GR 42928; (August, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42928; August 18, 1936
MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE FERNANDO RODRIGO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Manila (plaintiff) obtained a judgment for the foreclosure of a mortgage against Jose Fernando Rodrigo and Juana M. Torres (later substituted by Potenciana Yupangco) for a debt of P15,000 plus interest and costs, secured by three mortgaged properties. After the judgment became final, two of the mortgaged properties were sold at public auction for P10,000 to the plaintiff. To prevent the sale of the third mortgaged property (located in Bulacan and belonging exclusively to Rodrigo), Rodrigo, through his surety, paid the plaintiff P7,000 in exchange for the release of that property from the mortgage. The plaintiff later assigned its alleged remaining judgment credit of P6,401.50 to spouses Luis Izquierdo and Concepcion Cabigao. Rodrigo claimed he overpaid by P6,000 and sought its return, while the plaintiff (and its assignees) sought an alias writ of execution for the alleged unpaid balance. The trial court denied both motions.
ISSUE
1. Whether the payment of P7,000 for the release of the third mortgaged property extinguished the entire judgment debt.
2. Whether Rodrigo is entitled to recover the alleged overpayment of P6,000.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, ruling in favor of Rodrigo.
1. The payment of P7,000 for the release of the third property extinguished the entire judgment debt. The Court found that, under the circumstances, the parties’ agreement was for the payment to settle the full obligation. This was inferred from the fact that the plaintiff did not attempt to execute on the remaining balance or assign it until about 17 months after the payment and release, and because it would be unreasonable for Rodrigo to pay P7,000 to release one property if a substantial balance remained enforceable against it.
2. Rodrigo is not entitled to recover the alleged overpayment as an undue payment under Article 1895 of the Civil Code. The payment was made by a person interested in the fulfillment of the obligation (as a joint debtor and surety) under Article 1158 of the Civil Code, and therefore was not undue. The Court held that the indivisibility of the mortgage did not negate the independence of the joint obligation, but under the specific facts, the agreement led to full satisfaction of the debt.
AI Generated by Armztrong.