Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hodges Vs Salas

    Uploaded by

    bebebaa
    642 views1 page
    Felix Yulo obtained a loan of 28,000 pesos secured by a mortgage on property owned by defendants Salas using a power of attorney granted by the defendants. The loan terms required interest payments annually in advance at 12% annually. Defendants failed to make the interest payment when due. The trial court ruled the loan and mortgage were illegal, but the Supreme Court overturned, finding the loan and mortgage executed by Yulo under the power of attorney were valid and binding on the defendants.

    Original Description:

    This is just a digest, pls read the original. thanks!

    Original Title

    hodges vs salas

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Felix Yulo obtained a loan of 28,000 pesos secured by a mortgage on property owned by defendants Salas using a power of attorney granted by the defendants. The loan terms required interest payments annually in advance at 12% annually. Defendants failed to make the interest payment when due. The trial court ruled the loan and mortgage were illegal, but the Supreme Court overturned, finding the loan and mortgage executed by Yulo under the power of attorney were valid and binding on the defendants.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    642 views1 page

    Hodges Vs Salas

    Uploaded by

    bebebaa
    Felix Yulo obtained a loan of 28,000 pesos secured by a mortgage on property owned by defendants Salas using a power of attorney granted by the defendants. The loan terms required interest payments annually in advance at 12% annually. Defendants failed to make the interest payment when due. The trial court ruled the loan and mortgage were illegal, but the Supreme Court overturned, finding the loan and mortgage executed by Yulo under the power of attorney were valid and binding on the defendants.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    2. Hodges v. Salas and Salas 63 Phil.

    567 Facts: On September 2, 1923, the defendants executed a power of attorney in favor of their brother-in-law Felix S. Yulo to enable him to obtain a loan and secure it with a mortgage on the real property described in transfer certificate of title No. 3335. The power of attorney was registered in the registry of deeds of the Province of Occidental Negros. Acting under said power of attorney, Felix S. Yulo, on March 27, 1926, obtained a loan of P28,000 from the plaintiff, binding his principals jointly and severally, to pay it within ten (10) years, together with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum payable annually in advance, to which effect he signed a promissory note for said amount and executed a deed of mortgage of the real property. It was stated in the deed that in case the defendants failed to pay the stipulated interest and the taxes on the real property mortgaged and if the plaintiff were compelled to bring an action to recover his credit, said defendants would be obliged to pay 10 per cent more on the unpaid capital, as fees for the plaintiff's attorneys. The mortgage so constituted was registered in the registry of deeds of the Province of Occidental Negros and noted on the back of the transfer certificate of title.The defendants failed to pay at maturity the interest stipulated which should have been paid one year in advance.Plaintiff therefore brought an action for foreclosure of the mortgage. The trial court ordered in favor of the defendants and held that the loan and the mortgage were illegal. Issue: Whether or not the loan obtained and the mortgage executed by Yulo was valid and therefore defendants are bound to pay? Ruling: Yes. The loan obtained and the mortgage executed by Yulo was valid and therefore defendants are bound to pay for it. By virtue of the authority conferred by the defendants by executing a power of attorney, agent Yulo was authorized to borrow money and invest it as he wished, without being obliged to apply it necessarily for the benefit of his principals.

    You might also like