Practice question
A monthly installment buyer makes only occasional token payments over thirty months, far below the scheduled aggregate of twenty-four monthly installments. The buyer relies solely on elapsed calendar time for section 3 status. The payment record establishes that two years of installments were not actually paid. Which analysis follows Francisco v Battung?
- Thirty elapsed months automatically equals thirty paid installments.
- Any payment, however small, earns a full month of installment credit.
- The computation concerns qualifying installment value and time, not merely how long the contract existed.
- All penalty charges must be treated as full purchase-price installments.
- The seller’s records are irrelevant to every statutory computation.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1972/ra_6552_1972.html — RA 6552, sections 3–4.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_167452_2007.html — Jestra Development v Pacifico, GR 167452, January 30 2007, main opinion: down-payment schedule and penalty distinction.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/nov2019/gr_212740_2019.html — Spouses Francisco v Battung, GR 212740, November 13 2019, main opinion: installment value and time.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.