Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > August 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4410 August 27, 1908 - URBANO FLORIANO v. ESTEBAN DELGADO, ET AL.

011 Phil 154:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4410. August 27, 1908. ]

URBANO FLORIANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESTEBAN DELGADO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

A. E. Somersille for Appellants.

R. Fernandez for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. OBLIGATIONS HAVING NO FIXED PERIOD. — In accordance with the old laws in force in the Islands prior to the enactment of the present Civil Code, when an obligation is pure, simple, and unconditional and no particular day has been fixed for its fulfillment, payment of the same may be demanded ten days after it is contracted.

2. ID.; LOANS. — According to the provision of the Civil Code, the payment of money delivered as a loan may be demanded at once, where the obligation is unconditional, and when no specific time for its compliance has been fixed, unless from the nature and circumstances of the transaction it may be inferred that it was the intent of the creditor to grant the debtor a certain term for payment, in which case the period shall be fixed by the courts. (Art 1128, Civil Code.)

3. JUDGMENT; JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY. — The judgment whereby defendants are sentenced to pay a certain sum to the plaintiff shall be understood to have been imposed on them jointly, in accordance with the joint character of the obligation.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


On the 17th of February, 1907, the attorneys for Urbano Floriano filed a complaint against the married couple Esteban Delgado and Regina Bertumen, residents of Ligao, Albay, alleging that the latter were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of P1,352.80, duly admitted by the debtors, who engaged to pay it together with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, as appears by a promissory note made out on the 20th of January, 1907, and which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We promise to pay to Sr. Urbano Floriano the sum of one thousand three hundred and fifty-two pesos and eighty centavos (P1,352.80), Conant, for balance standing against us on this date. Until said amount is paid to Sr. Floriano we engage to pay interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, as agreed. Ligao, January 20, 1907. — (Signed) Esteban Delgado. — (Signed) Regina Bertumen."cralaw virtua1aw library

That the aforesaid amount has not been paid either in whole or in part, notwithstanding demand therefor, for which reason the plaintiff asked the court to enter judgment against the defendants, sentencing them to pay the said sum in Philippine currency, with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the 20th of January, 1907, until the date of payment, with costs, as well as any further remedy that the court might consider just and equitable.

The defendants appeared within the time prescribed by the law, but they did not answer the complaint, notwithstanding the fact that the time for answering had elapsed, nor did they present any answer, for which reason the court below, on the 22d of March, 1907, held the said defendants, Delgado and Bertumen, to be in default and ordered the plaintiff to proceed with his evidence; this was done, and the court below, on the 30th day of the aforesaid month and year, entered judgment ordering the defendants to pay the amount claimed together with interest thereon from the 20th of January, 1907, until such time as payment was made, with costs.

On April 9, following, the defendant Delgado, in his own name and on behalf of his wife, Bertumen, appealed from said judgment. This appeal was admitted by the court below on the 13th of said month. A bill of exceptions was submitted, and, after hearing the adverse party, it was brought to this court.

The subject of this litigation is the fulfillment of an obligation contracted by the defendant spouses to pay a certain sum stated in a document of indebtedness which is set out in the complaint, with the particularity that no date was fixed therein for the payment of the debt.

Before proceeding further let us set forth the following facts: the defendant appellants did not ask for the annulment of the judgment appealed from, nor for the holding of a new trial, but limited themselves simply to excepting to said judgment, appealing to this court. Hence, we are not called upon to review the findings of the court below, and this decision will only dwell on the questions of law set up by the appellants in the bill of errors which accompanies their brief.

Commencing with the second error in reference to the nature and character of the obligation contained in the document of indebtedness, it is sufficient for the purposes of this decision to say that, in accordance with the old laws in force in this country prior to the enactment of the present Civil Code, when an obligation is pure, simple, and unconditional, and no particular day has been fixed for its fulfillment, payment of the same may be demanded ten days after it is contracted. From the liquidation of accounts that took place between the plaintiff and the defendants, there resulted a balance of P1,352.80 which the debtors bound themselves to pay, without fixing a day therefor, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum until paid, just as if they had received said sum on loan at the time of the liquidation whereby they became indebted. Not having paid it at the time, they executed the document by which they bound themselves to pay the creditor without fixing a date for payment, or any other condition. Although in accordance with the old laws and the doctrine or precept of article 62 of the Code of Commerce, the parties bound should have met their obligation at the expiration of ten days after the 20th of January, 1907, nevertheless, under the provisions of the Civil Code, the payment of the obligation may be demanded at once, unless from the nature and circumstances thereof it may be inferred that it was the intention of the creditor to grant the debtors some extension of time, in which case the duration thereof should be fixed by the courts. (Art. 1128, Civil Code.)

It can not be inferred from the language of the said document that it was the intention of Urbano Floriano to grant the defendants any extension of time in the payment, the duration of which should be fixed by judicial authority; and inasmuch as a complaint was filed in court twenty-seven days after the obligation was executed, after payment had been demanded from the debtors, the latter have no right at all to claim an extension for the fulfillment of the obligation, the existence and legality of which they have expressly recognized.

Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Every obligation, the fulfillment of which should not depend upon a future or uncertain event or upon a past event, unknown to the parties in interest, shall be immediately demandable."cralaw virtua1aw library

The document of indebtedness contains no term or condition whatever upon which depends the fulfillment of the obligation contracted by the debtors; therefore, there exists no motive or reason that would exempt them from compliance therewith.

The judgment entered by the court below, sentencing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum that they owe him together with interest thereon, must of course be understood as having been imposed upon them jointly in accordance with the mutual character of the obligation contracted by the debtors; therefore, the decision of the court below is in accordance with the provisions of articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code, and it can not be contended that each of them has been severally sentenced to pay the whole amount stated in the document of indebtedness, and for said reason the fourth error attributed to the judgment appealed from is not true.

As to the first and second errors imputed by the appellants to the said judgment, it is unquestionable that the plaintiff has made a material error in his writing of the 21st of March, 1907, by charging only the husband, one of the defendants, with default; such error is explicable however, in that the husband is the natural representative of his wife, but it has no importance in view of the fact that the complaint was filed against both of them, and that they were both summoned. The judge below having discovered the mistake held both defendants to be in default, thus amending, to a certain extent, the erroneous charge of the plaintiff.

The order of default of March 22 was complied with, and upon the necessary evidence being offered by the plaintiff, the judge below, without further formalities, since section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not require any other than those observed in these proceedings, rendered judgment on the 30th of the same month, after proceedings in due form of law.

For the foregoing reasons, and as the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the law, it is our opinion that it should be affirmed, with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, 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






August-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3837 August 1, 1908 - BENIGNO CATABIAN v. FRANCISCO TUNGCUL

    011 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4537 August 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO POBRE

    011 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 4381 August 4, 1908 - MANUEL LOPEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON N. OROZCO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 4498 August 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LEOCADIO SALGADO

    011 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 3831 August 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 4519 August 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO IDON

    011 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 3897 August 10, 1908 - ZACARIAS OMO v. INSULAR GOV’T.

    011 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 4133 August 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DULFO

    011 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 4027 August 12, 1908 - JOSEFA GARCIA PASCUAL v. LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI

    011 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4054 August 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ALVARADO

    011 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 4032 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO F. CONCEPCION

    011 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 4141 August 15, 1908 - AGUSTINA FAELNAR, ET AL. v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    011 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 4330 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FENIX

    011 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4340 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHESTER A. DAVIS

    011 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 4464 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE IDOS

    011 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4277 August 18, 1908 - POTENCIANA TABIGUE v. FRANK E. GREEN

    011 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 4282 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHIONG CHUICO

    011 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 4287 August 18, 1908 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    011 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 4317 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MONTECILLO

    011 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3818 August 19, 1908 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4223 August 19, 1908 - NICOLAS LUNOD, ET AL. v. HIGINO MENESES

    011 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 4382 August 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4468 August 21, 1908 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. C. A. SMITH

    011 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 4015 August 24, 1908 - ANGEL JAVELLANA v. JOSE LIM, ET AL.

    011 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 4390 August 24, 1908 - ANG TOA v. BASILIA ALVAREZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 4365 August 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO ESTABILLO

    011 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 4384 August 27, 1908 - SIMEON ALCONABA, ET AL. v. MAGNO ABINEZ

    011 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 4410 August 27, 1908 - URBANO FLORIANO v. ESTEBAN DELGADO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 4477 August 27, 1908 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MALIGNAD v. BRIGIDA

    011 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4529 August 27, 1908 - LUISA TENGCO v. VICENTE SANZ

    011 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4513 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON CABONCE

    011 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 4642 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIDNEY LEE BAYLEES

    011 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 4383 August 31, 1908 - ZACARIAS BAGSA v. CRISOSTOMO NAGRAMADA

    011 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 4385 August 31, 1908 - WALTER E. OLSEN v. BERT YEARSLEY

    011 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 4411 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DELOSO

    011 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 4689 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GO TIAO

    011 Phil 183