057 Manuel Ormachea Tin Congco, deceased, represented by Chinaman Tui Tusay vs Santiago Trillana

FACTS:
 Tin-Congco, a Chinaman, presented an amended complaint against Santiago Trillana, alleging that:
 Plaintiff Ormachea and Ong Queco were engaged in business and that in the course thereof the defendant
purchased from them merchandise to the value of 4,000 pesos
 Two years prior to that date, the partnership was dissolved and the business was divided up between the
partners, all accounts and debts of Trillana were allotted to Congco, and became the individual property of
Ormachea Tin-Congco;
 The indebtedness is proven by the documents signed by Trillana or his agents in favor of Ormachea or of
Ong Queco or their agent Lawa in charge of the business. The documents of indebtedness are inserted in the
complaint and duly numbered. They aggregate 135 documents; plus legal interest which makes the total debt
amount to 5,500 pesos.
 The debt has not been paid by Trillana.
 Plaintiff sued Santiago Trillana to pay the said 5,500 pesos with costs.
 Trillana alleges that he had already settled his accounts and obligations contracted in the business, by
means of periodical payments in tuba or the liquor of the nipa palm, and that if any accounts are still pending,
the same should, owing to their character and the manner in which they were constituted, be paid in kind and
not in money as the plaintiff claims in his complaint, and should be paid at the time and under the circumstances
which, as is customary in Hagonoy, such class of obligations are settled; he therefore asked the court below to
enter judgment absolving the defendant of the complaint.
 LC ordered Trillana to pay to the Chinaman Florentino Tiu Tusay, the judicial administrator of the estate of
the deceased plaintiff the sum of P2,832.22.

ISSUE: Whether a manager of a business, after definite dissolution of partnership, has authority to release
debtors

RULING: No. Decision Affirmed.

After the close of the business, the management and administration of which was intrusted to a certain person, and
after the expiration of two years from the date of his withdrawal, he could not legally issue a document or warrant
which would fully exempt the debtor of the proprietors of said business or of the partner whom the credits claimed
to have been extinguished may belong because he had no authority for such an act. After the close of the business of
the distillery owned by Ormachea and Vizmanos, and after Lawa had ceased for two years to act in the
administration and management thereof, he was not authorized to sign the document marked "A," made out by the
debtor, by which the credit of Ormachea should be considered as settled, and the obligation contracted by Santiago
Trillana, as shown by the vales which appear in the record, extinguished.

Article 1162 of said code reads: Payment must be made to the person in whose favor an obligation is constituted, or
to another authorized to receive it in his name. A debt can only be presumed to have been paid and an obligation
fulfilled when the proof of their existence has been delivered to the debtor and not when the documents showing the
existence of the debt are still in the hands of the creditor. The payment of the debt having been stipulated by the
parties to be made in kind and not in money, there is no cause nor legal reason why such an agreement should not be
complied with. Since the vales existed, and were in the possession of the creditor, it was because the amounts they
called for had not presumed to have been fulfilled when the proofs of its existence have been returned to the debtor.
Seeing that the amounts stated in the vales acknowledged by the debtor were advanced to him in part payment of the
price of certain quantities of tuba or liquor of the nipa palm which he had contracted to deliver at the distillery, and
as long as he is able to comply with these stipulations within a reasonable time, the defendant can not be compelled
to pay his debt in cash. The amounts stated in the vales were advanced under the condition that the same would be
paid or satisfied with the value of the tuba received by the distillery; therefore, the decision of the court below,
which moreover appears to have been acquiesced in by the appellee for the reason that it was undoubtedly so
stipulated, is in accordance with the law.