Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 645 views

    Solinap v. Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    Nico Delos Trinos
    The petitioner Loreto Solinap leased property called Hacienda Tambal from Spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona for 10 years at 50,000 pesos per year. The contract also required Solinap to pay 25,000 pesos to the Philippine National Bank to pay off a debt of the Luteros. After Lutero died, his heirs sought to collect the unpaid obligations from the estate, including the 25,000 pesos paid by Lutero's grandson Juanito to the bank. Solinap argued this amount should be offset against debts owed by the Luteros to him, but the Court held that compensation was not possible because Solinap's claim

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Solinap v. Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    Nico Delos Trinos
    645 views2 pages
    The petitioner Loreto Solinap leased property called Hacienda Tambal from Spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona for 10 years at 50,000 pesos per year. The contract also required Solinap to pay 25,000 pesos to the Philippine National Bank to pay off a debt of the Luteros. After Lutero died, his heirs sought to collect the unpaid obligations from the estate, including the 25,000 pesos paid by Lutero's grandson Juanito to the bank. Solinap argued this amount should be offset against debts owed by the Luteros to him, but the Court held that compensation was not possible because Solinap's claim

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Loreto Solinap leased property called Hacienda Tambal from Spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona for 10 years at 50,000 pesos per year. The contract also required Solinap to pay 25,000 pesos to the Philippine National Bank to pay off a debt of the Luteros. After Lutero died, his heirs sought to collect the unpaid obligations from the estate, including the 25,000 pesos paid by Lutero's grandson Juanito to the bank. Solinap argued this amount should be offset against debts owed by the Luteros to him, but the Court held that compensation was not possible because Solinap's claim

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    645 views2 pages

    Solinap v. Del Rosario

    Uploaded by

    Nico Delos Trinos
    The petitioner Loreto Solinap leased property called Hacienda Tambal from Spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona for 10 years at 50,000 pesos per year. The contract also required Solinap to pay 25,000 pesos to the Philippine National Bank to pay off a debt of the Luteros. After Lutero died, his heirs sought to collect the unpaid obligations from the estate, including the 25,000 pesos paid by Lutero's grandson Juanito to the bank. Solinap argued this amount should be offset against debts owed by the Luteros to him, but the Court held that compensation was not possible because Solinap's claim

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-50638 July 25, 1983


    LORETO J. SOLINAP, petitioner,
    vs.
    HON. AMELIA K. DEL ROSARIO, as Presiding Judge of Branch IV, Court of
    First Instance of Iloilo, SPOUSES JUANITO and HARDEVI R. LUTERO, and
    THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, respondents.
    FACTS:
    Spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona, owners of
    Hacienda Tambal, leased the said property to petitioner Solinap for
    10 years at P50K a year.
    o The contract also provided that the sum of P25K should be paid by
    Solinap to PNB to amortize the indebtedness of the spouses Lutero.
    Lutero died in 1971.
    His heirs institute testate estate proceedings of the deceased, presided by
    public respondent judge Del Rosario.
    Respondent judge issued an order stating that in order to protect the estate,
    the administrator was authorized to scout among the testamentary heirs who
    is financially in a position to pay all the unpaid obligations of the estate, with
    right to subrogation.
    Juanito Lutero (Tiburcios grandson and heir) paid PNB P25K as partial
    settlement of the deceaseds obligations.
    Thereafter Juanito filed a motion before the testate court for reimbursement
    from Solinap of the amount he paid.
    o He argued that the said amount should have been paid by Solinap as
    stipulated in the lease contract.
    Petitioners contention:
    the respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in not declaring the
    mutual obligations of the parties extinguished to the extent of their
    respective amounts.
    He relies on Art 1278 NCC to the effect that compensation shall take place
    when two persons, on their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other.
    ISSUE: Whether the obligation of Solinap to Lutero may be compensated or set-off
    against the amount sought to be recovered in an action for sum of money filed
    by Solinap against the Lutero.
    HELD: NO.

    The argument fails to consider Art. 1279 NCC provides that compensation can
    take place if both obligations are liquidated.
    In the case at bar, Solinap's claim against the respondent Luteros in
    Civil Case No. 12379 is still pending determination by the court.
    (NOTE)
    While it is not for Us to pass upon the merits of the plaintiffs' cause of action
    in that case, it appears that the claim asserted therein is disputed by the
    Luteros on both factual and legal grounds.
    More, the counterclaim interposed by them, if ultimately found to be
    meritorious, can defeat petitioner's demand.
    Upon this premise, his claim in that case cannot be categorized as
    liquidated credit which may properly be set-off against his
    obligation. (NOTE)
    As this Court ruled in Mialhe vs. Halili," compensation cannot take place
    where one's claim against the other is still the subject of court litigation.
    It is a requirement, for compensation to take place, that the amount involved
    be certain and liquidated."

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy