Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. v.
Lim,
G.R. No. L-9343, December 29, 1959
General Provisions
Facts:
Valentin R. Lim obtained a judgment against Irineo Facundo, "ordering the latter to vacate the premises described in the
complaint (Civil Case No. 32) and to pay the plaintiff a monthly rental of Php 100 until the defendant vacate the premises and to pay
the costs." Irineo Facundo filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition (Case No.
7674) for prohibition against Lucio M. Tinagco as municipal Judge of Rizal City, and Valentin R. Lim, with a prayer of a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued upon filing a bond of Php 1,000 to prevent Judge Tinagco from issuing an alias writ of execution in
civil case No. 32. Upon Facundo's filing of the bond, which was posted by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. (herein plaintiff-
appellee), the court issued the corresponding preliminary injunction. The court dismissed the case and dissolved the writ of
preliminary injunction. Lim then filed a petition with said court asking for damages sustained by him for failure to collect the rentals
because of the issuance of the aforementioned preliminary injunction. The Court of First Instance of Rizal allowed the damages
sought for, and ordered the confiscation of the bond posted by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., and directed the latter to pay to
Lim the full value of said Court. Thereafter, the Court of First Instance of Rizal, issued a writ of directing the Sheriff of Manila to
require the Manila Surety Fidelity Co., Inc. to pay to appellant Valentin R. Lim the sum of Php 1,000 in satisfaction of its liability
under the preliminary injunction bond, and in compliance with the writ of execution, the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., herein
appellee, delivered to the Sheriff of Manila the sum of P1,105.01 in full satisfaction of the writ of execution and the fees of the
Sheriff, of which amount the sum of Php 1,000 was delivered by the Sheriff to appellant Valentin R. Lim. Afterwards, it was later
declared by the Court of First Instance of Rizal that the writs of execution were null and void since they were granted in violation of
Section 9 of Rule 60 in connection with Section 20 of Rule 59 of the Rules of Court, which was affirmed on appeal by the Supreme
Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellee demanded from the defendant-appellant the immediate reimbursement of the payment it
made in compliance with said writs. The defendant-appellant contended that the plaintiff-appellee has paid voluntarily its natural
obligation and therefore is precluded from recovering that which was delivered to defendant-appellant.
Issue: Whether the payment by Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., was made voluntarily
Ruling:
No. Art. 1423 of the Civil Code provides that “Natural obligations, not being based on positive law but on equity and
natural law, do not grant a right of action to enforce their performance, but after voluntary fulfillment by the obligor, they authorize
the retention of what has been delivered or rendered by reason thereof.” Upon careful examination of the foregoing provisions of law
and undisputed facts of the case, we find appellants contention to be untenable, for the payment made by the herein plaintiff-
appellee to defendant-appellant was not voluntary, it was thru a coercive process of the writ of execution issued at the instant and
insistence of the defendant-appellant. Certainly, were it not for said writ of execution, plaintiff-appellee would not have paid to
defendant-appellant the amount in question. It should be noted that at the time the said writ of execution was issued, the right of
defendant-appellant to damages caused unto him by reason of his inability to collect the rents of the property involved the civil
cases, was still pending determination by the Supreme Court, and had defendant-appellant waited for the final decision of the
Supreme Court on said damages, surely he would not have caused the issuance of the writ of execution in said civil cases and thus
compel plaintiff-appellee to pay to him the aforementioned sum of P1,105.01.
