Toribio v. Foz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Felisa Toribio sold her rights of redemption and lease over a property (Certificate of Title No. 2263) to defendant spouses Dolores Foz and Buenaventura Toribio for P2,200, less P700 that plaintiff owed the defendants. On January 26, 1914, Dolores Foz, in her name and that of her husband, executed an instrument acknowledging a debt of P1,500 to Felisa Toribio, representing the balance of the purchase price. Procedural History: Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking rescission of the contract or payment of P1,500 plus interest. The Court of First Instance of Manila ordered Dolores Foz to pay P1,193, later amended to jointly hold Dolores Foz and Buenaventura Toribio liable for P1,500 plus interest and costs. Defendants appealed the decision. The Appeal: The defendants appealed the judgment, arguing that they had fully paid the purchase price of the property rights. They contended that the P1,500 debt acknowledged in the instrument of indebtedness was settled through various payments prior to the execution of the deed of sale. The plaintiff, however, maintained that the P1,500 was not fully paid, and the statement in the deed of sale acknowledging full payment was made to accommodate the defendants' financial transactions.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants fully paid the P1,500 balance for the purchase of the plaintiff's property rights. Whether the plaintiff's possession of the certificate of indebtedness constitutes prima facie evidence of an unpaid debt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,500 with legal interest. The Court found that the defendants failed to provide sufficient proof of payment for the P1,500 balance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants failed to prove their claim of having fully paid the P1,500 balance. While the defendants alleged several partial payments totaling P1,500 (P307, P693, and P500), they could not present receipts for these payments, except for the P307 payment acknowledged by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the notary public before whom some of these alleged payments were made denied witnessing any such transactions. The defendants' failure to produce conclusive proof of payment, especially when the plaintiff retained the instrument of indebtedness, was fatal to their defense. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging payment, and mere assertions are insufficient without corroborating evidence. The defendants were duty-bound to furnish such proof, which they failed to do. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's possession of the certificate of indebtedness for P1,500, which was not cancelled or returned to the defendants, constituted prima facie evidence that the debt remained unpaid. This is in accordance with Section 334, No. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which presumes that a debt continues to exist unless the contrary is proven. The defendants' argument that the statement in the deed of sale acknowledging full payment of P2,200 was sufficient proof was rejected. The Court noted that the notary did not attest to the actual payment, and the plaintiff denied receiving the full amount, stating the deed was executed to facilitate the defendants' financial transactions. The defendants' failure to prove actual payment, despite possessing the original debt instrument, meant the presumption of non-payment stood.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the defendants failed to sufficiently prove their payment of the P1,500 debt. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff's possession of the undelivered certificate of indebtedness served as evidence that the debt remained unpaid. The defendants' failure to present receipts for alleged partial payments and the notary's denial of witnessing any payment further weakened their defense. Consequently, the Court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the unpaid balance.