OLIVIA NAVOA AND ERNESTO NAVOA VS. C.A.

,
TERESITA DOMDOMA AND EDUARDO DOMDOMA
GR No 59255 20 December1995
Ponente: BELLOSILLO, J.:

FACTS:

On December 1977 Teresita Domdoma and Eduardo

Domdoma filed a case with the RTC for collection of various
sums of money based on loans given by them to Olivia
Navoa. The cased was dismissed on the ground that there
was no cause of action and that the Domdomas do not have
no capacity to sue. They appealed to the C.A. and was
granted a favourable decision. There were 6 instances in
which the Domdomas gave Olivia Navoa a loan. The first
instance is when Teresita gave Olivia a diamond ring valued
at 15,000.00 which was secured by a PCIB check under the
condition that if the ring was not returned within 15 days
from August 15, 1977 the ring is considered sold. Teresita
attempted to deposit the check on November 1977 but the
check was not honoured for lack of funds. After this
instance, there were other loans of various amounts that
were extended by Teresita to Olivia, loans which were
secured by PCIB checks, which were all dated to 1 month
after the loan. All these checks were not honoured under the
same reason as the first loan.

ISSUE:

1.Was the decision of the RTC to dismiss the case due

to having no cause of action valid?

RULING:

1.NO, A cause of action is the fact or combination of

facts which affords a party a right to judicial interference in
his behalf. For the first loan it is a fact, that the ring was
considered sold to Olivia Navoa 15 days after August 15,
1977, and even then, Olivia Navoa failed to pay the price for
the ring when the payment was due (check issued was not
honoured.

ONGTECO, ERIKA THERESE GONZAGA

CIVIL PROCEDURE
TOPIC: CAUSE OF ACTION
Thus it is confirmed that Teresitas right under the
agreement was violated. As for the other loans extended by
Teresita to Olivia, they were all secured by PCIB checks.

It can be inferred that since the checks were all dated

to 1 month after the loan, it follows that the loans are then
payable 1 month after they were contracted, and also these
checks were dishonoured by the bank for lack of funds.
Olivia and Ernesto Navoa failed to make good the checks
that were issued as payment for their obligations. Art 1169
of the Civil Code is explicit: those obliged to deliver /or to do
something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially
or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfilment of the
obligations, the continuing refusal of Olivia and Ernesto
Navoa to comply with the demand of payment shows the
existence of a cause of action.

ONGTECO, ERIKA THERESE GONZAGA

CIVIL PROCEDURE
TOPIC: CAUSE OF ACTION