Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > March 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. 4788 March 3, 1910 - JUANA URBANO v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

015 Phil 371:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 4788. March 3, 1910. ]

JUANA URBANO ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PEDRO RAMIREZ, judicial administrator of the estate of Victorino Buhay, deceased, Defendant-Appellee.

Felipe Agoncillo, for Appellants.

Ramon Muyot, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DEBTS AND DEBTORS; ACTION UPON A DEBT CONTRACTED IN MEXICAN CURRENCY; JUDGMENT. — In an action to enforce the payment of a debt contracted in Mexican money, when judgment is rendered in Philippine currency, as required by law, it is not proper to make the conversion from one currency to the other at a Government rate which is not in force at the time of the rendition of the judgment. In such a case, it is the duty of the court to receive evidence as to the real and just value of the debt in Philippine currency, in accordance with section 3 of Act No. 1045.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The appellants herein presented a claim for 2,890.59 pesos to the committee of appraisal of the estate of Victorino Buhay, which they allege was due by the deceased to their principal, Telesforo Chuidian, together with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the 9th of February, 1898, when the debt was contracted, and 180.66 pesos in addition thereto on account of a certain commission agreed to in favor of the creditor, Chuidian. Subsequently the last-named amount was remitted, whereby their claim was reduced to the two items first mentioned.

The court below ordered the administrator of the estate to pay the sums claimed. The said order is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"While the court was in full session this administrator admitted the contract which the plaintiff claims had been entered into with the deceased while living. Upon examination of the said contract it was shown that Buhay owed the heirs of Chuidian the sum of 2,890.59 pesos and also the sum of 2,910.55 pesos for interest up to the 6th of March, 1908, with interest thenceforth on the principal amount at the rate of 10 per cent per annum until payment is made.

"Said contract was made in Mexican currency and it should be converted into Philippine currency at the official ratio established by the Government of the Philippine Islands on this date.

"This claim with respect to the amount already referred to is hereby approved, and the administrator is hereby ordered to pay the said sum immediately."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiffs excepted to the above order solely in so far as it ordered the conversion of Mexican into Philippine currency at the official ratio which, according to said order, ruled at the time when the order was issued.

The fact established by the trial court that the debt had been contracted in Mexican currency is either denied nor discussed in the brief of the appellants, nor is the propriety of converting the obligation into Philippine currency discussed. The only objection made by them is to the conversion at the official ratio mentioned in the order appealed from, maintaining that it should be done at par. And they allege as a reason and basis for their pretension that the administrator of Buhay’s estate made no objection to the admittance of the debt, as it appears in the account marked as Exhibit A (p. 11 of the bill of exceptions), when the matter was brought before the commissioners for appraisal, the amounts being stated therein in figures with the proper sign for Philippine currency. In support of said allegation they insert in their brief a copy of the record of the appearance before the commissioners for appraisal which, among other things, literally reads "that the administrator admits the document presented by the other party acknowledging at the same time the credit therein stated for P2,890.59 3/8." The document herein referred to is the account marked as Exhibit A which has just been mentioned.

The record of appearance before the commissioners for appraisal has not been submitted to this court, nor was it made a part of the bill of exceptions which we have before us, for which reason we can not take it into account in rendering a decision in this matter. This court can not base its decisions on evidence which is not before it, it being of course the duty of the appellants to take all the necessary steps to have the same submitted to this court in those cases in which is desired, and the law grants, a review of the evidence.

As to the rest, if the said document or record of appearance were to be considered, it would be seen that there is nothing therein to support the pretension of the appellants, inasmuch as the figures which represent the amounts are not indicated with the proper sign of the Philippine currency. The Philippine peso is represented by means of this sign: "P" (Executive Order No. 66, August 3, 1903), and that used in the above-cited record is this other: "P;" this last sign is certainly in use to signify pesos, but pesos in general, not particularly Philippine pesos.

The same must be said with respect to the account, Exhibit A, and it should further be noted that therein the signs" $" and "P" are used indiscriminately, which fact shows that the parties did not attach much importance nor pay much attention to the question of signs, apparently considering it as a matter of small consequence. It is well known that the sign" $" indicates money of the United States, as recognized in Executive Order No. 66, above cited. It is true that in the copy of said Exhibit A, which appears at page 11 of the printed bill of exceptions, there appears the sign "P," but this is evidently an error in copying or on the part of the printer, because, in the original (p. 12), the said sign does not appear, but shows the letter "P." Therefore, the allegation of the appellants, which the appellee has denied in his brief, that the latter had agreed to pay the debt in Philippine currency on the basis of one Philippine peso for one Mexican peso, at par, is unfounded.

The order appealed from directs a conversion of the Mexican currency into Philippine currency at the official rate established by the Government and in force on the date of said order (March 6, 1908). The order is erroneous and should be revoked. Section 7 of the Act of Congress of March 2, 1903, provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the Mexican silver dollar now in use in the Philippine Islands and the silver coins heretofore issued by the Spanish Government for use in said Islands shall be receivable for public dues at a rate to be fixed from time to time by the proclamation of the Civil Governor of said Islands until such date, not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and four, as may be fixed by public proclamation of said Civil Governor, when such coins shall cease to be so receivable."cralaw virtua1aw library

By virtue of this provision, Executive Order No. 1, dated January 1, 1904, was issued providing that "The Insular Treasurer and each provincial treasurer in the Philippine Islands shall . . . exchange on demand Philippine currency for said Spanish-Filipino currency at such rates as the Insular Government may, from time to time, determine."cralaw virtua1aw library

Such was the purpose in fixing said rates: that it might serve as a basis or official standard in exchanging at the treasuries the so-called local currency for Philippine currency during the period while the said local currency should be received in payment of dues, it being the duty of the Insular Government to fix the date when it should cease to be so receivable. And the said date was fixed by the Government by Executive Order No. 8 of March 11, 1907, providing that "from the 1st day of July, 1907, the Insular Treasurer and all provincial treasurers shall cease to redeem the silver coins . . ." (Spanish-Filipino, Mexican, etc.) .

The redemption of the local currency having been thus prohibited, the reason for the official ratio between said currency and the Philippine currency ceased; consequently no official rate of exchange whatever existed on the 6th of March, 1908, when the order appealed from was rendered, for the reason that it had been abolished. As no such ratio existed at the time, it can hardly serve as a basis, even though it be supplementary, for the conversion of Mexican into Philippine currency; the order above alluded to can not therefore be sustained with reference to this point.

In order that the true equivalent of the two above-mentioned classes of currency may be established, the contending parties should be given an opportunity to present evidence in connection with the matter in the manner provided by section 3 of Act No. 1045 of the Philippine Commission, inasmuch as the debt was contracted in Mexican currency, did the payment must be ordered in Philippine currency, precisely in accordance with said Act.

The order appealed from is hereby set aside in so far as it directs that the amount claimed be converted into Philippine currency at the official ratio said to be ruling on the 6th of March, 1908; a new trial shall be held for the sole purpose of permitting the parties to present evidence as to the actual value of the Mexican money as compared with Philippine currency, which shall serve as a basis for the reduction of the said debt to Philippine currency as must be ordered in the judgment to be rendered. Without special finding as to costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, 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-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5447 March 1, 1910 - PAUL REISS v. JOSE M. MEMIJE

    015 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 5606 March 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON INSIERTO

    015 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 5629 March 2, 1910 - LUIS FRUCTO v. MAXIMIANO FUENTES

    015 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 5676 March 2, 1910 - LIM TIU v. RUIZ Y REMETERIA

    015 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 4788 March 3, 1910 - JUANA URBANO v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    015 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 4811 March 3, 1910 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. SANTOS CAPADOCIA

    015 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 5325 March 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AMADEO CORRAL

    015 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 4508 March 4, 1910 - MARCIANA CONLU v. PABLO ARANETA

    015 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. 5597 March 5, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. D. B. JEFFREY

    015 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 5222 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO ALUMISIN

    015 Phil 396

  • G.R. Nos. 5426 & 5427 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. LINO SUMANGIL

    015 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 5502 March 7, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ROMULO

    015 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-5569 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO BIRAY

    017 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 4991 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO PIMENTEL

    015 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 5396 March 12, 1910 - CANUTO REYES v. JACINTO LIMJAP

    015 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 5491 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PRIMITIVO GAMILLA

    015 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 5611 March 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN VALERO

    015 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 5560 March 14, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE QUILLO

    015 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 5001 March 15, 1910 - ESTEBAN RANJO v. GREGORIO SALMON

    015 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 5054 March 15, 1910 - MARIA FALCON v. NARCISO L. MANZANO

    015 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 5112 March 15, 1910 - FRANCISCA BRETA v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    015 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 5255 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO MONTELI

    015 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 5304 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO PALAOBSANON

    015 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 5596 March 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO BAROT

    015 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 5254 March 17, 1910 - ANICETO GOMEZ MEDEL v. PEDRO AVECILLA

    015 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-5535 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO PELLEJERA

    017 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-5642 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VIENTE ARCEO

    017 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 5381 March 18, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO ANCHETA

    015 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 5272 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. AH CHONG

    015 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 5321 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PAU TE CHIN

    015 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 5509 March 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LOPEZ

    015 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 5583 March 19, 1910 - G. URRUTIA & CO. v. PASIG STEAMER

    015 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-5620 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. Ilongots PALIDAT ET AL.

    017 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4179 March 21, 1910 - RAFAEL AZADA Y LARA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ Y GARCIA

    015 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 4612 March 21, 1910 - PABLO RALLONZA v. TEODORO EVANGELISTA

    015 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 4654 March 21, 1910 - LEON CABALLERO v. ESTEFANIA ABELLANA

    015 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 5183 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TOK

    015 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 5480 March 21, 1910 - RICARDO LOPEZ v. ADOLFO OLBES

    015 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5487 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PICO

    015 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 5524 March 21, 1910 - RAFAEL O. RAMOS v. HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA

    015 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 5525 March 21, 1910 - EUGENIO PASCUAL LORENZO v. H. B. MCCOY

    015 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 5673 March 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TAN SAM TAO

    015 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 4713 March 22, 1910 - CHATAMAL TEERTHDASS v. POHOOMUL BROTHERS

    015 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4901 March 22, 1910 - TEODORO OLGADO v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF LIPA

    015 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. 4907 March 22, 1910 - CARLOS GSELL v. PEDRO KOCH

    016 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4977 March 22, 1910 - DAVID TAYLOR v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD, ET AL.

    016 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 5006 March 22, 1910 - ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO v. LUIS BORJA ET AL.

    016 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 5022 March 22, 1910 - MURPHY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    016 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5149 March 22, 1910 - GREGORIO MACAPINLAC v. MARIANO ALIMURONG

    016 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 5291 March 22, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FACUNDO BARDELAS

    016 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 5449 March 22, 1910 - MARIANO GONZALES ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO ROJAS

    016 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 5464 March 22, 1910 - MARIA JOSE Y NARVAEZ ET A. v. PHILS. SQUADRON

    016 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 5470 March 22, 1910 - LUIS SAENZ DE VIZMANOS ONG-QUICO v. YAP CHUAN ET AL.

    016 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 5599 March 22, 1910 - MAURICE F. LOEWENSTEIN v. H. C. PAGE

    016 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. 5603 March 22, 1910 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    016 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 4718 March 19, 1910 - SY JOC LIENG v. PETRONILA ENCARNACION

    016 Phil 137