Case Digest (G.R. No. 166704)
Facts:
In Agrifina Aquintey v. Spouses Felicidad and Rico Tibong (G.R. No. 166704, December 20, 2006), petitioner Agrifina Aquintey sued respondents Felicidad and Rico Tibong before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Baguio City, on May 6, 1999, for recovery of a P773,000 loan plus stipulated monthly interest and damages. Agrifina alleged multiple advances to Felicidad at rates of 6–7% per month, all evidenced by promissory notes or acknowledgment receipts, some of which were later lost. The Tibongs admitted borrowing but claimed they had executed notarized deeds of assignment transferring P546,459 of their debtors’ obligations to Agrifina, and that these assignments, together with subsequent promissory notes by those debtors, novated and extinguished their original obligation. The RTC, after pre-trial and trial, found no novation, held that the assignments were separate contracts, deducted collections from debtors, and rendered judgment for Agrifina for P472,000 plus interestCase Digest (G.R. No. 166704)
Facts:
- Complaint and Loan Transactions
- On May 6, 1999, petitioner Agrifina Aquintey filed before the RTC of Baguio City a complaint for sum of money and damages against spouses Felicidad and Rico Tibong, alleging that Felicidad borrowed a total of ₱773,000.00 at monthly interest rates of 6%–7%, evidenced by promissory notes, acknowledgment receipts, and a counter-affidavit (I.S. No. 93-334).
- The complaint prayed for:
- Payment of ₱773,000.00 plus 6% interest per month from May 11, 1999;
- 15% of the total obligations as attorney’s fees;
- Actual expenses.
- Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
- Spouses Tibong admitted obtaining loans from Agrifina but alleged that they re-lent the proceeds to third-party borrowers at higher rates, executed deeds of assignment in Agrifina’s favor, and had promissory notes from those debtors, resulting in a novation of their original obligation.
- They denied material averments in the complaint without specifying the amounts borrowed, maintained that no loans were received without written receipts, and prayed for dismissal.
- Pre-Trial and Trial Proceedings
- The Pre-Trial Order (August 17, 2000) defined the issues: entitlement to ₱773,000.00; entitlement to stipulated interests; entitlement to damages.
- Trial evidence:
- Detailed schedule of loans (dates, amounts, interest rates, due dates), showing total principal of ₱773,000.00 and partial payments of ₱122,600.00; dishonored ₱50,000.00 check later paid after criminal prosecution.
- From August to October 1990, Felicidad executed notarized deeds of assignment of credits totaling ₱546,459.00 and procured promissory notes from her debtors totaling ₱284,659.00; Agrifina collected ₱301,000.00 from these debtors.
- No settlement was reached at the barangay level when Agrifina sought to collect the balance.
- Decisions Below
- RTC Decision (January 20, 2003): granted Agrifina’s claim but reduced principal to ₱472,000.00 (after deducting ₱301,000.00 collections) plus 6% interest; held no novation by assignment or promissory notes.
- CA Decision (December 20, 2004): modified RTC award to balance of ₱51,341.00 plus 6% interest (finding actual loans only ₱637,000.00); upheld that deeds of assignment did not novate but operated as payment pro tanto and prevented double recovery.
- CA denied reconsideration; Agrifina filed Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether Felicidad Tibong borrowed the full ₱773,000.00 alleged in the complaint.
- Whether the respondents’ obligation to pay the balance of their loans (including interest) was partially extinguished by the deeds of assignment in favor of petitioner and the promissory notes of third-party debtors.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)