Person with P30,000 debt accidentally pays P50,000 after saying he only has P5,000. Can he claim his money back?
Money has always been a sensitive topic, especially in the context of debt or utang.
Whether two people are the best of friends or full-blooded relatives, chances are there’d be a blur in their relationship once something goes awry with the payment—or the lack thereof.
A viral Facebook post showed a screenshot of a purported Messenger conversation, in which the sender (Person A) was telling the receiver that he loaned his friend (Person B) the sum of P30,000 last year.
Person B hasn’t paid Person A yet due to a lack of money, according to the chat.
Person A asked if Person B could pay even P10,000, but Person B said he could only pay P5,000.
“Dahil na sa oras ka ng kagipitan ay pumayag na lang ako at binigay ang bank account ko para itransfer nya,” Person A said.
But to his surprise, Person A saw that his balance was sitting at P50,000.
Person A said he checked his phone and saw 73 missed calls and 40 text messages from Person B, who’s begging him to return P45,000 as he mistakenly added another zero to the P5,000 he had planned to send.
“Ano ba magandang gawin?” Person A asked, during which he gave three options: “A.) Ibalik ang 45k, B.) Kunin ang 30k na hindi pa nababayaran sayo, C.) Wag na ibalik ang 50k.”
The post has garnered over 19,000 reactions (mostly “Haha”) to date.
Many commenters chose B, even joking that Person A should thank Person B.
Others suggested C instead, noting the hassle that Person A went through in claiming back his money from Person B.
So, what's the right approach to this tricky situation?
Novation, payment by mistake
Atty. Mark Joseph Bautista, who handles cases in line with finance and money, told PhilSTAR L!fe that contracts are consensual by nature unless the law requires that a specific form be made for its validity.
When it comes to loans, however, it all boils down to parties knowing what their respective obligations are, which can also be amended by mere agreement.
Since Person A agreed to Person B's request to pay P5,000 instead of the original P30,000, the principle of novation or the replacement of a contractual obligation already applies, according to Atty. John Carlo Pascual, who also handles money-related cases.
If Person A wouldn't honor that, Pascual noted that there may be unjust enrichment on his part.
"Such scenario will result in solutio indebiti (payment by mistake), as Person A has no longer the right to collect the original amount of the loan of P30,000," he told L!fe. "There was no mention that the P5,000 shall be considered as mere installment payment of the original loan amount."
Bautista took note of Article 2154 of the Civil Code, which states that “if something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.”
"There is no such thing as finders keepers. Kahit nga ang nawawalang bagay, kapag hindi sinauli or sinurrender, dapat isauli," he said.
Bausita noted that if Person A keeps the P30,000—despite it being their initial, original agreement—he will be liable to return the P25,000 plus the excess P20,000 under the eyes of the law.
"Person B complied with his obligation to pay the P5,000 (to Person A)," he noted.
Civil damages
Pascual said Person B may file for an action for the collection of money since Person A no longer has the right to retain the excess amount of P45,000.
Person B may also file for civil damages, Bautista added.
"But they should try to settle it first," he said.
Nevertheless, if Person A chooses to keep the money, he won't still be liable for theft since Person B made a mistake.
Not necessarily dishonest
As for psychologist Lordy Santos a.k.a. Tito Mong Psychologist, Person B mistakenly sending P50,000 doesn’t necessarily mean he could already pay Person A and was being dishonest about it.
“It’s a very difficult situation to give direct advice or explanation, especially if we do not know the condition or situation,” he told L!fe, noting that everything is based on a screenshot alone.
While the prevailing assumption was that Person B lied to Person A, there may be instances like the P45,000 belonging to other people, being reserved for other payables, and being allotted for emergencies, among others.
Santos said the best way to resolve the issue is to have an open conversation between Persons A and B.
“Despite our own personal biases as to how we know another person or what his/her activities are, a benefit of the doubt at times can help sort a problem,” he said.
As to whether Person B was indeed lying or not, Santos noted that it’s a "complex concept" that could stem from a defense mechanism, a way of self-preservation, a form of habit, a mental health condition, or even an intention to take advantage of someone.
“The only way we can identify the true intent is to have an open conversation (with Person B),” Santos said, “maybe even with the people who are closely related to him/her."
Theft
Financial consultant Fitz Villafuerte told L!fe that everything boils down to the proof of agreement.
If texts or other evidence prove that Person B borrowed P30,000 from Person A—and that Person A agreed to be paid P5,000 instead—Villafuerte said everything could be legally done through small claims court.
He gave three possible outcomes:
- If Person A returns the P45,000, he can go to small claims court and ask for the P25,000 balance of the original loan from Person B.
- If Person A does not return the P45,000, Person B can go to small claims court and ask for the P45,000 back. At this point, Person A can file his counterclaim against Person B to get the P25,000 balance.
- If Person A only returns P20,000, Person B can go to small claims court to ask for the P25,000.
In any case, Villafuerte warned Person A against keeping the entire money.
“If he does, he has become a thief,” Villafuerte said. “Even without facing criminal charges, that moral fact will remain.”
