October 1906 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > October 1906 Decisions >
G.R. No. 3242 October 17, 1906 - DANIEL TANCHOCO v. SIMPLICIO SUAREZ
006 Phil 491:
006 Phil 491:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 3242. October 17, 1906. ]
DANIEL TANCHOCO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIMPLICIO SUAREZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Simplicio Suarez, in his own behalf.
W. L. Wright, for the other Appellant.
Ramon Salinas, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT. — The Supreme Court, in a case on appeal, will not consider the evidence unless a motion for a new trial was made in the court below.
2. CONTRACT’; PROMISSORY NOT; LIABILITY OF COMAKERS. — Where two or more persons sign a promissory note, which note fixes their liability as that of "de mancomun e insolidum," each maker is liable to pay the full amount of said note.
2. CONTRACT’; PROMISSORY NOT; LIABILITY OF COMAKERS. — Where two or more persons sign a promissory note, which note fixes their liability as that of "de mancomun e insolidum," each maker is liable to pay the full amount of said note.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J. :
This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the city of the Manila by the plaintiff to recover of the defendants the sum of 420 pesos, upon a promissory note, which note was alleged to have been executed and delivered on the 5th of December, 1904.
The defendant Mariano Eraña did not appear in said cause. The defendant Simplicio Suarez appeared and filed a general and a special denial. At the close of said cause the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Simplicio Suarez for the full amount of said promissory note. From this decision the said Simplicio Suarez appealed to this court.
The plaintiff claims that by the terms of the said promissory note the defendants were liable "de mancomun e insolidum."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the special answer of the defendants, Simplicio Suarez practically admits the execution of the said promissory note, together with said Mariano Eraña, but denies that by the terms of the note he was individually liable for the payment of the full amount.
No motion for a new trial was made in the court below and none of the evidence was made a part of the bill of exceptions, not even the promissory note. This court can not, therefore, review the evidence. (Ismael v. Ganzon, 1 Phil. Rep., 454; Thunga Chui v. Que Bentec, 1 Phil. Rep., 356; Pastor v. Gaspar, 2 Phil. Rep., 592; Sugar Estate Co. v. Del Rosario, 2 Phil. Rep., 651.)
The question before this court presented by the record is, Are the facts stated in the opinion of the lower court, together with those admitted in the pleadings, sufficient to sustain the judgment of the lower court?
The only fact admitted by the pleadings is that said note was executed and delivered by the appellant Suarez and his codefendant, as alleged in the complaint, and the lower court found as a fact in his judgment that the defendants were liable de mancomum e insolidum." These facts are sufficient to justify the conclusion of the lower court that the defendant Simplicio Suarez was liable individually for the payment of the full amount of the said note with interest and costs.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the judgment of the lower court, and costs. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the vase be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
The defendant Mariano Eraña did not appear in said cause. The defendant Simplicio Suarez appeared and filed a general and a special denial. At the close of said cause the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Simplicio Suarez for the full amount of said promissory note. From this decision the said Simplicio Suarez appealed to this court.
The plaintiff claims that by the terms of the said promissory note the defendants were liable "de mancomun e insolidum."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the special answer of the defendants, Simplicio Suarez practically admits the execution of the said promissory note, together with said Mariano Eraña, but denies that by the terms of the note he was individually liable for the payment of the full amount.
No motion for a new trial was made in the court below and none of the evidence was made a part of the bill of exceptions, not even the promissory note. This court can not, therefore, review the evidence. (Ismael v. Ganzon, 1 Phil. Rep., 454; Thunga Chui v. Que Bentec, 1 Phil. Rep., 356; Pastor v. Gaspar, 2 Phil. Rep., 592; Sugar Estate Co. v. Del Rosario, 2 Phil. Rep., 651.)
The question before this court presented by the record is, Are the facts stated in the opinion of the lower court, together with those admitted in the pleadings, sufficient to sustain the judgment of the lower court?
The only fact admitted by the pleadings is that said note was executed and delivered by the appellant Suarez and his codefendant, as alleged in the complaint, and the lower court found as a fact in his judgment that the defendants were liable de mancomum e insolidum." These facts are sufficient to justify the conclusion of the lower court that the defendant Simplicio Suarez was liable individually for the payment of the full amount of the said note with interest and costs.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the judgment of the lower court, and costs. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the vase be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
