Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Laurene Ashley Sore-Yoke
    16 views1 page
    1) The petitioner owned a business called Irene's Wearing Apparel and had transactions with Facets Funwear in the US. Facets sent $10,000 to petitioner through banks but there was a delay in payment. 2) Facets then sent another $10,000 through a different bank without realizing the first payment went through. The respondent bank asked petitioner to return the second payment of $10,000 but petitioner refused. 3) The key issue is whether petitioner must return the duplicated payment based on the legal principle of indebiti, which requires that the payer was not obligated to pay and payment was made due to a mistake of fact.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The petitioner owned a business called Irene's Wearing Apparel and had transactions with Facets Funwear in the US. Facets sent $10,000 to petitioner through banks but there was a delay in payment. 2) Facets then sent another $10,000 through a different bank without realizing the first payment went through. The respondent bank asked petitioner to return the second payment of $10,000 but petitioner refused. 3) The key issue is whether petitioner must return the duplicated payment based on the legal principle of indebiti, which requires that the payer was not obligated to pay and payment was made due to a mistake of fact.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views1 page

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Laurene Ashley Sore-Yoke
    1) The petitioner owned a business called Irene's Wearing Apparel and had transactions with Facets Funwear in the US. Facets sent $10,000 to petitioner through banks but there was a delay in payment. 2) Facets then sent another $10,000 through a different bank without realizing the first payment went through. The respondent bank asked petitioner to return the second payment of $10,000 but petitioner refused. 3) The key issue is whether petitioner must return the duplicated payment based on the legal principle of indebiti, which requires that the payer was not obligated to pay and payment was made due to a mistake of fact.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SOURCES OF OBLIGATION

    Case No. 28 :
    ANDRES VS. MANUFACTURERS HANOVER & TRUST CORPORATION,
    177 SCRA 618, G.R. NO. 82670
    SEPTEMBER 15, 1989

    Facts:
    The petitioner, owning a business named, “Irene’s Wearing Apparel”, had a transaction with Facets Funwear, Inc.
    of the United States. In their business transactions, FACETS remitted certain amounts of money to the petitioner. In one of
    the said transactions, FACETS instructed the First National State Bank of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey, USA (FNSB)
    to transfer $10,000.00 to the petitioner via Philippine National Bank (PNB). Upon receipt of the instruction, FNSB
    instructed private respondent, Manufacturers Hanover and Trust Corporation to charge the said amount in their account.

    Private respondent sent a telex to PNB to pay petitioner $10,000.00 but there has been a delay because the payee
    designated in the telex was only “Wearing Apparel.” Upon clarification between the two parties, the petitioner was able to
    get the said payment on August 28, 1980.

    FACETS, without knowing that the petitioner was able to get the money, informed FNSB to remit the $10,000.00
    through the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (hereinafter referred to as PCIB) instead of PNB to which the
    petitioner received another $10,000.00. Private respondent then returned the remittance to FNSB after it demanded for a
    recredit of the remittance duplication. Private respondent then asked the petitioner for the return of the second remittance
    but the latter refused to pay.

    ISSUE: WON, the petitioner is required to pay back the duplicated remittance in lieu of solution indebiti.

    RULING: The sole issue in this case is whether or not the private respondent has the right to recover the second
    $10,000.00 remittance it had delivered to petitioner. The resolution of this issue would hinge on the applicability of Art.
    2154 of the New Civil Code. For this article to apply the following requisites must concur: “(1) that he who paid was not
    under obligation to do so; and, (2) that payment was made by reason of an essential mistake of fact”

    You might also like