Professional Documents
Culture Documents
9. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Perez, G.R. No. 166884, June
13, 2012
Under the Trust Receipts Law, intent to defraud is presumed when
(1) the entrustee fails to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods
covered by the trust receipt to the entruster; or (2) when the
entrustee fails to return the goods under trust, if they are not
disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipts.
When both parties know that the entrustee could not have
complied with the obligations under the trust receipt without his
fault, as when the goods subject of the agreement were not
intended for sale or resale, the transaction cannot be considered a
trust receipt but a simple loan, where the liability is limited to the
payment of the purchase price.
10. Hur Tin Yang vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195117,
August 14, 2013
When both parties entered into an agreement knowing fully well
that the return of the goods subject of the trust receipt is not
possibleeven without any fault on the part of the trustee, it is not a
trust receipttransaction penalized under Sec. 13 of PD 115 in
relation to Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC, as the only obligation
actually agreed upon by the partieswould be the return of the
proceeds of the sale transaction. This transaction becomes a mere
loan, where the borrower is obligated to pay the bank the amount
spent for the purchase of the goods.
11. Vintola vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, 150 SCRA 140
(1987)
A trust receipt transaction is a security agreement, pursuant to
which the entruster acquires a security interest in the goods, which
are released to the possession of the entrustee who binds himself to
hold the goods in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise
dispose of the goods or to return them in case of non-sale. The
return of the goods to the entruster however, does not relieve the
entrustee of the obligation to pay the loan because the entruster is
not the factual owner of the goods and merely holds them as owner
in the artificial concept for the purpose of giving stronger security
for the loan.
12. Rosario Textile Mills Corp. vs. Home Bankers Savings and
Trust Company, 462 SCRA 88 (2005)
Where the entrustee tendered the return of the articles to the
entrustee because they did not meet its manufacturing requirements
but the latter refused to accept and as a consequence, the entruster
stored them in its warehouse which was, however, gutted by fire,
the entrustee’s obligation was not extinguished despite the tender
and its invocation of the principle of res perit domino. Under the
Trust Receipts law, the loss of the goods under trust receipt
regardless of the cause and the period or time it occurred, does not
extinguish the civil obligation of the entrustee. A trust receipt has
two features, the loan and security features. The loan is brought
about by the fact that the entruster financed the importation or
purchase of the goods under TR. Until and unless this loan is paid,
the obligation to pay subsists. The principle of res perit domino
will not apply if under the trust receipt, the bank is made to appear
as the owner, it was but an artificial expedient, more of legal
fiction than fact, for if it were really so, it could dispose of the
goods in any manner that it wants, which it cannot do, just to give
consistency with the purpose of the trust receipt of giving a
stronger security for the loan obtained by the importer. To
consider the bank as the true owner from the inception of the
transaction would be to disregard the loan feature thereof.
14. Alfredo Ching vs. Secretary of Justice, 481 SCRA 609 (2006)
The fact that the officer who signed the trust receipt on behalf of
the entrustee-corporation signed in his official capacity without
receiving the goods as he had never taken possession of such nor
committing dishonesty and abuse of confidence in transacting with
the entrustor, is immaterial. The law specifically makes the
director, officer, employee or any person responsible criminally
liable precisely for the reason that a corporation, being a juridical
entity, cannot be the subject of the penalty of imprisonment.
15. South
City Homes, Inc. vs. BA Finance Corporation, 371 SCRA
603 (2001)
When the entrustee defaults on his obligation, the entruster has the
discretion to avail of remedies which it deems best to protect its
right. The law uses the word “may” in granting to the entruster the
right to cancel the trust and take possession of the goods; hence,
the option is given to the entruster.