Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion

Spouses dela Cruz vs.
Concepcion Digest
G.R. No. 172825 : October 11, 2012
SPOUSES MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ and LETA L. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioners, v. ANA MARIE CONCEPCION, Respondent.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioners Miniano and Leta Dela Cruz (spouses Dela Cruz) entered into a
contract to sell with respondent Ana Marie Concepcion (Concepcion) involving a
house and lot for a consideration of PhP 2,000,000.00 payable in installments. As
instructed by spousesDela Cruz, Concepcion paid her last installment to a certain
Adoracion or "Dori" Losloso. Thus, Concepcion was able to pay the total purchase
price and the title to the property was transferred in her favor.
Notwithstanding Concepcions full payment, the spouses Dela Cruz demanded the
amount of P209,000.00 purportedly as remaining balance of the purchase price.
Concepcion refused to pay the said amount. The spouses averred that Concepcions
payment to "Dori" was not valid. Hence, spouses Dela Cruz filed a Complaint for
Sum of Money with Damages before the RTC.
In her answer, Concepcion failed to allege the defense of payment of the amount
claimed by the spouses. However, during the presentation of her evidence, she
submitted a receipt to prove that she had already paid the remaining balance.
The RTC dismissed the spouses complaint. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs
decision with modification. Hence, this instant petition.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the spouses complaint

notwithstanding that Concepcion failed to allege in her answer the defense of
payment?
II. Whether or not payment to Losloso amounts to a valid tender of payment?
HELD: The petition is without merit.
FIRST ISSUE: The RTC cannot be faulted for admitting respondents testimonial
and documentary evidence to prove payment.
REMEDIAL LAW: amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of

evidence
Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court states that "defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived." Hence,
1
respondent should have been barred from raising the defense of payment of the
unpaid P200,000.00. However, Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court allows the
amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence.
The foregoing provision envisions two scenarios, namely, when evidence is

introduced in an issue not alleged in the pleadings and no objection was
interjected; and when evidence is offered on an issue not alleged in the pleadings
but this time an objection was raised. When the issue is tried without the objection
of the parties, it should be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in the
pleadings. On the other hand, when there is an objection, the evidence may be
admitted where its admission will not prejudice him.
When the receipt was formally offered as evidence, petitioners did not manifest
their objection to the admissibility of said document on the ground that payment
was not an issue. Since there was an implied consent on the part of petitioners to
try the issue of payment, even if no motion was filed and no amendment of the
pleading has been ordered, the RTC cannot be faulted for admitting respondents
testimonial and documentary evidence to prove payment.
SECOND ISSUE: Payment made to Losloso is deemed payment to the spouses

Dela Cruz.
CIVIL LAW: payment
In order to extinguish said obligation, payment should be made to the proper

person as set forth in Article 1240 of the Civil Code. The Court explained in
Cambroon v. City of Butuan, cited in Republic v. De Guzman, to whom payment
should be made in order to extinguish an obligation: "In general, a payment in
order to be effective to discharge an obligation, must be made to the proper person.
Thus, payment must be made to the obligee himself or to an agent having
authority, express or implied, to receive the particular payment. Payment made to
one having apparent authority to receive the money will, as a rule, be treated as
though actual authority had been given for its receipt. Likewise, if payment is
made to one who by law is authorized to act for the creditor, it will work a
discharge."
Taking into consideration the busy schedule of respondent, petitioners advised the
latter to leave the payment to a certain "Dori" who admittedly is Losloso, or to her
trusted helper. This is an express authority given to Losloso to receive payment.
Thus, as shown in the receipt signed by petitioners agent and pursuant to the
authority granted by petitioners to Losloso, payment made to the latter is deemed
payment to petitioners.
Petition is DENIED.
Dela Cruz v Concepcion (Civil Procedure)

2
Digest # 1
Dela Cruz v Concepcion

GR No. 172825, October 11, 2012
FACTS:
On March 25, 1996, petitioners entered into a Contract to Sell with respondent
involving a house and lot in Antipolo City for a 2 million consideration.
Respondent made the following payments, to wit:

(1) 500,000 by way of downpayment;
(2) 500,000 on May 30, 1996;
(3) 500,000 paid on January 22, 1997; and
(4) 500,000 bounced check dated June 30, 1997 which was replaced.
Thus, Respondent was able to pay the 2 million total obligation.
Before respondent issued the 500,000 replacement check, she told petitioners that
based on the computation of her accountant as of July 6, 1997, her unpaid
obligation which includes interests and penalties was only 200,000. Petitioners
agreed with respondent. Despite repeated demands, petitioners failed to collect the
amounts they claimed. Hence, the complaint for sum of money with damages filed
with the RTC of Antipolo Rizal. In her answer with Compulsory counterclaim and
during the presentation of evidence, respondent presented a receipt purportedly
indicating payment of the remaining balance of 200,000 to Losloso who allegedly
received the same on behalf of petitioners.
On March 8, 2014, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent. On appeal,

the CA affirmed the decision with modification by deleting the award of moral
damages and attorney's fees in favor of respondent. Aggrieved, petitioners come
before the Court in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
Whether it was proper to dismiss the complaint based on the ground that the
defendant fully paid the claims of plaintiff
HELD:
Yes.
When the issue is tried without the objection of the parties, it should be treated
with all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings. On the other hand, when
there is an objection, the evidence may be admitted where its admission will not
prejudice him.
Thus, while respondent judicially admitted in her answer that she only paid 2
million and that she still owed petitioners 200,000, respondent claimed later and in
fact, submitted an evidence to show that she already paid the whole amount of her
unpaid obligation. It is noteworthy what when respondent presented evidence of
3
payment, petitioners did not object thereto.
To be sure, petitioners were given ample opportunity to refute the fact of and
present evidence to prove payment.

Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses dela Cruz vs.

SPOUSES MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ and LETA L. DELA CRUZ,

I. Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the spouses complaint

II. Whether or not payment to Losloso amounts to a valid tender of payment?

HELD: The petition is without merit.

REMEDIAL LAW: amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of

The foregoing provision envisions two scenarios, namely, when evidence is

SECOND ISSUE: Payment made to Losloso is deemed payment to the spouses

CIVIL LAW: payment

In order to extinguish said obligation, payment should be made to the proper

Dela Cruz v Concepcion (Civil Procedure)

Dela Cruz v Concepcion

Respondent made the following payments, to wit:

On March 8, 2014, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent. On appeal,

You might also like