GR 147477; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147477 ; June 27, 2006
HERMENEGILDO M. TRINIDAD, Petitioner, vs. ESTRELLA ACAPULCO, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Estrella Acapulco filed a complaint to nullify a deed of sale of a Mercedes Benz she executed in favor of petitioner Hermenegildo Trinidad. She alleged that Trinidad instructed her to purchase the car from a third party for P500,000.00, promising to reimburse her upon his return from Davao. Acapulco issued checks to the third party and subsequently executed a deed of sale transferring the car to Trinidad. However, upon his return, Trinidad refused to pay the P500,000.00, claiming it would be deducted from Acapulco’s alleged outstanding debt to him. This caused Acapulco’s checks to bounce, leading to criminal charges against her.
In his Answer, Trinidad claimed the transaction was a valid sale and that the purchase price was paid through dation in payment (dacion en pago) to partially extinguish Acapulco’s pre-existing monetary debt to him. The Pre-Trial Order limited the issue to the existence of dacion en pago. The trial court ruled no such agreement existed due to lack of common consent, declared the sale null and void, and ordered Trinidad to return the car and pay damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Trinidad then raised, for the first time in a supplemental motion for reconsideration, the alternative defense of legal compensation.
ISSUE
Whether the defense of legal compensation was properly raised and applicable to extinguish the obligations between the parties.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the award of damages. The defense of legal compensation was raised too late, as it was not alleged in the Answer or during pre-trial. Under the rules of procedure, defenses not pleaded are deemed waived. The Pre-Trial Order confined the issue to dacion en pago, and Trinidad actively participated under that framework, thus precluding him from introducing a new substantive defense later. Furthermore, legal compensation under Article 1279 of the Civil Code requires that both obligations consist of a sum of money or are fungible. Here, Acapulco’s obligation to Trinidad was for the delivery of a specific car (a non-fungible thing), while Trinidad’s obligation was to pay a sum of money. These obligations are not of the same kind, making legal compensation inapplicable by operation of law. The Court found the sale to be simulated due to the absence of any true consideration, as Trinidad admitted he never paid Acapulco. However, the Court deleted the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees due to lack of sufficient basis, finding that Acapulco’s own actions contributed to her predicament. The order for the return of the car was affirmed.