Case No. 2 Trinidad VS Acapulco

CASE NO.
2 TRINIDAD VS ACAPULCO
G.R. NO. 147477 JUNE 27, 2006
Petitioner: Hermenegildo M. Trinidad
Respondents: Estrella Acapulco
FACTS:
On May 6, 1991, respondent Estrella Acapulco filed a Complaint before the RTC seeking the nullification
of a sale she made in favor of petitioner Hermenegildo M. Trinidad. She alleged that sometime in
February 1991, a certain Primitivo Cañete requested her to sell a Mercedes Benz for P580, 000.00.
Cañete also said that if respondent herself will buy the car, Cañete was willing to sell it for P500, 000.00.
Petitioner borrowed the car from respondent for two days but instead of returning the car as promised,
petitioner told respondent to buy the car from Cañete for P500, 000.00 and that petitioner would pay
respondent after petitioner returns from Davao.
Following petitioner’s instructions, respondent requested Cañete to execute a deed of sale covering the
car in respondent’s favor for P500, 000.00 for which respondent issued three checks in favor of Cañete.
Respondent thereafter executed a deed of sale in favor of petitioner even though petitioner did not pay
her any consideration for the sale. When petitioner returned from Davao, he refused to pay respondent
the amount of P500,000.00 saying that said amount would just be deducted from whatever outstanding
obligation respondent had with petitioner. Due to petitioner’s failure to pay respondent, the checks
that respondent issued in favor of Cañete bounced, thus criminal charges were filed against her.
Respondent then prayed that the deed of sale between her and petitioner be declared null and void;
that the car be returned to her; and that petitioner be ordered to pay damages.
CONTENTIONS:
Petitioner: argues that the purchase price of the car had been automatically offset by respondent’s own
monetary obligation of P566,000.00, even if he and respondent had not agreed to offsetting following
Article 129016 of the Civil Code.
Respondent: counters that it was only in the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the decision
of the trial court that petitioner changed his theory and started claiming legal compensation as a
defense. She further averred that: she is not the owner of the car, but was only in possession thereof in
order to sell it at a price of P580,000.00 with P80,000.00 going to her.
Stripped to its basics, what petitioner is contending is that legal compensation should be appreciated,
though not expressly stated in his Answer to the Complaint before the trial court, as his allegations
therein and the facts proven at the trial show the presence of legal compensation. He further argues
that, in any case, legal compensation takes place by operation of law even without the consent of the
interested parties.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s claim for legal compensation was already too late.
RULING: No, the Court resolves to grant the petition.
Compensation takes effect by operation of law even without the consent or knowledge of the parties
concerned when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 of the Civil Code are present.
Here, petitioner’s stance is that legal compensation has taken place and operates even against the will
of the parties because: (a) respondent and petitioner were personally both creditor and debtor of each
other; (b) the monetary obligation of respondent was P566,000.00 and that of the petitioner
was P500,000.00 showing that both indebtedness were monetary obligations the amount of which were
also both known and liquidated; (c) both monetary obligations had become due and demandable—
petitioner’s obligation as shown in the deed of sale and respondent’s indebtedness as shown in the
dishonored checks; and (d) neither of the debts or obligations are subject of a controversy commenced
by a third person.
This is in consonance with Article 1290 of the Civil Code which provides that: “when all the requisites
mentioned in article 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law, and extinguishes
both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the creditors and debtors are not aware of the
compensation. Since it takes place ipso jure. When used as a defense, it retroacts to the date when all
its requisites are fulfilled.

Case No. 2 Trinidad VS Acapulco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case No. 2 Trinidad VS Acapulco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case No. 2 Trinidad VS Acapulco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO.

G.R. NO. 147477 JUNE 27, 2006

Petitioner: Hermenegildo M. Trinidad

Respondents: Estrella Acapulco

RULING: No, the Court resolves to grant the petition.

You might also like