Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > July 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-50638 July 25, 1983 - LORETO J. SOLINAP v. AMELIA K. DEL ROSARIO

208 Phil. 561:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-50638. July 25, 1983.]

LORETO J. SOLINAP, Petitioner, v. HON. AMELIA K. DEL ROSARIO, as Presiding Judge of Branch IV, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, SPOUSES JUANITO and HARDEVI R. LUTERO, and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, Respondents.

Espeleta & Orleans Law Office for Petitioner.

Simplicia, Magahum, Offemaria & Sixto Demaisip Law Office for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACT; COMPENSATION; ONLY CERTAIN AND LIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS MAY BE THE OBJECT OF COMPENSATION. — Petitioner contends that the respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in not declaring the mutual obligations of the parties extinguished to the extent of their respective amounts. He relies on Article 1278 of the Civil Code to the effect that compensation shall take place when two persons, on their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. The argument fails to consider Article 1279 of file Civil Code winds provides that compensation can take place if both obligations are liquidated. In the case at bar, the petitioner’s claim against the respondent Luteros in Civil Case No. 12397 is still pending determination by the court. While it is not for Us to pass upon the merits of the plaintiff’s cause of a action in that case, it appears that the claim asserted therein is disputed by the Luteros on both factual and legal grounds. More, the counterclaim interposed by them, of ultimately found to be meritorious, can defeat petitioner’s demand. Upon this premise, his claim in that case cannot be categorized as liquidated credit which may properly be set-off against his obligation. As the Supreme Court ruled in Mialhe v. Halili (6 SCRA 453), "compensation cannot take place where one’s claim against the other is still the object of court litigation. It is a requirement, for compensation to take place, that the amount involved be certain and liquidated."


D E C I S I O N


ESCOLIN;, J.:


Posed for resolution in this petition is the issue of whether or not the obligation of petitioners to private respondents may be compensated or set-off against the amount sought to be recovered in an action for a sum of money filed by the former against the latter.

The facts are not disputed. On June 2, 1970, the spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona, owners of the Hacienda Tambal, leased the said hacienda to petitioner Loreto Solinap for a period of ten [10] years for the stipulated rental of P50,000.00 a year. It was further agreed in the lease contract that out of the aforesaid annual rental, the sum of P25,000.00 should be paid by Solinap to the Philippine National Bank to amortize the indebtedness of the spouses Lutero with the said bank.cralawnad

Tiburcio Lutero died on January 21, 1971. Soon after, his heirs instituted the testate estate proceedings of the deceased, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 1870 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, presided by respondent Judge Amelia K. del Rosario. In the course of the proceedings, the respondent judge, upon being apprized of the mounting interest on the unpaid account of the estate, issued an order, stating, among others, "that in order to protect the estate, the administrator, Judge Nicolas Lutero, is hereby authorized to scout among the testamentary heirs who is financially in a position to pay all the unpaid obligations of the estate, including interest, with the right of subrogation in accordance with existing laws."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the basis of this order, respondents Juanito Lutero [grandson and heir of the late Tiburcio] and his wife Hardivi R. Lutero paid the Philippine National Bank the sum of P25,000.00 as partial settlement of the deceased’s obligations. Whereupon the respondents Lutero filed a motion in the testate court for reimbursement from the petitioner of the amount thus paid. They argued that the said amount should have been paid by petitioner to the PNB, as stipulated in the lease contract he had entered into with the deceased Tiburcio Lutero; and that such reimbursement to them was proper, they being subrogees of the PNB.

Before the motion could be resolved by the court, petitioner on April 28, 1978 filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a separate action against the spouses Juanito Lutero and Hardivi R. Lutero for collection of the total amount of P71,000.00, docketed as Civil Case No. 12397. Petitioner alleged in the complaint that on April 25, 1974 the defendants Lutero borrowed from him the sum of P45,000.00 for which they executed a deed of real estate mortgage; that on July 2, 1974, defendants obtained an additional loan of P3,000.00, evidenced by a receipt issued by them; that defendants are further liable to him for the sum of P23,000.00, representing the value of certain dishonored checks issued by them to the plaintiff; and that defendants refused and failed to settle said accounts despite demands.

In their answer, the respondents Lutero traversed the material averments of the complaint and set up legal and factual defenses. They further pleaded a counterclaim against petitioners for the total sum of P125,000.00 representing unpaid rentals on Hacienda Tambal. Basis of the counterclaim is the allegation that they had purchased one-half [1/2] of Hacienda Tambal, which their predecessors, the spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona, leased to the plaintiff for a rental of P50,000.00 a year; and that plaintiffs had failed to pay said rentals despite demands.chanrobles law library : red

At the pre-trial, the parties defined the issues in that case as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) Whether or not the defendants [Luteros] are indebted to the plaintiff and, if so, the amount thereof;

"(2) Whether or not the defendants are the owners of one half [1/2] of that parcel of land known as ‘Hacienda Tambal’ presently leased to the plaintiff and, therefore, entitled to collect from the latter one-half [1/2] of its lease rentals; and in the affirmative, the amount representing the unpaid rental by plaintiff in favor of the defendant." 1

On June 14, 1978, the respondent judge issued an order in Sp. Proc. No. 1870, granting the respondent Lutero’s motion for reimbursement from petitioner of the sum of P25,000.00 plus interest, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, Mr. Loreto Solinap is hereby directed to pay spouses Juanito Lutero and Hardivi R. Lutero the sum of P25,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from June 17, 1975 until the same shall have been duly paid."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before this Court, docketed as G. R. No. L-48776, assailing the above order. This Court, however, in a resolution dated January 4, 1979 dismissed the petition thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"L-48776 [Loreto Solinap v. CFI etc., Et. Al.] — Acting on the petition in this case as well as the comment thereon of respondents an the reply of petitioner to said comment, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit, anyway, the P25,000.00 to be paid by the petitioner to the private respondent Luteros may well be taken up in the final liquidation of the account between petitioner as lessee and the subject estate as lessor."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thereafter the respondent Luteros filed with the respondent court a "Motion to Reiterate Motion for Execution of the Order dated June 14, 1978." Petitioner filed a rejoinder to said motion, raising for the first time the thesis that the amount payable to private respondents should be compensated against the latter’s indebtedness to him amounting to P71,000.00. Petitioner attached to his rejoinder copies of the pleadings filed in Civil Case No. 12397, then pending before Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. This motion was denied by respondent judge on the ground that "the claim of Loreto Solinap against Juanito Lutero in Civil Case No. 12397 is yet to be liquidated and determined in the said case, such that the requirement in Article 1279 of the New Civil Code that both debts are liquidated for compensation to take place has not been established by the oppositor Loreto Solinap."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petition filed a motion for reconsideration of this order, but the same was denied.

Hence, this petition.

The petition is devoid of merit, Petitioner contends that respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in not declaring the mutual obligations of the parties extinguished to the extent of their respective amounts. He relies on Article 1278 of the Civil Code to the effect that compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. The argument fails to consider Article 1279 of the Civil Code which provides that compensation can take place only if both obligations are liquidated. In the case at bar, the petitioner’s claim against the respondent Luteros in Civil Case No. 12379 is still pending determination by the court. While it is not for Us to pass upon the merits of the plaintiffs’ cause of action in that case, it appears that the claim asserted therein is disputed by the Luteros on both factual and legal grounds. More, the counterclaim interposed by them, if ultimately found to be meritorious, can defeat petitioner’s demand. Upon this premise, his claim in that case cannot be categorized as liquidated credit which may properly be set-off against his obligation. As this Court ruled in Mialhe v. Halili, 2 "compensation cannot take place where one’s claim against the other is still the subject of court litigation. It is a requirement, for compensation to take place, that the amount involved be certain and liquidated."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Guerrero, J., on leave.

Abad Santos, J., the petition is not only devoid of merit but it is also frivolous and petitioner should be assessed treble costs.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.

Endnotes:



1. Pre-trial Order, Annex M, pp. 72-78, Rollo.

2. 6 SCRA 453.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30063 July 2, 1983 - GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. TEOFILO REYES, SR.

    208 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-45946 July 5, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BERNAT

    208 Phil. 252

  • G.R. No. L-51182 July 5, 1983 - HELMUT DOSCH v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 259

  • G.R. No. L-57875 July 5, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO T. SUÑGA

    208 Phil. 288

  • G.R. No. L-58199 July 5, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BELMONTE

    208 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-58910 July 5, 1983 - ROBERT DOLLAR COMPANY v. JUAN C. TUVERA

  • G.R. No. L-62114 July 5, 1983 - ISIDRO BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    208 Phil. 314

  • G.R. No. L-32794 July 15, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO B. CALIXTRO

    208 Phil. 317

  • A.M. No. 779-Ret July 20, 1983 - IN RE: APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT OF ATTY. MARCELO D. MENDIOLA

    208 Phil. 338

  • G.R. No. L-28632 July 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BANGON TANOG

    208 Phil. 343

  • G.R. No. L-31103 July 20, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO Z. LAKANDULA

    208 Phil. 350

  • G.R. No. L-34382 July 20, 1983 - THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES

    208 Phil. 359

  • G.R. No. L-36847 July 20, 1983 - SERAFIN B. YNGSON v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

  • G.R. No. L-59611 July 20, 1983 - LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF CEBU CITY v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

    208 Phil. 382

  • A.C. No. 1700 July 25, 1983 - OSCAR R. MANAHAN v. GREGORIO F. ORTEGA

    208 Phil. 387

  • A.C. No. 2311 July 25, 1983 - JAIME PELEJO v. PATERNO C. ZABALLERO

    208 Phil. 390

  • A.C. No. 2315 July 25, 1983 - ROSELA C. LU v. LAMBERTO LLAMERA

    208 Phil. 392

  • G.R. Nos. L-29182-83 July 25, 1983 - ESSO STANDARD EASTERN INC. v. ALFONSO LIM

    208 Phil. 394

  • G.R. No. L-29230 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO ALVARADO, JR.

    208 Phil. 412

  • G.R. No. L-32072 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO AQUIATAN

    208 Phil. 427

  • G.R. No. L-35102 July 25, 1983 - ANTONIO BORLONGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 437

  • G.R. No. L-35273 July 25, 1983 - IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. HONORABLE JUDGE, BRANCH I CFI OF NUEVA ECIJA

    208 Phil. 441

  • G.R. No. L-36488 July 25, 1983 - CAPITAL INSURANCE SURETY CO., INC. v. RONQUILLO TRADING

    208 Phil. 451

  • G.R. No. L-36789 July 25, 1983 - FELIPA CORDERO v. VICTORIA P. CABRAL

    208 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-38495 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO TOLEDO

    208 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-39235 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO GALICIA

    208 Phil. 472

  • G.R. No. L-40310 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO R. POSPOS

    208 Phil. 479

  • G.R. Nos. L-42571-72 July 25, 1983 - VICENTE DE LA CRUZ v. EDGARDO L. PARAS

    208 Phil. 490

  • G.R. Nos. L-47136-39 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO O. MANALANG

    208 Phil. 504

  • G.R. No. L-48319 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFRENIANO BALANE

    208 Phil. 537

  • G.R. No. L-50638 July 25, 1983 - LORETO J. SOLINAP v. AMELIA K. DEL ROSARIO

    208 Phil. 561

  • G.R. No. L-53741 July 25, 1983 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA FIRESTONE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 566

  • G.R. No. L-55373 July 25, 1983 - GLICERIA CARANDANG-COLLANTES v. FELIX CAPUNO

    208 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-55413 July 25, 1983 - DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 591

  • G.R. No. L-55674 July 25, 1983 - LA SUERTE CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY v. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

    208 Phil. 597

  • G.R. No. L-56441 July 25, 1983 - CLEMENCIO C. RAMIREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

    208 Phil. 627

  • G.R. No. L-56450 July 25, 1983 - RODOLFO T. GANZON v. SANCHO Y. INSERTO

    208 Phil. 630

  • G.R. No. L-56655 July 25, 1983 - DATU TAGORANAO BENITO v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 638

  • G.R. No. L-59546 July 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE CASAS

    208 Phil. 645

  • G.R. No. L-61349 July 25, 1983 - ANGELINA JAVIER v. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    208 Phil. 650

  • G.R. No. L-62097 July 25, 1983 - RODOLFO RIVERA v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

    208 Phil. 656

  • G.R. No. L-62810 July 25, 1983 - EULALIA MARTIN v. FABIAN VER

    208 Phil. 658

  • G.R. No. L-63531 July 25, 1983 - HEIRS OF FELICIANO NANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 665

  • G.R. No. L-64033 July 25, 1983 - PROCESO SIDRO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    208 Phil. 671

  • A.C. No. 1251 July 29, 1983 - LILY LANGBID v. FELIX TIANGCO

    208 Phil. 675

  • G.R. No. L-29407 July 29, 1983 - ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE v. MANASES G. REYES

    208 Phil. 678

  • G.R. No. L-31352 July 29, 1983 - JORGE DELECTOR v. ANTONIO M. OGAYAN

    208 Phil. 684

  • G.R. No. L-40504 July 29, 1983 - FORTUNATO RECENTES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

    208 Phil. 688

  • G.R. No. L-47410 July 29, 1983 - POLICARPIO CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 691

  • G.R. No. L-52831 July 29, 1983 - MANUEL R. DULAY v. GLICERIO V. CARRIAGA

    208 Phil. 702

  • G.R. No. L-60129 July 29, 1983 - LEONOR J. VDA. DE JAVELLANA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    208 Phil. 706