MA. JULIETA* B. BENDECIO AND MERLYN MASCARIÑAS VS.

VIRGINIA B. BAUTISTA.
December 07, 2021
LOPEZ, J., J.
Article 1249, 1250

Facts:
In February 2013, Virginia B. Bautista lent her niece, Ma. Julieta B.
Bendecio, a series of sums of money, payable three (3) months
thereafter. Upon arrival of the maturity date, Bendecio failed to pay the
loan and instead, presented that her business partner, Merlyn
Mascarinas would be paying the loan by way of a bank deposit, in which,
also did not materialize. Following a series of negotiations, the parties
agreed to have Mascarinas execute a promissory note, as well as to issue
checks as security to the loan, to mature three (3) months thereafter.
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Bautista), ordering
defendants to jointly and solidarily pay the former, the loan amount
plus interests and damages.
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC, According to the appellate
court, the alleged payment made by Bendecio and Mascariñ as was not
proven by preponderance of evidence. Moreover, their solidary liability
is justified as evidence which shows that the loan was actually obtained
not by Bendecio alone, but by both parties in furtherance of their
business partnership. Aggrieved, petitioners filed the present petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in finding Bendecio and Mascarinas

loable to pay Bautista the loan amounting to Php 1,100,000.00.

Held:
The contention is devoid of merit. As duly found by the RTC and CA,
there was nothing in the records to show receipt by Bautista of cash in
exchange for the checks she returned. On the contrary, Mascariñ as
merely issued a promissory note in favor of Bautista effectively
extending the maturity date of the loan. Certainly, this cannot result in
the extinguishment of Bendecio's obligation. Indeed, once the existence
of an indebtedness is duly established by evidence, the burden of
showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by
payment rests on the debtor. We find that Bendecio and Mascariñ as
failed in this regard. The instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
September 14, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 109378,
which affirmed the Decision dated May 4, 2017 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 59, Makati City in Civil Case No. 13-1126, is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION.
 LINEAR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. DOLMAR PROPERTY
VENTURES, INC.
November 17, 2021
ZALAMEDA, J.
Article 1279

Facts:
Respondent Dolmar contracted the petitioner, Linear to construct
the drainage system of their Marilao Project and subsequently, the Sta.
Maria Project. Dolmar then engaged the services of R.S. Caparros and
Associates (R.S. Caparros) to manage the construction of the Marilao
Project, among others. Subsequently upon inspection made by the
managing firm, it discovered numerous defects and irregularities in the
construction of the drainage system, such as missing drainage pipes and
discrepancies between existing layouts and as-built drawings. Such
findings were duly communicated to Linear in separate letters. Dolmar
then engaged the services of Mr. Elpidio D. Agapito for the Marilao
Project's drainage rehabilitation and repair. Upon project completion of
the Sta. Maria project, petitioner Linear demanded the release of the
retention money, upon which recognized by Dolmar, but alleged that
such amount is already offset through legal compensation, and thus
leaving Linear to be indebted to Dolmar of a sum of Php2,613,642.88.
This then led Linear to file for a collection of sum of money with
damages against Dolmar.
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC held that the elements of legal compensation were not
present since Dolmar had yet to establish that Linear was legally
indebted to the former. Dolmar failed to squarely meet Linear's cause of
action because the former presented evidence on the latter's liabilities
for the Marilao Project, when Linear's cause of action was based on the
Sta. Maria Project. Dolmar moved for reconsideration.
Ruling of the CA

According to the CA, all the elements of legal compensation were

present. Linear and Dolmar became mutual creditors and debtors of
each other due to their respective obligations in the Marilao and Sta.
Maria Projects. By operation of law, Dolmar's obligation was
extinguished to the concurrent amount.
Issue:

(1) Whether or not the petition should be dismissed for Linear's

failure to strictly comply with procedural requirements; and
(2) Whether or not Linear's claim over the retention money has
already been extinguished ipso jure through legal
compensation

Held:
Legal compensation is inapplicable. In this case, Dolmar's claim is
neither liquidated nor demandable because, first, it is disputed by
Linear. From the parties' early correspondence all the way to this court,
Linear has consistently maintained that it has no liability for the amount
being demanded by Dolmar. Moreover, since the vouchers only evince
payments of around Php700,000.00, the records do not show that
Dolmar has already spent Php6,379,935.00 at the time it withheld the
retention money. Hence, assuming that there was indeed a debt, the
same was not yet due. This negates the third requisite of legal
compensation. Petition for Review on Certiorari is granted. The Decision
dated 29 April 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101201 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.