Title
Bareng vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-12973
Decision Date
Apr 25, 1960
Bareng suspended payments due to Ruiz's claims; compromise resolved ownership threat. Court ruled Bareng liable for P3,600 with legal interest from complaint filing. Debt deemed liquidated.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12973)

Facts:

  1. Purchase of Equipment: On November 29, 1951, petitioner Vicente Bareng purchased cinematographic equipment from respondent Patrocinio Alegria for P15,000. Bareng paid P10,000 upfront and signed four promissory notes for the balance: P1,000 (due December 15, 1951), P1,500 (due February 15, 1952), P1,500 (due March 15, 1952), and P1,000 (due April 1952).
  2. Payment Issues: Bareng paid the first note but only partially paid the second note (P400) after being informed by respondent Agustin Ruiz that he was a co-owner of the equipment and instructed Bareng to suspend payments to Alegria.
  3. Legal Dispute: On March 31, 1952, Ruiz filed a lawsuit (Civil Case No. 1527) against Alegria and Bareng for his share in the equipment's price. On May 21, 1952, Alegria and Ruiz reached a compromise, with Alegria recognizing Ruiz as a co-owner and agreeing to pay him 2/3 of any amount recovered from Bareng.
  4. Collection Suit: On May 28, 1952, Alegria sued Bareng for P13,500, the alleged unpaid balance. Bareng countered, claiming only P3,600 was unpaid and sought rescission of the sale due to alleged breaches of warranties.
  5. Lower Court Decision: The trial court declared Alegria and Ruiz co-owners of the equipment and dismissed Alegria’s case against Bareng without prejudice.
  6. Court of Appeals Decision: The appellate court reversed the lower court, ordering Bareng to pay Alegria P3,600 plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint and Alegria to pay Ruiz 2/3 of the amount recovered from Bareng.

Issue:

  1. Whether Bareng was justified in suspending payment of the balance due to Ruiz’s adverse claims.
  2. Whether Bareng is liable to pay legal interest on the unpaid balance from the filing of the complaint.
  3. Whether Bareng’s indebtedness was liquidated or unliquidated.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.