MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO., plaintiff-appellee, vs.

MARIANO MEDINA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS: Mariano Medina had certain accounts with Manila Trading & Supply CO
consolidated into a total balance due of P60,000, evidenced by a promissory note for
P60,000, with 12% per annum interest, payable in monthly installments of P4,000.00
plus interest. 

Manila Trading & Supply Co. filed a complaint against Medina in the Court of First
Instance of Manila, claiming that Medina had failed to meet the installments due on the
note for the months of September, 1956 up to and including January 7, 1957.

Medina testified and asserted that in addition to the twenty-one payments

acknowledged by plaintiff company, he had made ten other payments that, added to
the former, showed that he had paid more than P4,000.00 a month since the execution of
the note up to the filing of the complaint, and was, therefore, not in default. 

To bolster his claim, Medina exhibited ten additional receipts signed by the plaintiff's
cashier, but without numbers or year dates, which was denied by the assistant
accountant of Manila Trading.

ISSUE: W/N Medina was correct in saying that genuine receipts dated January 1957
raise the presumption that prior installments were paid.

RULE OF LAW: For the presumption in Art. 1176 (par.2) to apply, it is not enough that
the receipt for the installment paid be dated; it must also specify that the receipt is for
the payment of a particular installment due, for example, on a certain month. Thus, if
the date of the receipt is January 1999, this fact alone by itself cannot justify the
inference that the January installment has been paid. The receipt may have been for a
prior installment.

APPLICATION  No. 

The authenticity of the signatures appended to them does not prove that they were
issued in 1956 or 1957, as claimed by the appellant, nor that should be credited to the
note Exh. "A". It is not all improbable that these mutilated receipts were among those
issued to the appellant prior to the consolidation of his accounts and the execution of
the promissory note.
CONCLUSION:
Judgment appealed is hereby AFFIRMED