion for summary judgment, writ of replevin, writ of seizure, replevin bond, affirmative defenses, tabuena