Venzon v Rural Bank of Buenavista, G.R. No. 178031, August 28, 2013 CASE DIGEST

 Facts:

    The petitioner filed to nullify the foreclosure proceedings and the Tax Declaration issued in the name of the respondent. The petitioner alleged that in 1983 she and her late spouse obtained a Php 5,000.00 loan from the respondent against a mortgage on their house and lot; that she was able to pay Php 2,300.00, thus leaving an outstanding balance of only Php 2,300.00; that sometime in March 1987, she offered to pay the said balance in full but was refused by the respondent; that in March 1987, the respondent foreclosed the mortgage and the property was sold at auction and the respondent being the highest bidder; that the foreclosure proceedings are null and void for lack of notice and publication of the sale; and that the petitioner paid the respondent Php 6,000.00 on October 9, 1995, as evidence by an official receipt issued by the respondent. In its answer, the respondent claimed that the petitioner did not make any payment on the loan; that the foreclosure proceedings were regularly done and all requirements were complied with; and that the Php 6,000.00 paid by the petitioner is utterly false.

Issue:

    WoN the petitioner is entitled to a return of the Php 6,000.00 she paid to the respondent?

Ruling:

(solutio indebiti; 2154-2163)

    Yes, the petitioner is entitled to a return of the Php 6,000.00 she paid the respondent.

    While this may not be validly considered as a redemption of her property as the payment was made long after the redemption period had expired, the respondent had no right to receive the amount. If something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.