Ormachea Tin-Congco vs. Trillana (Cristelle)
March 18, 1909 | Torres, J| Proof of Payment
PETITIONER: Manuel Ormachea Tin-Congco (Deceased) represented by
Tiu Tusay ( Judicial administrator of his estate)
RESPONDENTS: Santiago Trillana
SUMMARY: Tin Congco is demanding for the payment of the debts but
Trillana is alleging that he already completed his payment due to the document
signed by Jose Lawa who is the manager of the distillery owned by Tin Congco
and Luis Queco. The court ruled that the repayment of a debt must be made to
the person in whose favor the obligation is constituted, or to another expressly
authorized to receive the payment in his name. Jose Lawa after his definite
retirement has no authority to release debtor.
DOCTRINE: A debt can only be presumed to have been paid and an obligation
fulfilled when the proof of their existence has been delivered to the debtor, and
not when the documents showing the existence of the debt are still in the hands
of the creditor. Discharge of a debt given by a managing partner, 2 years after
the partnership had been dissolved does not qualify as a partners admission and
can not prejudice or bind the other partners.
FACTS:
1. On Jan. 15, 1904 Tin-Congco (Chinese), presented an amended
complaint against Trilliana, alleging that the plaintiff Tin-Congco and Luis Queco
were engaged in a business in Hagonoy, Malolos and that the defendant (Trillana)
purchased from them merchandise in the value of 4,000 pesos. 2 years later the
partnership was dissolved and the business was divided between the partners, all
the debts of the defendant (Trillana) were allotted to Tin-Congco. The debt is
proven by the documents signed by defendant or his agents in favor of Ormachea
or Ong Queco or agent Lawa in charge of the business. The 135 documents state
the total debt of 5,500 pesos (4000 initial debt + 1500 legal interest).
2. Defendants answer - alleges that he had already settled his accounts and
obligations by means of periodical payments in tuba (liquor of the nipa palm) and
that if accounts are still pending the same should be paid in kind and not in
money.
3. Trial judge ordered Trillana to pay to Tiu Tusay (judicial administrator of
the deceased plaintiff), the sum of 2,832.22 in tuba.
4. Defendant appealed by means of a bill of exceptions (A written statement
from a trial judge to an appellate court listing a party's objections or exceptions
made during the trial and the grounds on which they were based.)
a. Vale nos. 88, 31, 87, 91, 93, 94, 96, and 97 are
subscribed by another person who is not the defendant
b. Vale nos. 5, 5, 7, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41, 44, 48, 54, 63, 104,
105, 127, 132, and 133 are not issued to Trillana, and cannot stand as
evidence against him.
c. Vale nos. 10, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 12, and 15 by
themselves do not prove that the amount of money which they represent
should form part of the defendants debt, because it does not appear that
there was a lawful transfer.
5. Judge overruled the motion to modify his former decision as far as it
referred to the amount of the indebtedness found against the defendant and the
said judgment was modified by adding the provision that the defendant should
make payment in tuba which he should deliver at the plaintiffs distillery within
the term of 6 months but if the term expires, he must pay his debt in cash.
6. Defendant requested a motion for a new trial but it was denied. He
presented an amended bill of exceptions and the court ordered the suspension of
the execution providing that the defendant furnish a bond of 4000 pesos. 8 of the
vales were signed by other persons so the amount of 173 pesos should be
deducted from the debt. The total debt amounted to 2, 832.22 4/8 pesos.
7. Defendant showed a document made by Jose R. Lopez Lawa stating that
Trillana has no outstanding debt with the distillery.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the defendant should be absolved from his debt due to the
document made by Jose R. Lopez Lawa (manager of the distillery)? No
RULING: In view of the foregoing, and accepting the conclusions contained in the
judgment of February 27, 1907, appealed from, it is our opinion that the same should be
affirmed, and we hereby affirm it, with the addition made in the order of May 7 of the same
year, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
RATIO:
1. Lopez Lawa gave the document because the latter was not indebted to
him but to Manuel Ormachea. It was not his intention to annul and set aside the
vales which represented the indebtedness of Trillana. Two years after ceasing to
be manager, he cannot relieve the debtor from paying what he owed by virtue of
the document because the right to recover the debts of the defendant still belonged
to Ormachea and Lawa was not authorized by Ormachea to release Trillana from
his debt.
a. Art. 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in
whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in
interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
b. Since the vales existed, and were in the possession of
the creditor, it was because the amounts they called for had not yet been
paid, inasmuch as an obligation can only be presumed to have been
fulfilled when the proofs of its existence have been returned to the
debtor.
Not related to the Main Topic: The payment of a debt having been stipulated by the parties
to be made in kind and not in money, there is no cause nor any legal reason why such an
agreement should not be complied with.