SPOUSES DEO AGNER AND MARICON AGNER V.

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK

INC. GR NO. 182963 JUNE 3, 2013
TOPIC:
ON PAYMENT: One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden
rests on defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment. When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, proof of
non-payment is not needed for it is presumed.
ON INTEREST: Stipulated interest of 3 % per month and higher are excessive,
iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant.
ON DEMAND: Article 1169 of the NCC provides that one incurs in delay or is in
default from the time the obligor demands the fulfillment of the obligation from the
obligee. However, the law expressly provides that demand is not necessary under
certain circumstances, and one of these circumstances is when the parties
expressly waive demand.
FACTS: Spouses Agner obtained a 800 K loan from CITIMOTORS. Spouses executed
a promissory note with chattel mortgage over a Mitsubishi vehicle in favor of
Citimotors, Inc. The contract stated that the spouses would make a monthly
payment of 17K and that 6% interest per month shall be imposed for failure to pay
each installment. The PN also stated that in case of failure to pay, the entire
amount shall be due and payable without need of prior notice or demand.
Citimotors assigned all its interests in the PN to ABN AMRO BANK, which assigned
the same to BPI FAMILY.
Spouses defaulted in payment. BPI sent a demand letter to petitioners, declaring
the entire obligation as due and demandable, and requiring them to pay 570K or
the surrender of the mortgaged vehicle. As the demand was unheeded, BPI filed an
action for REPLEVIN and DAMAGES before MANILA RTC. A writ of Replevin was
issued; however, the vehicle was not seized. THE RTC and CA ruled for BPI.
ISSUE: w/n petitioners could be considered to have defaulted in payment for lack of
competent proof that they received the demand letter. (YES)
HELD: Both verbal and written demands were in fact made by respondents prior to
the institution of the case against petitioners. Even assuming, that no demand
letter was sent by BPI, there is really no need for it because petitioner waived the
necessity of notice or demand in the PN. The Civil Code in Article 1169 provides
that one incurs in delay or is in default from the time the obligor demands the
fulfillment of the obligation from the obligee. However, the law expressly provides
that demand is not necessary under certain circumstances, and one of these
circumstances is when the parties expressly waive demand.
BPIs possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been
discharged by payment. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the

burden rests on defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove
non-payment. When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, proof
of non-payment is not needed for it is presumed.
Spouses should be considered in default. However, the interest of 6% per month
should be equitably reduced to one percent per month or 12 % per year.Settled is
the principle which this Court has affirmed in a number of cases that stipulated
interest rates of three percent (3%) per month and higher are excessive, iniquitous,
unconscionable, and exorbitant.