G.R. No. 193089; July 9, 2012
ROSENA FONTELAR OGAWA, Petitioner, vs. ELIZABETH GACHE MENIGISHI, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosena Ogawa filed a complaint for sum of money against respondent Elizabeth Menigishi before the RTC, alleging that the respondent borrowed various sums from her. Ogawa claimed that as partial payment for a property Menigishi offered to sell, she remitted amounts totaling P400,772.90. When Menigishi backed out of the sale, Ogawa demanded payment. In her Answer with Counterclaim, Menigishi denied any indebtedness. Instead, she asserted that it was Ogawa who owed her 1,000,000 Yen, as evidenced by a receipt, and that the remittances from Ogawa were partial payments for this debt. Menigishi also counterclaimed for 4,000,000 Yen for alleged wedding expense advances.
The RTC ruled in favor of Ogawa, ordering Menigishi to pay P400,772.90 with interest, plus damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court disbelieved Menigishi’s counterclaims and disregarded the receipt for 1,000,000 Yen. On appeal, the CA affirmed the award of P400,772.90 to Ogawa and correctly denied the 4,000,000 Yen claim for lack of evidence. However, the appellate court reversed the RTC on the 1,000,000 Yen counterclaim, giving probative value to the receipt and holding it established Ogawa’s debt. The CA then deleted all awards of damages, finding both parties at fault.

ISSUE

Whether the disputed receipt sufficiently established respondent Menigishi’s counterclaim that petitioner Ogawa owed her 1,000,000 Yen.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and reinstating the RTC decision with modification on interest. The Court held that the receipt did not sufficiently prove Menigishi’s counterclaim. A receipt is merely an acknowledgment that something was delivered, not an instrument that proves the truth of its contents regarding the nature of the transaction. The burden of proof rests upon the party alleging an affirmative claim. Here, Menigishi failed to discharge this burden by preponderance of evidence. The Court found her testimony regarding the loan inconsistent and contrary to human experience, noting she could not explain basic details like the purpose of the loan or the circumstances of the receipt’s signing. Her claim that the receipt was prepared by the debtor (Ogawa) was illogical, as debtors do not typically prepare receipts for money they receive.
The CA erred in relying on an alleged judicial admission from Ogawa’s counsel and a procedural rule on specific denial. The counsel’s statement that “the one who usually prepares the receipt is the obligor or the creditor” was a general observation, not an admission of the debt. Furthermore, Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court on specific denial under oath applies to instruments like promissory notes, not simple receipts. Therefore, Ogawa’s failure to deny the receipt under oath was not fatal. Since Menigishi failed to prove her counterclaim by substantial evidence, the CA’s finding of mutual fault was baseless. Consequently, the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Ogawa were reinstated. The monetary award of P400,772.90 shall earn 12% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until finality of judgment, and thereafter, 12% interest per annum on the total sum until fully paid.