Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. v CA; G.R. No. 109172; August 19, 1994; Bidin, J.
- Bianca May Dorado
- Jun 25, 2020
- 2 min read
FACTS:
Petitioner Trans-Pacific applied for loan which was secured by four promissory notes, real estate mortgage of three lands and chattel mortgage of petitioner’s stock and inventories. Petitioner failed to pay in full so he secured another promissory note. The lands were sold and turned over to the respondent bank. Petitioner expressed willingness to pay at first but changed it instead he prayed that the land be released and its obligation be declared as fully paid. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner citing Art. 1271 of the Civil Code that the documents in possession of the petitioner marked “paid” were evidence of its discharge in indebtedness. While CA reversed this saying it cannot be a basis since the promissory notes were duplicates not original.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the private documents contemplated in Art. 1271 must be original copies.
RULING:
No.
It is undisputed that the documents presented were duplicate originals and are therefore admissible as evidence. Further, it must be noted that respondent bank itself did not bother to challenge the authenticity of the duplicate copies submitted by petitioner. Duplicate copies may be admissible if the original copies are with the adverse party.
It may not be amiss to add that Article 1271 of the Civil Code raises a presumption, not of payment, but of the renunciation of the credit where more convincing evidence would be required than what normally would be called for to prove payment. The rationale for allowing the presumption of renunciation in the delivery of a private instrument is that, unlike that of a public instrument, there could be just on copy of the evidence of credit. Where 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. It would thus be absorb if Article 1271 were to be applied differently.
Comments