TRANS-PACIFIC v. CA G.R. No. 109172 August 19, 1994 Bidin, J.: !CTRIN": A#t. 1271. The 1271. The delivery of a private document evidencing evidencing a credit credit,, made mad e vol volunt untari arily ly by th the e cr credi editor tor to th the e deb debtor tor,, imp implie lies s the renunciation of the action which the former had against the latter. “The presumption created by the Art. 1271 of the Civil Code is not conclusive but but merely prima facie facie.. f there be no evidence to the contrary cont rary,, the pre presump sumption tion stan stands. ds. Conv Converse ersely, ly, the pr presum esumptio ption n loses los es its leg legal al e! e!cac cacy y in th the e fac face e of pr proof oof or evi evide denc nce e to th the e contrary." FACTS: n 1#7#, petitioner Trans$%aci&c applied for and was granted several &nan &nanci cial al acco accomo moda dati tion ons s amou amount ntin ing g to P1,$00,000.00 P1,$00,000.00 from respondent Associated 'an(. The loans were secured by four )*+ promissory notes, a real estate mortgage covering three parcels of land land,, and and a chat chatte tell mort mortga gage ge over over peti petiti tion oner ers s stoc stoc( ( and and inventories. %etitioner, %etitioner, apparently, cannot pay the obligation in full. Thereafter, petitioner petitioner was re-uested re-uested for and was granted a restructuring of the remaining indebtedness amounting to %1,/7,/.. applying all the penalties and interests. To secure the loan of %1,210,*., three three )0+ promiss promissory ory notes notes 1 were eecuted eecuted by petitioner Trans$ %aci&c. The mortgaged parcels of land were substituted substituted by another mortg mortgage age cover covering ing two other other parce parcels ls of land land and and a chatt chattel el mortgage on petitioners stoc( inventory. According to petitioner, the released released parcels parcels of land were sold for %1,034,4 %1,034,41*.2 1*.2, , the proceeds of which were turned over to the respondent ban( and applied applied to the restru restructur ctured ed loan of petition petitioner er.. 5uplicat 5uplicate e original original copies of the promissory notes were returned with the stamp6 %A5.
1 irst promissory note6 %1,/,. )wor(ing capital+8 9econd6 %121,144. )restructured )restructured interest+ Third6 %*2,20*. )restructured )restructured interest+ interest+
5espite these payments, on 5ecember 12, 1#3/, respondent Associat Associated ed 'an( 'an( demande demanded d payment payment of %*#2,1 %*#2,1. . from petitioner, representing accrued interests. t was also argued that the promissory notes were erroneously released.
nitially, petitioner Trans$%aci&c epressed its willingness to pay the amount amount demanded demanded by the ban(. :owever, :owever, it had a “change “change of heart" and initiated an action before the ;TC of
ered, and the latter fails fails to produ produce ce it after after reasona reasonable ble notice notice,, as in the the case case of respondent ban(." :owever, the petition should still fail. “The presumption created by the Art. 1271 of the Civil Code is not conclusive but merely prima facie. f there be no evidence to the contrary contrary,, the presump presumption tion stands. stands. Converse Conversely, ly, the presump presumption tion loses loses its legal legal e!cacy e!cacy in the the face face of proof proof or evide evidenc nce e to the the contrary." n the case at bar, despite the delivery of promissory notes notes,, the the presu presump mptio tion n of full full payme payment nt of indeb indebte tedn dness ess is overcome overcome by the evidence evidence showing showing that there there was still unpaid unpaid inte interrests ests on the the part part of peti petiti tion oner er,, as seen seen in the the cros cross$ s$ eaminations and testimonies. A#ti*'& 1271 o( t%& Civi' Cod& #)is&s ) #&su3tion, not o( )3&nt, ut o( t%& #&nun*i)tion o( t%& *#&dit 5%&#& 3o#& *onvin*ing &vid&n*& 5ou'd & #&6ui#&d t%)n 5%)t no#3)''
5ou'd & *)''&d (o# to #ov& )3&nt. The rationale for allowing the presumption of renunciation in the delivery of a private instrument is that, unli(e that of a public instrument, there could be ?ust one copy of the evidence of credit. =here several originals are
made out of a private document, the intendment of the law would thus be to refer to the delivery only of the original original rather than to the original duplicate of which the debtor would normally retain a copy."
