: No.

Article 2112 of the Civil Code also gives the pledgee the same right to sell the
thing pledged in case the pledgors obligation is not satisfied in due time. Under the
law on contracts, mora solvendi or debtors default is defined as a delay in the
fulfillment of an obligation, by reason of a cause imputable to the debtor. There are
three requisites necessary for a finding of default. First, the obligation is
demandable and liquidated; second, the debtor delays performance; and third, the
creditor judicially or extrajudicially requires the debtors performance.
The findings of fact of both the trial court and the CA are fully supported by the
records. They plainly show that the parties were negotiating to determine the exact
amount of Finvests obligations to PSE, during which period PSE repeatedly moved
the deadlines it imposed for Finvest to pay the fines, penalties and charges,
apparently to allow for more time to thresh out the details of the computation of
said penalties. In the middle of those talks, PSE unceremoniously took steps to sell
the pledged seat at public auction, without allowing the negotiations to come to a
conclusion. This sudden decision of PSE deprived Finvest a sporting chance to settle
its accountabilities before forfeiting its seat in the stock exchange. Without that
seat, Finvest will lose its standing to trade and do business in the stock exchange. A
debt is liquidated when the amount is known or is determinable by inspection of the
terms and conditions of relevant documents. Under the attendant circumstances, it
cannot be said that Finvests debt is liquidated. At the time PSE left the negotiating
table, the exact amount of Finvests fines, penalties and charges was still in dispute
and as yet undetermined. Consequently, Finvest cannot be deemed to have
incurred in delay in the payment of its obligations to PSE. It cannot be made to pay
an obligation the amount of which was not fully explained to it. The public sale of
the pledged seat would, thus, be premature.
RCBC VS. CA
G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1999
FACTS: Private respondent Atty. Felipe Lustre purchased a Toyota Corolla from
Toyota Shaw, Inc. He made a down payment of P164,620.00. He issued 24
postdated checks amounting to P14,976.00 each in order to pay the remaining
balance of the purchase.
To secure the balance, private respondent executed a promissory note and a
contract of chattel mortgage over the vehicle in favor of Toyota Shaw, Inc. which
provided for an acceleration clause. It was stipulated that should the mortgagor
default in the payment of any installment, the whole amount remaining unpaid shall
become due. In addition, the mortgagor shall be liable for 25% of the principal due
as liquidated damages.
The checks were encashed and debited by RCBC from private respondents account,
except for RCBC Check No. 279805 representing the payment for August 10, 1991,
which was unsigned. Previously, the amount represented by RCBC Check No.

279805 was debited from private respondents account but was later recalled and
re-credited to him. Because of the recall, the last two checks, dated February 10,
1993 and March 10, 1993, were no longer presented for payment. This was
purportedly in conformity with petitioner banks procedure that once a clients
account was forwarded to its account representative, all remaining checks
outstanding as of the date the account was forwarded were no longer presented for
payment.
On the theory that respondent defaulted in his payments, the check representing
the payment for August 10, 1991 being unsigned, petitioner, in a letter dated
January 21, 1993, demanded from private respondent the payment of the balance
of the debt, including liquidated damages. The latter refused.
Issue: Whether or not the private respondents refusal to pay the balance of the
debt constitute delay on his part.
Ruling: No. Article 1170 of the Civil Code states that those who in the performance
of their obligations are guilty of delay are liable for damages. The delay in the
performance of the obligation, however, must be either malicious or negligent.
Thus, assuming that private respondent was guilty of delay in the payment of the
value of the unsigned check, private respondent cannot be held liable for damages.
There is no imputation, much less evidence, that private respondent acted with
malice or negligence in failing to sign the check. The omission was mere
inadvertence on the part of private respondent.