“A’’ borrowed from “B” the sum of P3,000.00. Three days after, “A’’ in a letter authorized the Philippine National Bank to pay his debt to “B” out of whatever crop loan might be granted to him by said Bank. On the same day, the Bank agreed but the Bank paid “B’’ only P2,000.00. On the date of maturity, “B’’ sued the Bank and “A’’ for the remaining P1,000.00. Is the Bank liable to “B’’?
obtained a favorable judgment against B from the Court of First Instance of Manila for the sum of P2,000. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued and a jeep belonging to the latter was seized by the sheriff. However, the two (A and B arrived at an arrangement by virtue of which B executed a chattel mortgage on the jeep stipulating, inter alia that B shall satisfy the judgment in two equal installments pay- able at designated periods. B failed to pay the first installment, and as a result, A obtained an alias writ of execution and levied upon certain personal properties of B. The latter filed an urgent motion for suspension of the execution sale on the ground of pay- ment of the judgment obligation. He maintains that the execu- tion of the deed of chattel mortgage has extinguished the judg- ment debt because of implied novation. Is this correct? Reasons. 3 points“A’’ borrowed from “B” the sum of P3,000.00. Three days after, “A’’ in a letter authorized the Philippine National Bank to pay his debt to “B” out of whatever crop loan might be granted to him by said Bank. On the same day, the Bank agreed but the Bank paid “B’’ only P2,000.00. On the date of maturity, “B’’ sued the Bank and “A’’ for the remaining P1,000.00. Is the Bank liable to “B’’?
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
