BPI v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 571, G.R. No. 116792, Marc 29, 1996 !e"al Co#pe$sat%o$. Co#pe$sat%o$. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. Article 1290 of the Civil Code provides that when all the requisites mentioned in Article 129 are present, compensation takes e!ect b" operation of law, and e#tinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation. compensation . !e"al co#pe$sat%o$ operates eve$ a"a% a"a%$s $stt te te &%ll &%ll of te te %$te %$tere rest ste' e' part part%e %es s a$' a$' eve$ eve$ &%t &%tou outt te te co$s co$se$ e$tt of te# te#.. S%$c S%$ce e t%s t%s co#pe$sat%o$ ta(es place ipso jure, %ts e)ects ar%se o$ te ver* 'a* o$ &%c all %ts re+u%s%tes co$cur. e$ use' as a 'efe$se, %t retroacts to te 'ate &e$ %ts re+u%s%tes are ful-lle'. $he elements of legal compensation are all present present in the case at bar. bar. $he obligors obligors bound principall" are at the same time creditors of each other. %etitioner bank stands as a debtor of the private respondent, depositor. At the same time, said bank is the creditor of the private respondent with respect to the dishonored &.'. $reasur" (arrant which the latter illegall" transferred to his )oint account. $he debts involves consist of a sum of mone". $he" are due, liquidated, and demandable. $he" are not claimed b" a third person. le#e$t of Mutual%t* v%s/a/v%s !e"al Co#pe$sat%o$. / *t is true that the )oint account of private respondent and his wife was debited in the case at bar. (e hold that the presence of private respondents wife does not negate the element of mutualit" of parties, i.e., that the" must be creditors and debtors of each other in their own right. $he wife of private respondent respondent is not a part" in the case at bar. 'he never asserted an" right to the debited &.'. $reasur" $reasur" (arrant. (arrant. *ndeed, the right of the petitioner petitioner bank to make the debit is clear and cannot be doubted. $o $o frustrate the application of legal compensation on the ground that the parties are not all mutuall" obligated would result in un)ust enrichment on the part of the private respondent and his wife who herself out of honest" has not ob)ected to the debit. $he rule as to mutualit" is strictl" applied at law. +ut not in equit", where to allow the same would defeat a clear right or permit irremediable in)ustice. 0acts %rivate respondent opened a 'avings Account at petitioner +ank of the %hilippine *slands +%*- Cubao, 'hopping &%fe. /e also held a 'avings Account 23 &%t %s "ra$'#oter. "ra$'#oter. Center +ranch *t is an 13 accou$t &%t %s &%fe. /e regularl" deposited in this account the &.'. $reasur" (arrants pa"able to the order of her grandmother as her monthl" pension. /er grandmother died on 4ece#er 2, 199 without the knowledge of the &.'. $reasur" epartment. 'he was still sent &.'. $reasur" (arrant dated a$uar* dated a$uar* 1, 1998 in the amount of &.'. .00 or %10,334.00. 5n a$uar* 5n a$uar* , 1998, 1998, private respondent deposited the said &.'. treasur" check of 6ernande7 in 'avings Account 8o. 13 0122. $he &.'. :eterans Administration 5;ce in
6actu 6actualal- (hether (hether private private respon respondent dent verball verball" " autor%;e' petitioner bank to debit his )oint account with his wife for the amount of the returned &.'. $reasur" (arrant. >es. (hether (hether there there was was legal legal compensati compensation on in the presen presentt case. >es. >es. (hether (hether the princ principle iple of of mutualit" mutualit" was was violated violated in the the present present case. case. 8o. 8o.
Rul%$" < Rat%o 1.
$he Court =nds that petitioners were able to prove t%s veral autor%t* * prepo$'era$ce of ev%'e$ce. $he testimonies of +ernardo and ?omero deserve credence. (e are not disposed to believe private respondents allegation that he did not give an" verbal authori7ation. /is testimon" is u$corroorate'.. /is past and fraudulent conduct is an evidence against him. /e concealed from petitioner bank the death of 6ernande7 on 4ece#er 2, 199. As of that date, he knew that 6ernande7 was no longer entitled to receive an" pension. 8onetheless, he still received the &.'. $reasur" (arrant of 6ernande7, and on @anuar" , 1990 deposited the same in 'avings Account 8o. 130122. $o preempt a refund, private respondent closed his )oint account with 6ernande7 'avings Account 8o. 13 0122- on Marc , 1998 and tra$sferre' its balance to his )oint account with his wife 'avings Account 8o. 1301234-. (orse, private respondent declared under the penalties of per)ur" in the withdrawal slip dated
2.
Co#pe$sat%o$ shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. Art%cle 1298 of the Civil Code provides that when all the requisites mentioned in Art%cle 1279 are prese$t, co#pe$sat%o$ ta(es e)ect * operat%o$ of la&, a$' e=t%$"u%ses ot 'ets to te co$curre$t a#ou$t, eve$ tou" te cre'%tors a$' 'etors are $ot a&are of te co#pe$sat%o$. Begal compensation operates even against the will of the interested parties and even &%tout te co$se$t of te#. 'ince this compensation takes place ipso jure, its e!ects arise on the ver" da" on which all its requisites concur. (hen used as a defense, it retroacts to the date when its requisites are ful=lled. $he elements of legal compensation are all present in the case at bar. $he obligors bound principall" are at the same time creditors of each other. %etitioner bank stands as a debtor of the private respondent, a depositor. At the same time, said bank is the creditor of the private respondent with respect to the dishonored &.'. $reasur" (arrant which the latter illegall" transferred to his )oint account. $he debts involved consist of a sum of mone". $he" are due, liquidated, and demandable. $he" are not claimed b" a third person.
.
*t is true that the )oint account of private respondent a$' %s &%fe was debited in the case at bar. (e hold that the presence of private respondents wife does not negate the element of mutualit" of parties, i.e., that the" must be creditors and debtors of each other in their own right. $he wife of private respondent is not a part" in the case at bar. 'he never asserted an" right to the debited &.'. $reasur" (arrant. *ndeed, the right of the petitioner bank to make the debit is clear and cannot be doubted. $o frustrate the application of legal compensation on the ground that the parties are not all mutuall" obligated would result in un)ust enrichment on the part of the private respondent and his wife who herself out of honest" has not ob)ected to the debit.
IN >I ?R@0, the ecision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA.?. C: 8o. 13 dated August 14,199 is A88&BBD and 'D$ A'*D and the ecision of the trial court in Civil Case 8o. E9131 dated @anuar" 20, 199 is ?D*8'$A$D. Costs against private respondent.
