618

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation

*

G.R.No.82670.September15,1989.

DOMETILA M. ANDRES, doing business under the name

andstyleIRENESWEARINGAPPAREL,petitioner,vs.
MANUFACTURERS
HANOVER
&
TRUST
CORPORATIONandCOURTOFAPPEALS,respondents.
Civil Law; Obligations and Contracts; Solutio Indebiti; For the
rule on solutio indebiti to apply, it is required that he who paid was
under no obligation to do so and that payment was made by reason
of an essential mistake of fact.The sole issue in this case is
whether or not the private respondent has the right to recover the
second $10,000.00 remittance it had delivered to petitioner. The
resolutionofthisissuewouldhingeontheapplicabilityofArt.2154
of the New Civil Code. x x x For this article to apply the following
requisitesmust
_______________
* THIRDDIVISION.

619

VOL.177,SEPTEMBER15,1989

619

Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation

concur:(1)thathewhopaidwasnotunderobligationtodoso;and,
(2) that payment was made by reason of an essential mistake of
fact[CityofCebuv.Piccio,110Phil.558,563,(1960)].
Courts; Certiorari; Questions of Fact; The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is
limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the latter,
its findings of fact being conclusive.Theruleregardingquestions
offactbeingraisedwiththisCourtinapetitionforcertiorariunder
Rule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourthasbeenstatedinRemalante
v. Tibe, G.R. No. 59514, February 25, 1988, 158 SCRA 138, thus:
The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be
raisedinapetitionforcertiorariunderRule45oftheRevisedRules
ofCourt.ThejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtincasesbroughtto
itfromtheCourtofAppealsislimitedtoreviewingandrevisingthe
errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive
[Chan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L27488, June 30, 1970, 33
SCRA 737, reiterating a long line of decisions.] This Court has

emphatically declared that it is not the function of the Supreme

Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its
jurisdictionbeinglimitedtoreviewingerrorsoflawthatmighthave
beencommittedbythelowercourt[Tiongcov.DelaMerced,G.R.
No. L24426, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 89; Corona v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L62482, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 865;
Baniqued v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L47531, February 20,
1984, 127 SCRA 596]. Barring, therefore, a showing that the
findingscomplainedofaretotallydevoidofsupportintherecord,or
thattheyaresoglaringlyerroneousastoconstituteseriousabuseof
discretion, such findings must stand, for this Court is not expected
or required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary
evidence submitted by the parties [Santa Ana, Jr. v. Hernandez,
G.R.No.L16394,December17,1966,18SCRA973.][atpp.144
145.]

PETITIONforcertioraritoreviewthejudgmentofthe
CourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Roque A. Tamayoforpetitioner.
Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los
Angelesforprivaterespondent.
CORTS,J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the
judgment of the Court of Appeals, which, applying the
doctrineof
620

620

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation

solutio indebiti,reversedthedecisionoftheRegionalTrial
Court, Branch CV, Quezon City by deciding in favor of
privaterespondent.
Petitioner, using the business name Irenes Wearing
Apparel, was engaged in the manufacture of ladies
garments,childrenswear,mensapparelandlinensforlocal
and foreign buyers. Among its foreign buyers was Facets
Funwear, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as FACETS) of the
UnitedStates.
In the course of the business transaction between the
two,FACETSfromtimetotimeremittedcertainamountsof
money to petitioner in payment for the items it had
purchased. Sometime in August 1980, FACETS instructed
theFirstNationalStateBankofNewJersey,Newark,New
Jersey,U.S.A.(hereinafterreferredtoasFNSB)totransfer
$10,000.00topetitionerviaPhilippineNationalBank,Sta.
Cruz,Branch,Manila(hereinafterreferredtoasPNB).
Acting on said instruction, FNSB instructed private
respondentManufacturersHanoverandTrustCorporation
toeffecttheabovementionedtransferthroughitsfacilities
and to charge the amount to the account of FNSB with
private respondent. Although private respondent was able
tosendatelextoPNBtopaypetitioner$10,000.00through
the Pilipinas Bank, where petitioner had an account, the

payment was not effected immediately because the payee

designatedinthetelexwasonlyWearingApparel.Upon
querybyPNB,privaterespondentsentPNBanothertelex
datedAugust27,1980statingthatthepaymentwastobe
made to Irenes Wearing Apparel. On August 28, 1980,
petitioner received the remittance of $10,000.00 through
DemandDraftNo.225654ofthePNB.
Meanwhile,onAugust25,1980,afterlearningaboutthe
delayintheremittanceofthemoneytopetitioner,FACETS
informedFNSBaboutthesituation.OnSeptember8,1980,
unaware that petitioner had already received the
remittance, FACETS informed private respondent about
thedelayandatthesametimeamendeditsinstructionby
asking it to effect the payment through the Philippine
CommercialandIndustrialBank(hereinafterreferredtoas
PCIB)insteadofPNB.
Accordingly,privaterespondent,whichwasalsounaware
that petitioner had already received the remittance of
$10,000.00 from PNB instructed the PCIB to pay
$10,000.00topetitioner.
621

VOL.177,SEPTEMBER15,1989

621

Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation

Hence,onSeptember11,1980,petitionerreceivedasecond
$10,000.00remittance.
PrivaterespondentdebitedtheaccountofFNSBforthe
second $10,000.00 remittance effected through PCIB.
However, when FNSB discovered that private respondent
had made a duplication of the remittance, it asked for a
recreditofitsaccountintheamountof$10,000.00.Private
respondentcompliedwiththerequest.
Privaterespondentaskedpetitionerforthereturnofthe
second remittance of $10,000.00 but the latter refused to
pay. On May 12, 1982 a complaint was filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch CV, Quezon City which was
decided in favor of petitioner as defendant. The trial court
ruledthatArt.2154oftheNewCivilCodeisnotapplicable
tothecasebecausethesecondremittancewasmadenotby
mistakebutbynegligenceandpetitionerwasnotunjustly
enriched by virtue thereof [Record, p. 234]. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals held that Art. 2154 is applicable and
reversed the RTC decision. The dispositive portion of the
CourtofAppealsdecisionreadsasfollows:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and
SETASIDEandanotheroneenteredinfavorofplaintiffappellant
and against defendantappellee Domelita (sic) M. Andres, doing
business under the name and style Irenes Wearing Apparel to
reimburse and/ or return to plaintiffappellant the amount of
$10,000.00, its equivalent in Philippine currency, with interests at
thelegalratefromthefilingofthecomplaintonMay12,1982until
the whole amount is fully paid, plus twenty percent (20%) of the
amountdueasattorneysfees;andtopaythecosts.
Withcostsagainstdefendantappellee.
SOORDERED.[Rollo,pp.2930.]

Thereafter,thispetitionwasfiled.
Thesoleissueinthiscaseiswhetherornottheprivate
respondent has the right to recover the second $10,000.00
remittance it had delivered to petitioner. The resolution of
this issue would hinge on the applicability of Art. 2154 of
theNewCivilCodewhichprovidesthat:
Art.2154.Ifsomethingreceivedwhenthereisnorighttodemandit,
anditwasundulydeliveredthroughmistake,theobligation
622

622

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation

toreturnitarises.

ThisprovisionistakenfromArt.1895oftheSpanishCivil
Codewhichprovidedthat:
Art.1895.Ifathingisreceivedwhentherewasnorighttoclaimit
and which, through an error, has been unduly delivered, an
obligationtorestoreitarises.

InVelez v. Balzarza,73Phil.630(1942),theCourt,speaking
through Mr. Justice Bocobo explained the nature of this
articlethus:
Article 1895 [now Article 2154] of the Civil Code abovequoted, is
therefore applicable. This legal provision, which determines the
quasicontract of solutio indebiti, is one of the concrete
manifestations of the ancient principle that no one shall enrich
himself unjustly at the expense of another. In the Roman Law
Digestthemaximwasformulatedthus:Jurenaturaeacquumest,
neminemcumalteriusdetrimentoetinjuriafierilocupletiorem.And
the Partidas declared: Ninguno non deue enriquecerse
tortizeramente con dano de otro. Such axiom has grown through
the centuries in legislation, in the science of law and in court
decisions. The lawmaker has found it one of the helpful guides in
framing statutes and codes. Thus, it is unfolded in many articles
scatteredintheSpanishCivilCode.(Seeforexample,articles,360,
361, 464, 647, 648, 797, 1158, 1163, 1295, 1303, 1304, 1893 and
1895, Civil Code.) This timehonored aphorism has also been
adoptedbyjuristsintheirstudyoftheconflictofrights.Ithasbeen
accepted by the courts, which have not hesitated to apply it when
the exigencies of right and equity demanded its assertion. It is a
part of that affluent reservoir of justice upon which judicial
discretion draws whenever the statutory laws are inadequate
because they do not speak or do so with a confused voice. [at p.
632.]

For this article to apply the following requisites must

concur:(1)thathewhopaidwasnotunderobligationtodo
so;and,(2)thatpaymentwasmadebyreasonofanessential
mistake of fact [City of Cebu v. Piccio, 110 Phil. 558, 563
(1960).]
It is undisputed that private respondent delivered the
second$10,000.00remittance.However,petitionercontends
thatthedoctrineofsolutio indebiti doesnotapplybecause
itsrequisitesareabsent.

623

VOL.177,SEPTEMBER15,1989

623

Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation

First, it is argued that petitioner had the right to demand
andthereforetoretainthesecond$10,000.00remittance.It
is alleged that even after the two $10,000.00 remittances
are credited to petitioners receivables from FACETS, the
latterallegedlystillhadabalanceof$49,324.00.Hence,itis
argued that the last $10,000.00 remittance being in
payment of a preexisting debt, petitioner was not thereby
unjustlyenriched.
Thecontentioniswithoutmerit.
The contract of petitioner, as regards the sale of
garmentsandothertextileproducts,waswithFACETS.It
was the latter and not private respondent which was
indebted to petitioner. On the other hand, the contract for
the transmittal of dollars from the United States to
petitioner was entered into by private respondent with
FNSB. Petitioner, although named as the payee was not
privy to the contract of remittance of dollars. Neither was
private respondent a party to the contract of sale between
petitioner and FACETS. There being no contractual
relationbetweenthem,petitionerhasnorighttoapplythe
second $10,000.00 remittance delivered by mistake by
privaterespondenttotheoutstandingaccountofFACETS.
Petitionernextcontendsthatthepaymentbyrespondent
bankofthesecond$10,000.00remittancewasnotmadeby
mistakebutwastheresultofnegligenceofitsemployees.
In connection with this the Court of Appeals made the
followingfindingoffacts:
The fact that Facets sent only one remittance of $10,000.00 is not
disputed. In the written interrogatories sent to the First National
State Bank of New Jersey through the Consulate General of the
Philippines in New York, Adelaide C. Schachel, the investigation
and reconciliation clerk in the said bank testified that a request to
remitapaymentforFacetFunwearInc.wasmadeinAugust,1980.
The total amount which the First National State Bank of New
Jersey actually requested the plaintiffappellant Manufacturers
Hanover & Trust Corporation to remit to Irenes Wearing Apparel
was US$10,000.00. Only one remittance was requested by First
National State Bank of New Jersey as per instruction of Facets
Funwear(ExhibitJ,pp.45).
That there was a mistake in the second remittance of
US$10,000.00 is borne out by the fact that both remittances have
thesamereferenceinvoicenumberwhichis26380.(ExhibitsA1
Deposition of Mr. Stanley Panasow and A2Deposition of Mr.
StanleyPanasow).
624

624

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation

Plaintiffappellant made the second remittance on the wrong

assumption that defendantappellee did not receive the first

remittanceofUS$10,000.00.[Rollo,pp.2627.]

Itisevidentthattheclaimofpetitionerisanchoredonthe
appreciation of the attendant facts which petitioner would
havethisCourtreview.TheCourtholdsthatthefindingby
theCourtofAppealsthatthesecond$10,000.00remittance
wasmadebymistake,beingbasedonsubstantialevidence,
isfinalandconclusive.Theruleregardingquestionsoffact
being raised with this Court in a petition for certiorari
underRule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourthasbeenstated
inRemalante v. Tibe, G.R. No. 59514, February 25, 1988,
158SCRA138,thus:
The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be
raisedinapetitionforcertiorariunderRule45oftheRevisedRules
ofCourt.ThejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtincasesbroughtto
itfromtheCourtofAppealsislimitedtoreviewingandrevisingthe
errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive
[Chan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L27488, June 30, 1970, 33
SCRA 737, reiterating a long line of decisions.] This Court has
emphatically declared that it is not the function of the Supreme
Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its
jurisdictionbeinglimitedtoreviewingerrorsoflawthatmighthave
beencommittedbythelowercourt[Tiongcov.DelaMerced, G.R.
No. L24426, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 89; Corona v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L62482, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 865;
Baniqued v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L47531, February 20,
1984, 127 SCRA 596]. Barring, therefore, a showing that the
findingscomplainedofaretotallydevoidofsupportintherecord,or
thattheyaresoglaringlyerroneousastoconstituteseriousabuseof
discretion, such findings must stand, for this Court is not expected
or required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary
evidence submitted by the parties [Santa Ana, Jr. v. Hernandez,
G.R.No.L16394,December17,1966,18SCRA973]. [at pp. 144
145.]

Petitionerinvokestheequitableprinciplethatwhenoneof
two innocent persons must suffer by the wrongful act of a
third person, the loss must be borne by the one whose
negligencewastheproximatecauseoftheloss.
Theruleisthatprinciplesofequitycannotbeappliedif
there is a provision of law specifically applicable to a case
[Phil.RabbitBusLines,Inc.v.Arciaga,G.R.No.L29701,
March16,
625

VOL.177,SEPTEMBER15,1989

625

Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation

1987,148 SCRA 433;Zabat, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No.L36958,July10,1986,142SCRA587;RuralBankof
Paranaque, Inc. v. Remolado, G.R. No. 62051, March 18,
1985,135SCRA409;Cruzv.Pahati,98Phil.788(1956).]
Hence, the Court in the case of De Garcia v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L20264, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA
129, citing Aznar v. Yapdiangco,G.R. No. L18536, March
31,1965,13SCRA486,held:

... The common law principle that where one of two innocent
persons must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law
imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence,
hasenabledthefraudtobecommitted,cannotbeappliedinacase
which is covered by an express provision of the new Civil Code,
specifically Article 559. Between a common law principle and a
statutoryprovision,thelattermustprevailinthisjurisdiction.[atp.
135.]

Having shown that Art. 2154 of the Civil Code, which

embodiesthedoctrineofsolutio indebiti,appliesinthecase
at bar, the Court must reject the common law principle
invokedbypetitioner.
Finally, in her attempt to defeat private respondents
claim,petitionermakesmuchofthefactthatfromthetime
the second $10,000.00 remittance was made, five hundred
and ten days had elapsed before private respondent
demanded the return thereof. Needless to say, private
respondent instituted the complaint for recovery of the
second $10,000.00 remittance well within the six years
prescriptive period for actions based upon a quasicontract
[Art.1145oftheNewCivilCode.]
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDandthedecision
oftheCourtofAppealsisherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Fernan, (C.J.), Gutierrez, Jr.andBidin, JJ.,concur.
Feliciano, J.,onleave.
Petition denied and decision affirmed.
Note.Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases
brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to the
reviewoferrorsoflaw.(Rizal Cement Co., Inc. vs. Villareal,
135SCRA15.)
o0o
626

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.