Concept: Art. 1279
In
order that compensation may be proper,
it
is necessary:
(1)
That each one of the obligors be bound principally,
and
that he be at the same time a principal creditor
of
the other;
(2)
That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the
things
due are consumable, they be of the same kind,
and
also of the same quality if the latter has been
stated;
(3)
That the two debts be due;
(4)
That they be liquidated and demandable;
(5)
That over neither of them there be any retention
or
controversy, commenced by third persons and
communicated in due time to the debtor.
Art 1283
If one of the parties to a suit over an obligation
has a claim for damages against the other, the
former may set
it off by proving his right to said damages and
the amount
thereof.
Facts:
·
Fermin
borrowed money to Mariano (his cousin) the amount of P160,000 and secured its
payment with three post-dated checks. The check dated in Sept. 6, 1978 for
P50,000; The check dated Oct. 8, 1978 for P10,000 and the check dated on Oct. 15,
1978 for P100,000. All were drawn against Fermin’s account with Consolidated
Band and Trust Corporation.
·
On
January 23, 1979 Fermin issued a fourth check amounting P40,000 in partial settlement
of the loan. It was drawn against Fermin’s account in China Banking
Corporation.
·
Fermin
stored in Mariano’s warehouse a quantity of zipper valuing P181,000. Fermin
claims that Mariano is denying access to the zippers because of the non-payment
of the loan. Fermin avers that he had requested Mariano not to deposit or
encash the post-dated checks on maturity and admits that he had not made good
their amount when they were dishonored.
·
Mariano
sued Fermin. Fermin denied the liability and contested that the debt was
reduced to P120,000 because of the partial payment and that the remaining
balance of P120,000 is offset by the P200,000 due from Mariano.
·
Mariano
claimed that the payment of P40,000 is from a different obligation. He then
abandoned this defense. He then claimed on that the original debt was P200,000
and it was then reduced by the payment of the P40,000, thus leaving a balance
of P160,000; on which is the face value of the three post dated checks that he
could not encash.
·
Fermin
was not consistent either, for he abandoned his original allegation that
Mariano owed him P200,000.00 for the rights to the market stalls when the latter
showed that the consideration was only P25,000.00. Fermin was thereafter to
invoke another set-off, to wit, his outstanding loan against the cost of the
zippers, which he said Mariano had unjustly retained.
·
Because
of the inconsistencies of the parties which resulted the non-agreement of the
trial court and respondent court, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was applied
·
The
Supreme court finds that the findings of the respondent court more conformable
because it is more plausible with the evidence.
Issue: W/ON the the balance of Fermin’s debt is deemed
set off by the price of the zippers in the possession of Mariano
W/ON Art. 1283 is applicable
Held: No. The instant case does not certainly satisfy
Article 1279 because (1) appellant is not a debtor of appellee, it is only the
latter who is indebted to appellant; (2) the debts, even admitting that the delivery
of the zippers to plaintiff is a debt, do not both consist in a sum of money
nor are they of the same quality and kind.
No. Fermin has not proved the right to any damage as a
result of the claimed retention of the zippers by Mariano. There was also no
proof of the amount of such damages as he could not even say how many of the
zippers had been earlier withdrawn by him.
No comments:
Post a Comment