SPOUSES NORA SAGUID and ROLANDO P. SAGUID vs. SECURITY FINANCE,
INC., G.R. No. 159467, December 9, 2005
“x
x x.
As
to the alleged signature of petitioner Nora Saguid in the promissory note,
evidence points that she could not have signed the document she being in
Australia when she allegedly executed said document on 23 April 1996 as
established by a certification[42] from
the Bureau of Immigration that she left for Sydney, Australia, on 30 September
1995 and returned to the country on 15 June 1996.
From
the foregoing, the Court is convinced that petitioners allegation of absence of
consideration has been substantiated and the presumption of consideration
disproved and overcome. We are of the mind that petitioners bought the car with
their own money. There being no cause or consideration in the contract of loan
allegedly entered into by the parties, the promissory note is not binding on
the petitioners.
As
regards the chattel mortgage, it is settled that a mortgage is a mere accessory
contract and its validity would depend on the validity of the loan secured by
it.[43] The
chattel mortgage constituted over the subject vehicle is an accessory contract
to the loan obligation as embodied in the promissory note. It cannot exist as
an independent contract since its consideration is the same as that of the
principal contract. A principal obligation is an indispensable condition for
the existence of an accessory contract.[44] Since
it has been sufficiently established that there was no cause or consideration
for the promissory note, it follows that the chattel mortgage has no leg to
stand on. Hence, it must be extinguished and cannot have any legal effect on
petitioners.
Having
ruled that both promissory note and chattel mortgage are not binding on
petitioners, the return of the subject vehicle to petitioners is in order. In
case the vehicle can no longer be delivered in the condition when it was
seized, respondent shall pay petitioners the amount of P150,000.00[45] plus
interest of 6% per annum to be computed from 13 October 1998,[46] the
date when said vehicle was seized, until finality of judgment after which
interest rate shall become 12% per annum until actual payment.
X
x x.”
