GR 97995; (January, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97995 January 21, 1993
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND B.P. MATA AND CO., INC., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent B.P. Mata & Co. Inc. (Mata) is a manning agent for foreign firms, including Star Kist Foods, Inc., USA (Star Kist). Star Kist would reimburse Mata’s advances by sending telegraphic transfers through banks. On February 21, 1975, Security Pacific National Bank (SEPAC) of Los Angeles, per Star Kist’s order, transmitted a cable to Philippine National Bank (PNB) to pay US$14,000 to Mata. PNB noticed an error, and SEPAC corrected the amount to US$1,400. On February 25, 1975, PNB issued Cashier’s Check No. 269522 for US$1,400 to Mata. However, on March 11, 1975, PNB erroneously issued Cashier’s Check No. 270271 for US$14,000 to Mata. Six years later, on May 13, 1981, PNB discovered its error and requested a refund. On February 4, 1982, PNB filed a civil case for collection, arguing its right to recover based on a constructive trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the case falls under Article 2154 on solutio indebiti, not constructive trust. The Court of Appeals affirmed, adding that the cause of action had prescribed under Article 1145(2) of the Civil Code, as the complaint was filed almost seven years after the mistaken payment.
ISSUE
Whether PNB’s claim for recovery of the erroneously paid US$14,000 is governed by the principles of constructive trust (Article 1456) or solutio indebiti (Article 2154), and consequently, whether the action has prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case is governed by the principle of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 of the Civil Code, not constructive trust under Article 1456. The requisites of solutio indebiti are present: Mata received money when it had no right to demand it, and the payment was unduly delivered through PNB’s mistake. A constructive trust, unlike an express trust, does not emanate from a fiduciary relation; it is imposed by law for reasons of justice and equity. While both concepts aim to prevent unjust enrichment, the instant factual circumstances squarely fall under solutio indebiti, a quasi-contract. Consequently, the prescriptive period for actions upon a quasi-contract is six years under Article 1145(2). PNB’s complaint, filed on February 4, 1982, almost seven years after the mistaken payment on March 11, 1975, had already prescribed. Furthermore, even assuming a constructive trust applied, the action was barred by laches due to PNB’s unreasonable delay of six years in discovering its error, which is negligence imputable to it.