JALANDONI v ENCOMIENDA

GEORGIA O. JALANDONI v CARMEN A. ENCOMIENDA

G.R. No. 205578

March 1, 2017

Facts:

The petitioner Georgia O. Jalandoni met the respondent Carmen A. Encomienda when the latter was purchasing a condominium unit while the former was then a real estate broker. From then on, Jalandoni and Encomienda became close friends.

On March 2, 1997, Jalandoni borrowed an amount of money worth P100,000.00 to Encomienda. The said amount of money borrowed by Jalandoni is for the purpose of using it as expenses for the search and rescue operations for her children who were allegedly taken away by their father, Luis Jalandoni. When the petitioner was in Manila, she borrowed money again to support errands for the search and rescue, salaries of her driver, helper, various plane fare, cellphone bill and many more. On April 1, 1997, the petitioner borrowed another P1 Million where Jalandoni promised to pay when her bank loan matures. After the event of borrowing a million, Jalandoni still again and again borrowed large amount of money to Encomienda. To sum it all, the respondent spent around P3, 245, 836. 02 and $6, 638. 20 for Jalandoni.

By the time that Jalandoni came back to Cebu, she never informed the respondent. Bothered by the petitioner’s action, the respondent then filed a settlement in the Barangay. In the Lupong Tagapamayapa of the Barangay’s preliminary investigation, Jalandoni attested her debt to Encomienda and even promised to pay for it after she has talked to her lawyer for the settlement. But still, no settlement has been done so Encomienda decided to file the case in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Jalandoni’s defense says that they never reached a discussion about a loan and all that Encomienda has offered is purely out of charity. The Cebu City RTC then DISMISSED Encomienda’s complaint. But it did not stop there, Encomienda brought the case at the Court of Appeals where the decision of the RTC was REVERSED AND SET-ASIDE. Jalandoni then filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether or not Encomienda is entitled to be reimbursed for the amounts she defrayed to Jalandoni?

Held:

The petitioner insists that she never borrowed any amount of money from Encomienda. And that they never reach into a discussion about a loan. Therefore, all that Encomienda has offered is purely out of charity. Jalandoni’s biggest contention is that the amounts she received from Encomienda were mostly provided and paid without her prior knowledge and thus, she has not consented to any loan agreement. As the foregoing, there is no any documentary evidence to prove the claims of Encomienda. However, the second paragraph of Article 1236 of the Civil Code, provides: Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except if he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.

As what it can be seen, Jalandoni really did benefit from the unauthorized payments. Although it can be her defense that she is not knowledgeable of Encomienda’s acts so she was not able to go against it, the explicit fact that she benefitted from it gives Encomienda then the right to be paid with the amount of money she also gave to the petitioner.

The Principle of Unjust Enrichment is highly visible in this case. Unjust Enrichment exists when a person unfairly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Wherefore, premises considered, the Court DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City dated March 29, 2012 and its Resolution dated December 19, 2012 in CA-G.R. CV No. 01339, with MODIFICATION as the interest which must be twelve percent (12%) per annum of the amount awarded from the time of demand on August 14, 1997 to June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until its satisfaction.