SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227060. November 5, 2018.]
ROMULO L. RICAFORT, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES RENEE ROY DE GUZMAN AND NAMIR DE GUZMAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 November 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227060 (Romulo L. Ricafort v. Spouses Renee Roy De Guzman and Namir De Guzman)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the February 5, 2016 Decision 2 and the August 22, 2016 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 129745, which affirmed the August 30, 2012 Decision 4 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217 (RTC) finding petitioner Romulo L. Ricafort (petitioner) liable to pay the amount of P336,959.46, with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from November 2002 until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment, in accordance with recent jurisprudence, 5 to respondents Spouses Renee Roy De Guzman and Namir De Guzman (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner signed the Promissory Note 6 evidencing the loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) not as an agent of the deceased Spouses Maximo and Emiliana Roy (Spouses Roy) but in his personal capacity, and therefore, as principal borrower. 7 Records show that Spouses Roy, through a Special Power of Attorney, 8 merely accommodated petitioner by allowing him to mortgage their property as collateral for the loan. 9 Moreover, records are bereft of evidence to show that Spouses Roy received any part of the proceeds of the loan. Considering that respondents have fully paid the outstanding amount of the loan in order to prevent PNB from foreclosing the mortgage constituted on Spouses Roy's property, 10 respondents are therefore entitled to reimbursement of the said amount from petitioner, inclusive of interests, in accordance with Article 1236 11 of the Civil Code.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-28.
2.Id. at 44-51. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.
3.Id. at 66-67.
4.Id. at 38-43. Penned by Judge Santiago M. Arenas.
5.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).
6. Not attached to the rollo.
7. See rollo, pp. 49 and 50.
8. See id. at 60-61.
9. See id. at 47.
10. See id. at 50.
11. Article 1236 of the Civil Code reads:
Article 1236. The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that 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.