Modesto Acuña Co Chongco v. Dievas · G.R. 4416

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

Petitioner: Modesto Acuña Co Chongco
Respondent: El Chino Dievas
Citation: G.R. No. 4416
Court: Supreme Court En Banc
Division: En Banc
Ponente: Torres, J.
Decided: December 16, 1908

Summary

This 1908 Supreme Court case involved a business dispute between Modesto Acuña Co Chongco and Chinese businessman Dievas over profit-sharing and accounting in their sugar business partnership from 1894-1905. Co Chongco claimed Dievas owed P2,694.89 from advances and transactions, while Dievas counterclaimed P18,323.33 in unpaid profit shares plus P1,050.75 for lumber. The Supreme Court applied Civil Code provisions on legal compensation (set-off), finding only P754.94 owed to Co Chongco and P1,050.75 owed to Dievas were sufficiently proven. After set-off, the Court ordered Co Chongco to pay Dievas the difference of P295.81 with interest. The decision established important precedent on the application of set-off principles in mutual debt situations and the burden of proof required for business account claims.

Statutes applied

Civil Code, Art. 1195

Related cases

Other Philippine cases on the same provisions and issues.

Yap Unki v. Chua Jamco G.R. No. 5202
Jacinta Escaño v. The Heirs of the Deceased Fernando Escaño G.R. No. 8421
Jose de La Peña y de Ramon v. Federico Hidalgo G.R. No. 6626
Henry A. Brimo Y Salvador E. Imperial, Recurrentes-Apelados, Contra Goldenberg & Co., Inc., Y Otro, Recurridos-Apelantes; Antonio A. Brimo, Tercerista-Apelado/Recurrente-Apelado, Contra Goldenberg & Co., Inc., Y Otro, Recurridos-Apelantes G.R. No. 45196
In re Mercantile Bank of China G.R. No. 43680

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

By the Intellegal Editorial Board · December 16, 1908

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →

AI-assisted case analysis — for research only. Verify against the official decision. A research aid, not legal advice; using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer. Verify every holding and citation against the official decision (Supreme Court E-Library / Official Gazette) before relying on it.