SECOND DIVISION.
.
SPOUSES
EMMANUEL
LANTIN AND MELANIE LANTIN,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
127141
April 30, 2003
-versus-
THE
HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS (FIRST DIVISION)AND THE SPOUSES
ROLAND B. BELTRANAND MA. VICTORIA
REYES-BELTRAN,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari of the August 27, 1996 Decision,[1]
and the November 12, 1996 Resolution[2]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40047. The assailed
decision
reversed that of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City,
Branch
259,[3]
and ordered the petitioners to reimburse to the respondents, spouses
Roland
and Ma. Victoria Beltran, the sum of P1,587.90 for the payment made by
them for the petitioners’ water consumption and homeowners’ association
dues for the month of March 1994. The assailed resolution denied
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual backdrop
of the case is as follows:
The petitioners, spouses
Emmanuel Lantin and Melanie Lantin were former lessees of a residential
house, owned by Esperanza C. Reyes, located at No. 12 Palm Spring
Avenue,
Merville Park Subdivision in Parañaque City. Some time in
March 1994, the petitioners informed their lessor, Ms. Reyes,
that
they were terminating the lease contract. They vacated the leased
premises on March 19, 1994 but retained the key to the house to enable
them to remove the intercom unit which they installed
therein.
The petitioners turned over the key to the house to its owner on March
30, 1994. On even date, Ms. Reyes returned to the petitioners a
check
in the amount of P8,000.00 which they issued representing the one (1)
month
deposit on the house. Ms. Reyes issued another check in
favor
of the petitioners in the amount of P4,514.50 representing the balance
of the other one (1) month deposit, after deducting the amount of
P4,514.50 contained in an unsigned cash voucher turned over
by Ms. Reyes to the petitioner:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CASH VOUCHER
MELANIE M.
LANTIN***
DATE March 30, 1994
P A R T I C U L A
R
AMOUNT
Balance - 1 month deposit
-
P8,000.00
Less: Additional 4 days at
P266.66/day
-1,066.00
P6,934.00
Less: Electric Bill (2/03 -
3/04/94)
1,238.90
P5,695.10
Less: Water & MPHA dues (S/A -
3/01/94)
1,180.60
Balance to be
refunded
-P4,514.50
vvvvvvvvvvvv
FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FOURTEEN & 50/100**
Total P 4 ,514.50[4]
Ms Reyes then leased
the aforesaid house to the respondents who moved in on April 23,
1994.
The respondents later discovered that there were utility bills
pertaining
to the house that were left unpaid. The billing statements received by
the respondents included: electric bill covering the period of March
and
April 1994 in the amount of P1,238.90, water consumption and
homeowners’
association dues also for March and April 1994 in the amount of
P1,587.90;
and a telephone bill in the amount of P1,906.24. Afraid that
their
telephone, electric and water supply would be cut off if they let the
bills
remain unpaid, the respondents were constrained to settle them on
behalf
of petitioners.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, the respondents
demanded from the petitioners reimbursement in the total amount of
P4,733.04.
However, the petitioners refused to pay the respondents. The
matter
was then brought to the barangay authorities for the requisite
conciliation
proceedings, as the parties reside in the same subdivision, to no
avail.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondents filed
a complaint against the petitioners for the collection of the principal
amount of P4,733.04 with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Parañaque
City, Branch 77. As the case was within the purview of the Rules
on Summary Procedure, the parties submitted their respective affidavits
and documentary evidence. Thereafter, the MeTC rendered its
judgment
thereon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The MeTC ruled in favor
of the petitioners upon finding that they had already paid the electric
bill, Merville Park Homeowners’ Association (MPHA) water consumption
and
association dues to the owner of the house, Ms. Reyes, who deducted the
corresponding amounts from the petitioners’ deposit. With respect
to the telephone bill, the MeTC ruled that the respondents paid the
same
without the petitioners’ consent and that they had not benefited from
the
said payment as would entitle the respondents to claim for
reimbursement.
The decretal portion of the MeTC Decision, dated August 24, 1995,
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
this case is hereby ordered DISMISSED the same with defendants’
counterclaim.
With cost against the plaintiff.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondents
elevated
the case to the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch
259,
which affirmed in toto the decision of the MeTC. The decretal
portion
of the RTC Decision, dated December 21, 1995, reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
finding no reversible error the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed
in toto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[6]
Undaunted, the
respondents
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which rendered the assailed
decision
reversing and setting aside that of the RTC. The appellate court
found that the respondents paid for the petitioners’ water consumption
and homeowners’ association dues in the amount of P1,587.90 and the
respondents
are thus entitled to reimbursement for said payment. However,
like
the lower courts, the appellate court found that the respondents are
not
entitled to reimbursement for the electric bill and telephone bill
payments.
The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision, dated August 27,
1996,
reads:
WHEREFORE,
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
challenged
Decision dated December 21, 1995 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new
one
is rendered ordering private respondents to pay petitioners only the
sum
of P1,587.90 as reimbursement for the MPHA water consumption and
association
dues for the month of March 1994. No pronouncement as to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[7]
Aggrieved, the
petitioners
come to this Court alleging that:
RESPONDENT
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR THE MPHA WATER
CONSUMPTION
BILL AND ASSOCIATION DUES ALLEGEDLY PAID BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioners assert
that, contrary to the appellate court’s finding, they already paid the
water consumption and association dues to Ms. Reyes, the owner of the
leased
premises. As proof thereon, the petitioners point to the cash
voucher[9]
issued to them by Ms. Reyes showing that she deducted from the
petitioners’
one month deposit of P8,000.00 the following amounts: P1,066.00 as
payment
for the extra four days in the leased premises; P1,238.90 as payment
for
the electric bill; and P1,180.60 as payment for the MPHA water
consumption
and association dues. Consequently, Ms. Reyes issued to the
petitioners
a check in the amount of P4,514.50 representing the balance of the one
month deposit after deducting the said amounts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioners further
argue that the respondents had not presented proof that they actually
paid
the water consumption and association dues because the receipt for said
payment was in Ms. Reyes’ name. Finally, they contend that no
privity
of contract existed between them and the respondents. Hence,
granting
arguendo that the petitioners had not paid the water consumption and
association
dues, it is Ms. Reyes, the owner of the leased premises, and not the
respondents,
who has the right to demand payment therefor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The sole issue that
needs to be resolved in this case is whether the CA correctly ordered
the
petitioners to reimburse the respondents the amount of P1,587.90 for
the
payment made by the latter for the petitioners’ water consumption and
homeowners’
association dues.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition is partly
meritorious.cralaw:red
On the matter concerning
the telephone and electricity bills, the MeTC, RTC and CA are unanimous
in ruling that the respondents are not entitled to reimbursement for
these
particular utility bills. The Court shall thus defer to these
courts’
findings on the matter considering that factual findings of the
appellate
court are given great weight especially when in complete accord with
the
findings of the lower court.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Unlike the MeTC and
RTC, however, the CA found the petitioners liable to the respondents
for
the payment of the water consumption and association dues for the month
of March 1994. In so holding, the CA ruled that the cash voucher
relied upon by the petitioners was insufficient to prove their payment
of said dues. The CA observed:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is the contention
of the private respondents [the petitioners herein] that they have paid
all their bills through their lessor Mrs. Esperanza Reyes. The
evidence
on record, however, contains no sufficient proof to support this
finding
made by the trial court as affirmed by the respondent appellate
court.
The basis of their finding, besides the self-serving statements made by
the private respondents, was merely a cash voucher prepared by Mrs.
Reyes
purportedly showing that she had paid all of private respondents’ bills
by deducting them from the deposit they earlier gave, the difference of
which she allegedly refunded to them,
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are not
convinced.
The cash voucher is not a sufficient proof of private respondents’
claim
that their obligations have been fully paid. As correctly pointed
out by the petitioners the respondents herein, they could have easily
presented
lessor Mrs. Esperanza Reyes’ affidavit to affirm and support their
contention
that she had fully discharged their obligations in their behalf.
This they failed to do. In fact, all their statements are
self-serving
and unsupported by independent evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We note that contrary
to the contention of the private respondents, it was not Mrs. Reyes who
settled their account with the MPHA for water consumption and
membership
dues, but it was petitioner Roland Beltran. This is clearly shown
in the receipt issued therefor. While seemingly the amount
received
from "E. Reyes", We cannot totally disregard the notation therein that
the amount was paid with RCBC Check No. 063635 from the account of
petitioner
Roland Beltran (Annexes "F" and "G", p. 43, Rollo). Primarily,
the
reason why the receipt was issued in the name of "E. Reyes" was that
she
was the recorded homeowner and, as such, it is but proper that the
receipt
be issued in her name. Hence, petitioners are entitled to recover
the amount paid for the water consumption and membership fee due to the
MPHA pursuant to Art. 1236 of the New Civil Code, which provides in
part
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Whoever pays for another
may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid
without
the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only
insofar
as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor."[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court agrees with
the finding of the CA. A perusal of the records reveal that the
cash
voucher relied upon by the petitioners indicated that the water
consumption
and association dues paid by them were for the period of February 2,
1994
to March 1, 1994 (02/02-03/01) in the amount of P1,180.60.[12]
Thus, the petitioners’ evidence consisting of the cash voucher showed
that
the owner deducted, among others, the amount of P1,180.60 from their
deposit.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The reimbursement being
claimed by the respondents from the petitioners pertained to the water
consumption and association dues for the month of March 1994. It
cannot be gainsaid that the petitioners occupied the leased premises
until
March 19, 1994 and retained constructive possession thereof when they
kept
the key to the house until March 30, 1994. Thus, it is only just
and equitable that the petitioners assume the obligation to pay the
water
consumption and association dues of the leased premises for the said
month.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the amount
adjudged by the CA to be reimbursed by the petitioners to the
respondents
has to be reduced from P1,587.90 to P1,062.90. The receipt[13]
issued by the homeowners’ association (MPHA) shows that the respondents
paid by check (RCBC Check No. 063635) the following amounts: P525.00
for
the homeowners’ association dues for April 1994 and P1,062.90 for the
water
consumption for March 1994. The CA thus should not have
included
the amount of P525.00 as the same pertained to the homeowners’
association
dues for the month of April 1994. At the time, the petitioners no
longer occupied, constructively or otherwise, the leased premises.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, the respondents
are entitled to reimbursement in the sum of P1,062.90 for the payment
made
by them for the petitioners’ water consumption for the month of March
1994
pursuant to Art. 1236 of the New Civil Code, which provides in part as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Whoever pays for another
may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid
without
the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only
insofar
as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioners had
been clearly benefited from the payment made by the respondents
because,
by reason of such payment, the petitioners had been relieved from their
obligation to pay the same to the owner of the leased premises.
Following
the Court’s ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[14]
the petitioners are, likewise, liable to pay 12% interest computed from
the time this decision becomes final and executory.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Decision,
dated August 27, 1996, and Resolution, dated November 12, 1996, of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40047 are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
The petitioners are ordered to pay the respondents the sum of P1,062.90
as reimbursement for the water consumption for the month of March
1994.
A twelve per cent (12%) interest shall be imposed on such amount upon
finality
of this decision until payment thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Quisumbing, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr., with Presiding
Justice Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr. and Associate Justice Maximiano C.
Asuncion,
concurring.
[2]
Annex "D" of Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Records, pp. 81-84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Annex "B" of Answer, Rollo, p. 126.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., at 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
See note 4, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Sendon v. Ruiz, 363 SCRA 155 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, p. 62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Annex "A" of Answer, id., at 125.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Annex "D" of Complaint, id., at 107.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
234 SCRA 78 (1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |