G.R. NO. 158635 - MAGNA FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., VS. ELIAS COLARINA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. and against the defendant Elias Colarina, ordering the latter: a) to pay plaintiff the principal sum of one hundred thirty one thousand six hundred seven (P131,607.00) pesos plus penalty charges at 4.5% per month computed from January, 1999 until fully paid; b) to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 for attorney's fees; and c) to pay the costs. The foregoing money judgment shall be paid within ninety (90) days from the entry of judgment. In case of default in such payment, the one (1) unit of Suzuki Multicab, subject of the writ of replevin and chattel mortgage, shall be sold at public auction to satisfy the said judgment. [6] Colarina appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 4, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 10013. During the pendency of his appeal before the RTC, Colarina died and was substituted in the case by his heirs. [7] In a decision dated 30 January 2002, the RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the MTCC. [8] Colarina filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69481. On 21 January 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision [9] holding: . . . We find merit in petitioners' assertion that the MTC and the RTC erred in ordering the defendant to pay the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the subject vehicle irrespective of the fact that the instant complaint was for the foreclosure of its chattel mortgage. The principal error committed by the said courts was their immediate grant, however erroneous, of relief in favor of the respondent for the payment of the unpaid balance without considering the fact that the very prayer it had sought was inconsistent with its allegation in the complaint. Verily, it is beyond cavil that the complaint seeks the judicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. The fact that the respondent had unconscionably sought the payment of the unpaid balance regardless of its complaint for the foreclosure of the said mortgage is glaring proof that it intentionally devised the same to deprive the defendant of his rights. A judgment in its favor will in effect allow it to retain the possession and ownership of the subject vehicle and at the same time claim against the defendant for the unpaid balance of its purchase price. In such a case, the respondent would luckily have its cake and eat it too. Unfortunately for the defendant, the lower courts had readily, probably unwittingly, made themselves abettors to respondent's devise to the detriment of the defendant. . . . WHEREFORE, finding error in the assailed decision, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Let the records be remanded to the court of origin. Accordingly, the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage over the subject vehicle as prayed for by the respondent in its complaint without any right to seek the payment of the unpaid balance o