Title
Chua Chienco vs. Vargas
Case
G.R. No. 4414
Decision Date
Sep 7, 1908
Chua Tinco sued Angel Vargas for unpaid debt of 1,382 pesos. Vargas claimed payment via drafts, but court ruled debt valid due to lack of proof, affirming trial court's decision.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 4414)

Complaint and Preliminary Attachment

On July 22, 1904, the attorney for the plaintiff filed a complaint against Vargas, claiming total payments received by Vargas from Chienco amounted to 2,082.50 pesos. Vargas had only repaid 700 pesos, leaving an outstanding balance of 1,382.50 pesos. The plaintiff requested a preliminary attachment to secure Vargas's carabaos and cattle, fearing that Vargas might conceal or sell them to evade payment.

Defendant’s Demurrer and Amendments

In response to the initial complaint, Vargas filed a demurrer stating he was unfamiliar with Chienco (referred to as Sua Tico) and thus disputed his obligation. On August 14, 1904, the plaintiff's counsel sought to amend the complaint to correct the name from Sua Tico to Chua Tinco, which the court allowed. This amendment clarified the identity of the plaintiff and re-established the framework for the case.

Answer and Counterclaims

After acknowledging the amended name, Vargas responded that there indeed existed business transactions resulting in a debt of 700 pesos owed to the plaintiff. Vargas argued that he had further engaged in transactions, leading to the issuance of three drafts of 500 pesos each to offset the outstanding debt. He requested the return of the corresponding vales and sought damages for the preliminary attachment.

Evidence and Judicial Findings

The trial revealed numerous evidential documents, such as vales, which were recognized by both parties, proving the existence of the debt of 1,382 pesos. The record confirmed that Vargas had received funds from Chienco but failed to substantiate his claims regarding the drafts or demonstrate that he had settled the outstanding balance.

Legal Principles Applied

In reviewing the obligations under Articles 1156 and 1214 of the Civil Code, the burden of proof lay with the debtor (Vargas) to establish that the debt had been duly paid. The evidence definitively showed that the plaintiff had not received payment equivalent to the claimed debt, and the la

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.