Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court


City of Manila
Branch 11
Valwen Lorien Larin
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 3456-14


For: Sum Collection of Money

- versus
Noeme Calanoc
Defendant,
x------------------------x
DECISION
This is an action for sum collection of money arising from a promissory note.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has secured a loan from the former in the
amount of 20,700php which is covered by a promissory note. The defendant promised to pay
plaintiff her total obligation within 30 days from the date of the execution of the note or until February 10,
2014. Because of the defendants failure to pay of his obligation, plaintiff filed this present case.
Defendant, on the other hand, while hypothetically admitting some of the claims stated in
the plaintiffs cause of action, has barred the plaintiff form recovery due to any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance.
On January 16, 2015, both parties appeared during the hearing conducted by
Judge Christine Denise A. Abuel.
The issue to be resolved is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs he
prayed for his complaint.
Plaintiffs evidence is consist of promissory note which was issued on January 10,
2014.
Defendant filed a compulsory counterclaim wherein she alleges that due to this
instant case she was constrained to seek legal assistance.
This court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from such action because
mere admission or denial of the defendant did not satisfy the court to render decision in
favour of her. The promissory note is a sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant is
bound to pay the plaintiff. In the New Civil Code Article 22 it states that Every person
who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes
into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him.
In the recent case of Flores v. Spouses Lindo,[2][77] this Court expounded on the
subject matter:

There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The principle of unjust enrichment
requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification,
and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the claim is GRANTED. This court


orders the defendant to pay 20,700php with 12%legal interest per annum, attorneys fees
and appearance fees and the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.
January 16, 2015

_______________________
Presiding Judge
Copy Furnished:
Valwen Lorien Larin
Mojon, City of Malolos, Bulacan
Noeme Calanoc
Canalate, City of Malolos Bulacan