Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
o Jesus de Anduiza & Quinatana Cano borrowed money from the Agricultural and Industrial Bank
(now RFC), as evidenced by a promissory note dated October 31, 1941. In said note, they
promised to pay the AIB, or order, on or before October 31, 1951, the sum of P13,800.00, with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a.. Said note also recited that payments were to be made in ten equal
annual installments in accordance with the given schedule of amortizations.
o Mortgagors Anduiza and Cano failed to pay the yearly amortizations that fell due on October 31,
1942 and 1943. Learning of this, Estelito Madrid (who temporarily lived in the house of Anduiza)
offered to pay and actually paid on October 30, 1944 the full amount of said indebtedness to
AIB/RFC.
o July 30, 1948: Madrid instituted the present action asking the court to (a) declare as paid the
P16,425.17 Anduiza owed the AIB/RFC; (b) order AIB/RFC to cancel the mortgage and release
the properties; (c) condemn Anduiza to pay Madrid the P16,425.17 with legal interest, etc.
o In answer, AIB/RFC prayed that the complaint be dismissed. The bank argued that in as much as
Madrid’s payment was unauthorized by Anduiza, Madrid’s deposit in the sum of P16,425.17 was
null and void in accordance with EO No. 49, series of 1945. Anduiza, on the other hand, alleged
that when Madrid paid his debt, the same was not yet due and demandable; hence, he may not be
compelled to pay the latter.
o RTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the CA reversed and directed AIB/RFC to cancel the
mortgage and Anduiza to pay Madrid the P16,425.17
o AIB/RFC’s Arguments: that payments by Madrid were made against the express will of Anduiza
and over the objection of the Bank, hence not valid; that the obligation in question was not fully
due and demandable at the time of the payments
ISSUES:
1. Whether the debtors were entitled to pay the obligation prior to Oct. 31, 1951
2. Whether the payment by third person was valid
RULING:
1. Whether the debtors were entitled to pay the obligation prior to Oct. 31, 1951
YES. It should be noted that the makers of the promissory note quoted above promised to
pay the obligation evidenced thereby "on or before October 31, 1951." Although the full amount
of said obligation was not demandable prior to October 31, 1951, in view of the provision of the
note relative to the payment in ten (10) annual installments, it is clear, therefore, that the makers
or debtors were entitled to make a complete settlement of the obligation at any time before said
date.