Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > March 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2562 March 19, 1907 - MARIANO VELOSO v. MANUEL VELOSO

008 Phil 83:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2562. March 19, 1907. ]

MARIANO VELOSO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL VELOSO Y RUBI, Defendant-Appellant.

Frank E. Green, for Appellant.

Domingo Franco, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


MORTGAGE; SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF; PRESUMPTION. — The plaintiff proved the certainty of the credit claimed by the mortgage, a public instrument, which, in law, is complete and efficient proof. It was, therefore, not necessary to show the fact affirmatively by means of other proof, independent of the allegation by the plaintiff of the nonpayment of the debt. If there once exists a legal presumption in favor of an allegation, this carries with it prima facie proof of its certainty, since presumptions constitute one of the means of proof expressly recognized by law. (Articles 1215, 1250, 1251, Civil code.)


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


This is an action brought in the matter of foreclosure of a mortgage, all of which appears duly set out in the complaint filed herein. The amount dues as a credit of the mortgage, and as such claimed by the plaintiff, is in the sum of 19,000 pesos, together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, such mortgage being a public act or instrument executed on May 31, 1897. The debtor obligated himself therein to pay the consideration named and expressed, eight yearly installments counting or beginning from the date of the execution of the mortgage, to wit, seven yearly installments of 4,000 pesos each in payment on account of the principal due together with the interest due thereon, and the eight or last installment in the sum of 2,001.88 pesos, the amount then remaining due on account of said principal and interest after the payment of the said seven yearly installments. (Clause 1 of the mortgage.) The defendant is named in the instrument or mortgage as the debtor and Buenaventura Veloso del Rosario, now deceased, as the creditor- mortgagee, the rights of the latter in and to this credit under said mortgage having been transferred and subrogated to the plaintiff herein by virtue of lawful succession.

Clause 3 of the said mortgage or instrument contains the following stipulation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The failure or default in the payment of any one of the installments mentioned and stipulated in number 1 of this mortgage or instrument shall give the right to Don Buenaventura Veloso del Rosario to proceed against the properties mortgaged for the purpose of obtaining the payment of the same, and of all other installments due and unpaid, until he shall obtain the complete or full payment of the principal together with the interest thereon then due and owing; that the costs and expenses incurred and arising in case the said Don Buenaventura Veloso del Rosario be obliged to proceed judicially for the collection thereof shall be against and for the account of the debtor; the eight periods still subsisting for the payment of each installment as it falls due."cralaw virtua1aw library

The last of the eight installments, as stipulated, would have fallen due on May 31, 1905, but notwithstanding this fact, the plaintiff filed his complaint on December 21, 1903, praying for the full payment of the amount of the indebtedness together with interest thereon, alleging as a reason that the defendant had not paid even one of the several installments then due and that such fact was a lawful cause and reason for declaring due and payable all the other and remaining installments in accordance with the agreement contained in the clause last above quoted of the said mortgage.

The defendant in his answer denied in general terms each and all of the facts as alleged in the complaint.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the full sum of the credit under said mortgage — that is to say, for the sum of 19,000 pesos — together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the 31st day of May, 1897, and the costs of the action, from which judgment the defendant took due exception.

The judgment of the court below is based, as stated therein upon the third finding thereof, which sets forth; "That the defendant has failed to comply with the conditions of the agreement and has been negligent in the payment of the installments of the said sum of 19,000 pesos, which sum is now due and owing, as well as in the payment of the interest due on the same; and that in accordance with the terms or provisions of said document the sum of 19,000 pesos, together with interest thereon from May 31, 1897, amounting to a total sum of 37.240 pesos, is now due and payable to said plaintiffs, as well as the costs of this action."cralaw virtua1aw library

This conclusion is, according to the appellant, erroneous. In fact, the only two errors of the court below as assigned in the brief of the appellant refer particularly and exclusively to this conclusion. And the conclusion of the court below is erroneous, as appellant claims, for the reason that it is not supported by any proof. As a matter of fact the plaintiff has not presented any affirmative proof tending to show that the defendant has not paid the installments due, or any one of such installments. In accordance with the terms of the mortgage this was a precise or necessary condition by which could be declared or considered due and payable, from that time, all of the future or remaining installments, and making available and effective the action on the part of the creditor to enforce the collection of the full amount of the said installments, without it being necessary to wait for the maturity of the same. The theory of the appellant is that the appellee should prove, before anything else, the appellee’s fulfillment of the said condition — that is to say, the failure to make payment of the installments then due — in order to properly base the action instituted with respect to the future or remaining installments, or in other words, the installments not yet due at the time of the filing of the complaint.

The appellee maintains, at the same time that the failure to pay being a negative and indefinite fact, and in addition thereto, by reason of its peculiar character, is not susceptible, in any manner, of proof, that it was incumbent upon the appellant to prove to the contrary, for the reason that the negative of such fact as asserted and alleged in appellant’s written answer covers the affirmation of the payment; and it is a rule of law that the proof is always incumbent upon the party affirming, and not upon the one denying the fact.

Section 297 of the Code of civil Procedure prescribes the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Each party must proven his own affirmative allegations. Evidence need not be given in support of a negative allegation except when such negative allegation is an essential part of the statement of the right or title on which the cause of action or defense is founded, nor given in such case when the allegation of which belongs to the opposite party."cralaw virtua1aw library

Supposing for the sake of argument in this decision, that in accordance with the provisions above quoted, it was in fact the duty or obligation of the appellant to prove the allegation of the failure of payment, the question then remains simply to determine whether the allegation can be considered as proven or not within the merits of the case.

The appellant proved the certainty of the credit claimed. It was proven by a public instrument which is complete and efficient proof in law. The existence of an obligation being proven it is presumed to exist during the time its fulfillment or extinction is not proven, and, consequently, the proof thereof is incumbent on the part of the debtor. (Art. 1214, Civil Code.) In such a case the allegation as to the failure of payment or compliance with the obligation has in its favor the presumption of law, inasmuch as payment is never presumed without proof and outside of certain special circumstances or conditions not concurring herein. From the fact that said allegation of appellant is supported by a legal presumption there are deduced two unavoidable and inevitable legal consequences:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) That it was not necessary to show affirmatively by means of other proof independent of the same allegation the certainty of said allegation, because, in accordance with articles 1250 and 1251 of said code, "presumptions established by law, exempt those favored thereby from producing any further proof, but may be destroyed by proof to the contrary, except in the cases in which it is expressly prohibited:" and

(2) That once existing a legal presumption in favor of said allegation, this carries with itself prima facie proof of its certainty, since presumptions constitute one of the probatory means of proof expressly recognized by law. "Proofs," says article 1215, "may be given by instruments, by confessions, by the personal inspection of a judge, by experts, by witnesses, and by presumptions." The code of Civil Procedure, now in force and effect, also admits presumptions as one of the proofs admissible during trial, in accordance with sections 333 and 334 of said code.

This being so, we can not sustain the point that the allegation as to the failure of payment made in the complaint has remained unproven during the trial of this cause. From a review of the record of the trial of this cause we find in the same that the presumption of the law is in favor of said allegation, which is by itself a proof to be taken into consideration in accordance with law. Therefore the court below did not err in finding that the said allegation was true.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. After the expiration of twenty days from the notification of this decision, let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the court from whence it came for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1878 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NAVARRO

    007 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-3290 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS RABOR

    007 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3441 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO DE MESA, ET AL.

    007 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3262 March 11, 1907 - SATURNINA BAUTISTA v. SANTIAGO CALIXTO

    007 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-3188 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALEC KIENE

    007 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-3475 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TAN GEE, ET AL.

    007 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-3498 March 12, 1907 - BEHN v. ARNALOT HERMANOS

    007 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-1056 March 13, 1907 - AGUEDA BENEDICTO DE LA RAMA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA

    007 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-3064 March 13, 1907 - ARTHUR W. PRAUTCH, ET AL. v. HENRY M. JONES

    008 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1921 March 14, 1907 - ALEJANDRA SIGUIONG v. MANUEL SIGUIONG, ET AL.

    008 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-2458 March 14, 1907 - SALVADOR LANDA v. JUAN SANZ Y SANZ

    008 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS GEMORA

    008 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3071 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DE GUZMAN

    008 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-3167 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO CECILIO

    008 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3499 March 14, 1907 - TIRSO LOPEZ v. JOSE DELGADO

    008 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-2503 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. F. ALEXANDER

    008 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. L-2684 March 15, 1907 - FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-3129 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. W.B. BARNES

    008 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. L-3443 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO DUMANDAN

    008 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-3241 March 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CABANAG

    008 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-3083 March 18, 1907 - RAFAELA PAVIA, ET AL. v. BIBIANA DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-3178 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ALONSO

    008 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-3324 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO LUGO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2562 March 19, 1907 - MARIANO VELOSO v. MANUEL VELOSO

    008 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3379 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO TORRERO

    008 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-3540 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LOPEZ BASA

    008 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3072 March 21, 1907 - LIONG-WONG-SHIH v. TOMAS SUNICO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-3143 March 21, 1907 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. JOSEFA ARAMBURO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3352 March 21, 1907 - JOSE CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. CLOTILDE DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-3227 March 22, 1907 - PEDRO ALCANTARA v. AMBROSIO ALINEA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-3307 March 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GOYENECHEA

    008 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-3459 March 22, 1907 - CHIONG JOC-SOY v. JAIME VAÑO

    008 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3473 March 22, 1907 - J. CASANOVAS v. JNO. S. HORD

    008 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3257 March 23, 1907 - CAPISTRANO, ET AL. v. JOSEFA GABINO

    008 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-3280 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIO CAMACHO

    008 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3593 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. C.W. NEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-2869 March 25, 1907 - MATEO CARIÑO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-3056 March 25, 1907 - PATRICIO PEREZ v. JOHN C. SWEENEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-3131 March 25, 1907 - HERRANZ & GARRIZ v. KER & CO.

    008 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3180 March 25, 1907 - MATEO OLONA v. ALEJANDRO PASCUA

    008 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-3375 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DONES

    008 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3620 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-2993 March 27, 1907 - LUCINO ALMEIDA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ABAROA

    008 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-2995 March 27, 1907 - VICTORIANO SALAZAR v. CAYETANA SALAZAR

    008 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3158 March 27, 1907 - CIRIACO PILAPIL, ET AL. v. ROSENDO PONCIANO

    008 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3236 March 27, 1907 - SEBASTIAN ABIERA v. MIGUEL ORIN

    008 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3544 March 27, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. EDWIN CASE

    008 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-2383 March 25, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    008 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-3423 March 27, 1907 - DAMPFSCHIEFFS RHEDEREI UNION v. LA COMPAÑIA TRASATLANTICA

    008 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 3037 March 27, 1907 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    011 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. L-2978 March 2, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO DE LOS SANTOS

    007 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-3287 March 2, 1907 - PASTOR LERMA v. CIPRIANA DE LA CRUZ

    007 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-3433 March 2, 1907 - FELIPE ZAMORA v. CITY OF MANILA

    007 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. L-3406 March 4, 1907 - JOSE ITURRALDE v. SOTERO EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-3148A March 5, 1907 - ENRIQUE MARIA BARRETTO v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MLA

    007 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-3247 March 5, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO SAN JOSE

    007 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-3361 March 5, 1907 - SISENANDO EVANGELISTA v. BRIGIDO TABAYUYONG

    007 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-2940 March 6, 1907 - JOSE FIANZA v. J. F. REAVIS

    007 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. L-3186 March 7, 1907 - RED MEN v. VETERAN ARMY OF THE PHIL.

    007 Phil 685

  • G.R. No. L-3368 March 7, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MATEO TRINCHERA

    007 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-3467 March 7, 1907 - DOLORES SOTO, ET AL. v. DANIEL MORELOS

    007 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-2982 March 8, 1907 - MANUEL PEREZ Y GOMEZ v. ANTONIO HERRANZ Y CACERES

    007 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3092 March 8, 1907 - JOSE S. GABRIEL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL BARTOLOME

    007 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 3368A March 8, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MATEO TRINCHERA

    007 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-3418 March 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CHU NING CO

    007 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-1878 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO NAVARRO

    007 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-3290 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS RABOR

    007 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3441 March 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO DE MESA, ET AL.

    007 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3262 March 11, 1907 - SATURNINA BAUTISTA v. SANTIAGO CALIXTO

    007 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-3188 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALEC KIENE

    007 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-3475 March 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TAN GEE, ET AL.

    007 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-3498 March 12, 1907 - BEHN v. ARNALOT HERMANOS

    007 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-1056 March 13, 1907 - AGUEDA BENEDICTO DE LA RAMA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA

    007 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-3064 March 13, 1907 - ARTHUR W. PRAUTCH, ET AL. v. HENRY M. JONES

    008 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1921 March 14, 1907 - ALEJANDRA SIGUIONG v. MANUEL SIGUIONG, ET AL.

    008 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-2458 March 14, 1907 - SALVADOR LANDA v. JUAN SANZ Y SANZ

    008 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS GEMORA

    008 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3071 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DE GUZMAN

    008 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-3167 March 14, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO CECILIO

    008 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3499 March 14, 1907 - TIRSO LOPEZ v. JOSE DELGADO

    008 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-2503 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. F. ALEXANDER

    008 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. L-2684 March 15, 1907 - FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-3129 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. W.B. BARNES

    008 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. L-3443 March 15, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ADRIANO DUMANDAN

    008 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-3241 March 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CABANAG

    008 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-3083 March 18, 1907 - RAFAELA PAVIA, ET AL. v. BIBIANA DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-3178 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO ALONSO

    008 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-3324 March 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO LUGO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2562 March 19, 1907 - MARIANO VELOSO v. MANUEL VELOSO

    008 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3379 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO TORRERO

    008 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-3540 March 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LOPEZ BASA

    008 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3072 March 21, 1907 - LIONG-WONG-SHIH v. TOMAS SUNICO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-3143 March 21, 1907 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. JOSEFA ARAMBURO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3352 March 21, 1907 - JOSE CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. CLOTILDE DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-3227 March 22, 1907 - PEDRO ALCANTARA v. AMBROSIO ALINEA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-3307 March 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GOYENECHEA

    008 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-3459 March 22, 1907 - CHIONG JOC-SOY v. JAIME VAÑO

    008 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3473 March 22, 1907 - J. CASANOVAS v. JNO. S. HORD

    008 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3257 March 23, 1907 - CAPISTRANO, ET AL. v. JOSEFA GABINO

    008 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-3280 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LUCIO CAMACHO

    008 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3593 March 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. C.W. NEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-2869 March 25, 1907 - MATEO CARIÑO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    008 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-3056 March 25, 1907 - PATRICIO PEREZ v. JOHN C. SWEENEY, ET AL.

    008 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-3131 March 25, 1907 - HERRANZ & GARRIZ v. KER & CO.

    008 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3180 March 25, 1907 - MATEO OLONA v. ALEJANDRO PASCUA

    008 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-3375 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN DONES

    008 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-3620 March 25, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CATALINO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-2993 March 27, 1907 - LUCINO ALMEIDA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ABAROA

    008 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-2995 March 27, 1907 - VICTORIANO SALAZAR v. CAYETANA SALAZAR

    008 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3158 March 27, 1907 - CIRIACO PILAPIL, ET AL. v. ROSENDO PONCIANO

    008 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3236 March 27, 1907 - SEBASTIAN ABIERA v. MIGUEL ORIN

    008 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3544 March 27, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. EDWIN CASE

    008 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-2383 March 25, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    008 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. L-3423 March 27, 1907 - DAMPFSCHIEFFS RHEDEREI UNION v. LA COMPAÑIA TRASATLANTICA

    008 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 3037 March 27, 1907 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    011 Phil 584