Universal Motors Corporation v. Velasco

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

This is an appeal on a question of law from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Since the appeal was perfected in 1965 before the enactment of R.A. No. 5440 which took effect on September 7, 1968, a record on appeal was submitted. The plaintiff-appellant filed a brief but defendants-appellees having failed to file their brief within the reglementary period the case was submitted for decision without their brief.

The uncontroverted facts are: Mariano T. Velasco bought from Universal Motors C tion a Mercedes-Benz truck on installment basis. To the balance of the purchase price of P35,243.68 he executed a promissory note and executed a chattel mortgage over the truck. He defaulted in his payments and as a consequence the Vendor asked him to surrender the truck in accordance will the term and conditions of the chattel mortgage contract.

lie failed and refused to surrender the truck whereupon the vendor instituted an action in the court a quo to recover the truck preparatory to foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. As an alternative, in case the truck could not be recovered, the plaintiff asked for the payment, among other things, of its vs in the sum of P23,763.09 plus legal interest. By virtue of a writ of replevin issued by said court, the seller was able to re-possess the truck.

Going back to the action which was commenced on December 29, 1964, the defendants failed to answer the complaint within the reglementary period and were declare in default. On April 26, 1965, defendant Velasco filed a motion to lift the default order which was granted. He did not, however, file an answer.

In lieu thereof the parties, on June 15, 1965, submitted the following: STIPULATION OF FACTS "COME NOW the parties in the above-entitled case, through their respective counsel and before this Honorable Court respectfully stipulate: "1. That defendant was, at the time of the filing of the complaint indebted to plaintiff in the principal sum of P23,763.09, which amount is covered by a promissory note secured by a Chattel Mo (Annex 'A' of the complaint) on a motor vehicle described in paragraph 2 of the complaint "2. That notwithstanding defendant being in default of this aforesaid mentioned sum and notwithstanding demands made by plain tiff on December 11, 1964, defendant failed to surrender the chattel described in paragraph 2 of the complaint thereby preventing plaintiff from f on the same; "3.

That plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the chattel bed in paragraph 2 of the complaint and was constrained to institute the t action for recovery of possession as a preliminary stop to forced. "4. That in the se and execution of the writ of seizure issued in this cage and in g the possession of the vehicle subjected of the complaint plaintiff the occured the following expenses: "a) Premium on replevin bond .

. . .

. . .

. . P971.47 "b) Sheriff's expenses .

. . .

. . .

. . 300.00 "c) Costs of suit .

. . .

. . .

. . 132.00 "d) Mechanic's lien paid by plaintiff in defendant defendant's behalf to G. Cruz Truck Body Builder & Welding Shop .

. . .

. . .

. . 3,000.00