UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 191555 January 20, 2014

Facts:
 Foodmasters, Inc. (FI) had outstanding loan obligations to both Union Bank’s predecessor-in-
interest, Bancom Development Corporation (Bancom), and to Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP).
 FI and DBP entered into a Deed of Cession of Property In Payment of Debt (dacion en pago)
whereby the former ceded in favor of the latter certain properties (including a processing plant)
in consideration of the following:
(a) The full and complete satisfaction of FI’s loan obligations to DBP; and
(b) The direct assumption by DBP of FI’s obligations to Bancom in the amount of
P17,000,000.00 (Assumed Obligations).
 DBP, as the new owner of the processing plant, leased back for 20 years the said property to FI
(Lease Agreement) which was, in turn, obliged to pay monthly rentals to be shared by DBP and
Bancom.
 DBP also entered into a separate agreement with Bancom (Assumption Agreement) whereby
the former:
(a) Confirmed its assumption of FI’s obligations to Bancom; and
(b) Undertook to remit up to 30% of any and all rentals due from FI to Bancom which
would serve as payment of the assumed obligations, to be paid in monthly installments.
 On May 23, 1979, FI assigned its leasehold rights under the Lease Agreement to Foodmasters
Worldwide, Inc. (FW)
 On May 9, 1984, Bancom conveyed all its receivables, including DBP’s assumed obligations, to
Union Bank.
 Claiming that the subject rentals have not been duly remitted despite its repeated demands,
Union Bank filed a collection case against DBP before the RTC.
 DBP countered that the obligations it assumed were payable only out of the rental payments
made by FI. Since, FI had yet to pay the same, DBP’s obligation to Union Bank had not arisen.
 RTC: Finding the complaint to be meritorious, RTC ordered:
(a) DBP to pay Union Bank the sum of P4,019,033.59, representing the amount of the
subject rentals (which constitutes 30% of FI’s [now FW’s] total rental debt), including
interest until fully paid; and
(b) FW, as third-party defendant, to indemnify DBP, as third- party plaintiff, for its
payments of the subject rentals to Union Bank.
 RTC ruled that when DBP failed to remit the subject rentals to Union Bank, it defaulted on its
assumed obligations. 
 CA: On May 27, 1994, CA Set aside the RTC’s ruling, and consequently ordered:
(a) FW to pay DBP the amount of P32,441,401.85 representing the total rental debt
incurred under the Lease Agreement, and
(b) DBP, after having been paid by FW its unpaid rentals, to remit 30% thereof to Union
Bank.
 CA ruled that DBP did not default in its obligations to remit the subject rentals to Union Bank
precisely because it had yet to receive the rental payments of FW.
 Union Bank and DBP filed separate petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme
Court.
 SC: Denied both petitions in a Resolution. SC upheld the CA’s finding that while DBP directly
assumed FI’s obligations to Union Bank, DBP was only obliged to remit to the latter 30% of the
lease rentals collected from FW, from which any deficiency was to be settled by DBP not later
than December 29, 1998.
 On May 16, 2001, Union Bank filed a motion for execution before the RTC, praying that DBP be
directed to pay the amount of P9,732,420.555 which represents the amount of the subject
rentals (i.e., 30% of the FW’s total rental debt in the amount of P32,441,401.85). DBP
opposed Union Bank’s motion.
 On September 12, 2001, DBP filed its own motion for execution against FW.
 RTC: Granted both motions for execution of Union Bank and DBP on October 15, 2001 (Order of
Execution). As a result, a notice of garnishment against DBP were issued.
 DBP filed a motion for reconsideration averring that the RTC prematurely ordered DBP to pay
the assumed obligations to Union Bank before FW’s payment. The motion was denied. Thus,
DBP’s deposits were eventually garnished. DBP then filed a petition for certiorari before the
CA.
 CA: Dismissed DBP’s petition, finding that the RTC did not abuse its discretion when it issued
the October 15, 2001 Writ of Execution. DBP appealed the CA’s ruling before the SC.
 SC: On January 13, 2004, SC granted DBP’s appeal, and thereby reversed and set aside the CA’s
ruling. SC acknowledged that DBP’s obligation to Union Bank for remittance of the lease
payments is contingent on FW’s prior payment to DBP, and that any deficiency DBP had to pay
by December 29, 1998 as per the Assumption Agreement cannot be determined until after the
satisfaction of FW’s own rental obligations to DBP.
 Accordingly, the SC:
(a) nullified the October 15, 2001 Writ of Execution and all related issuances thereto; and;
(b) ordered Union Bank to return to DBP the amounts it received pursuant to the said writ.
 Union Bank moved for reconsideration which was denied by the SC.
 DBP moved for the execution of the said decision before the RTC. The RTC then issued a writ of
execution (September 6, 2005 Writ of Execution), ordering Union Bank to return to DBP all
funds it received pursuant to the October 15, 2001 Writ of Execution.
 On September 13, 2005, Union Bank filed a Manifestation and Motion to Affirm Legal
Compensation to the RTC, praying that the RTC apply legal compensation between itself and
DBP in order to offset the return of the funds it previously received from DBP.
 Union Bank anchored its motion on two grounds, namely:
(a) on December 29, 1998, DBP’s assumed obligations became due and
demandable; and
(b) considering that FW became non-operational and non-existent, DBP became
primarily liable to the balance of its assumed obligation, which as of Union Bank’s
computation after its claimed set-off, amounted to P1,849,391.87.
 RTC: Denied the above-mentioned motion for lack of merit. With Union Bank’s motion for
reconsideration having been denied, Union Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
 Pending resolution, Union Bank issued a Manager’s Check amounting to P52,427,250.00 in favor
of DBP, in satisfaction of the Writ of Execution dated September 6, 2005.
 CA: Dismissed Union Bank’s petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the RTC’s part. CA
affirmed the denial of its motion to affirm legal compensation considering that:
(a) the RTC only implemented the Supreme Court’s January 13, 2004 Decision which by
then had already attained finality;
(b) DBP is not a debtor of Union Bank; and
 (c) there is neither a demandable nor liquidated debt from DBP to Union Bank.
 Union Bank moved for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated February 26,
2010; hence, the instant petition.

Issue:
W/N the CA correctly upheld the denial of Union Bank’s motion to affirm legal compensation.

Ruling:
Yes. The petition is bereft of merit. Compensation is defined as a mode of extinguishing obligations
whereby two persons in their capacity as principals are mutual debtors and creditors of each other with
respect to equally liquidated and demandable obligations to which no retention or controversy has been
timely commenced and communicated by third parties. The requisites therefor are provided under
Article 1279 of the Civil Code which reads as follows:
Art. 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary:
(1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a
principal creditor of the other;
(2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of
the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;
(3) That the two debts be due;
(4) That they be liquidated and demandable;
(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third
persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.
The rule on legal compensation is stated in Article 1290 of the Civil Code which provides that "when all
the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law,
and extinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount, even though the creditors and debtors are not
aware of the compensation."
Therefore, compensation could not have taken place between these debts for the apparent reason that
requisites 3 and 4 under Article 1279 of the Civil Code are not present. Since DBP’s assumed obligations
to Union Bank for remittance of the lease payments are – in the Court’s words – "contingent on the
prior payment thereof by FW to DBP," it cannot be said that both debts are due (requisite 3 of Article
1279 of the Civil Code). Also, the Court observed that any deficiency that DBP had to make up for the full
satisfaction of the assumed obligations "cannot be determined until after the satisfaction of FW’s
obligation to DBP." In this regard, it cannot be concluded that the same debt had already been
liquidated, and thereby became demandable (requisite 4 of Article 1279 of the Civil Code). Thus, CA
correctly upheld the denial of Union Bank’s motion to affirm legal compensation