G.R. No.

82670, decided on September 15, 1989,

involving petitioner Dometila M. Andres, doing business under the name and style "IRENE'S WEARING
APPAREL," as the petitioner, and Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation and the Court of Appeals
as the respondents. The decision was authored by Justice Cortes.

Case Title and Procedural Posture: The case is titled "Dometila M. Andres, doing business under the
name and style 'IRENE'S WEARING APPAREL,' petitioner, vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust
Corporation and Court of Appeals, respondents." It is a petition for review on certiorari to challenge the
judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Legal Dispute: The primary legal dispute revolves around the applicability of Art. 2154 of the New Civil
Code, specifically the doctrine of solutio indebiti, concerning the recovery of a second $10,000.00
remittance delivered to the petitioner by private respondent.

Facts: The petitioner, Irene's Wearing Apparel, was engaged in the manufacture of garments and had
transactions with Facets Funwear, Inc., a buyer from the United States. FACETS remitted $10,000.00 to
petitioner through instructions to the First National State Bank of New Jersey. Due to confusion in the
instructions and delay in remittance, the petitioner received the $10,000.00 twice, the second time
through another bank. The private respondent, Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation, debited
FACETS' account for the second remittance, which was later corrected.

Reliefs Prayed For: The private respondent sought reimbursement or return of the second $10,000.00
remittance and legal interest, plus attorney's fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the
Court of Appeals reversed the decision and granted the reliefs prayed for by the private respondent.

Holding/s and Reasoning: The Court applied Art. 2154 of the New Civil Code (similar to Art. 1895 of
the Spanish Civil Code), which establishes the doctrine of solutio indebiti. It holds that when money is
received without the right to demand it and is unduly delivered through a mistake, the obligation to
return it arises. The Court found that the second remittance was made by mistake and met the requisites
of Art. 2154.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the payment was not a mistake but a result of
negligence by the bank's employees. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' findings of fact and
concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the second remittance.

Resulting Legal Rule/s: Art. 2154 of the New Civil Code was affirmed as the applicable legal rule in this
case, establishing the doctrine of solutio indebiti. It provides a legal basis for the obligation to return
money received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through a mistake.

Disposition: The petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, ordering
the petitioner to reimburse or return the second $10,000.00 remittance with legal interest and
attorney's fees, and to pay the costs.