ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10578   March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO<br /><br />034 Phil 237

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10578. March 14, 1916. ]

    PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICIA SOTTO, as administratrix of the estate of CLARO ONG, Defendant-Appellant.

    Ramon Diokno for Appellant.

    Lawrence, Ross & Block and Ricardo Paras for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CONTRACTS; NOVATION. — Creditor’s acceptance of payments by a third party for the benefit of a debtor whose accounts the third party has assumed, without further facts, does not constitute a novation as provided in article 1205 of the Civil Code.

    2. ID.; PAYMENT. — Where A’s account is included in B’s by C, and A has assumed B’s debts, but C has not accepted A as debtor in place of B, payment by A is considered as payment of his own account pro tanto.

    3. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR; SUIT AGAINST. — An action based on a claim against defendant’s testator cannot be defeated by the objection that a creditor’s suit against a special administrator is prohibited by section 661 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when such objection is raised for the first time on appeal and it appears that naming the special administrator has not prejudiced the estate.

    4. ID.; ID.; PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT. — Where a final judgment is obtained by a creditor against the estate of a deceased person represented by a special administrator, such judgment must be satisfied by the regular administrator or executor out of the funds of the estate.


    D E C I S I O N


    TRENT, J. :


    During the year 1913, the plaintiff sold and delivered to the La Fortuna Bakery merchandise to the value of P3,303.75. There has been paid on this amount P1,200, leaving a balance due of P2,103.75. On June 18, 1913, Claro Ong, the owner, sold the bakery to Mamerto Laudico, the purchaser assuming all liabilities. On June 28 of the same year Laudico sold the bakery to Matias Ubaldo, the latter assuming all outstanding obligations. Claro Ong died on June 21, 1913, and the plaintiff presented its claim to the commissioners of Ong’s estate for allowance. The claim was disallowed and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance where, after due trial, it obtained a judgment against the estate of Claro Ong for the amount claimed (P2,103.75), together with legal interest from the 7th day of July, 1913, and the costs of the cause. From this judgment the defendant appealed.

    Counsel for the appellant urges that the trial court erred (a) in finding that the deceased’s obligation to pay the P2,103.75 was not transferred to the purchasers of the bakery, Laudico and Ubaldo, with the knowledge and consent to the plaintiff; (b) in finding that the plaintiff did not by act or deed agree to release the estate of Claro Ong from the payment of that amount; (c) in not deducting from the P2,103.75 the sum of P339, the value of goods and merchandise sold and delivered by the plaintiff to Mamerto Laudico and not to the deceased Claro Ong, and (d) in finding that the defendant, Mauricia Sotto, was the qualified administratrix of the estate of Claro Ong.

    The first and second alleged errors may be considered together. The plaintiff was not a party to the contract between Claro Ong and Mamerto Laudico, nor to that between the latter and Matias Ubaldo. The record fails to disclose any attempt whatever on the part of Claro Ong to be released from his obligation to pay the plaintiff the amount in question. While it is true that Matias Ubaldo paid in July, August, October, November, and December, 1913, P1,200 on the Claro Ong indebtedness, yet the plaintiff, by receiving this amount, did not agree to relieve the estate of Claro Ong from the payment of the remainder and accept Matias Ubaldo as its debtor. Upon this point Madsen, assistant treasurer of the plaintiff company, testified thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Mr. Ubaldo (referring to Laudico) called upon the Pacific Commercial Company at the time he purchased the bakery, during the latter part of June, and informed us (the first knowledge) that he had purchased the La Fortuna bakery and stated that he had assumed all the debts of the La Fortuna grocery (bakery); we informed him that we would naturally look to Claro Ong for the payment of his account to the house; however if he wanted we would post to the credit of Claro Ong any payments he might wish to make. . . . As near as I remember now, the first information I had of the resale of this property (from Laudico to Ubaldo) was a meeting of the commissioners held some eight or ten months ago. We were never notified of that sale."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On cross-examination the witness stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q. And you knew that La Fortuna Bakery was transferred on the 28th of July? — A. Yes, only as I remember the transfer was made on or about June 18. (Referring to the first transfer.)

    "Q. And on the 28th of June you knew that Laudico transferred the property of the bakery to Ubaldo? — A. I think the first time I learned of this transfer was at the meeting of the commissioners that they held in this building some six or eight months ago.

    "Q. Did you ever accept Matias Ubaldo as a debtor of the Pacific Commercial Company in the place of Claro Ong? — A. No, sir.

    "Q. Under what understanding did you accept the several payments made by Matias Ubaldo on account of the debt of Claro Ong? — A. They were accepted on condition they would be placed to the credit of Claro Ong any payments that he might see fit to make, but that we would look to Claro Ong for the payment of his account.

    "Q. Did you state before the commissioners that you would still hold the estate of Claro Ong liable for the payment of the debt of the deceased? — A. Yes; the commissioners well understood that we in no way released the estate of Claro Ong.

    "Q. Although you were willing to accept any and all payments from third parties? — A. Yes; it would be immaterial to the company who made the payment on the account of Claro Ong."cralaw virtua1aw library

    This witness further testified that the P1,200 paid by Ubaldo was collected by Eulalio Bernardo, one of the company’s collectors, on receipts made out in the office in the name of La Fortuna Bakery and that neither he nor the collector had any authority to accept a new debtor in lieu of Claro Ong. The collector corroborated Madsen upon these points. The only witness presented by the defendant was Matias Ubaldo, who testified that in purchasing the bakery, he assumed all outstanding obligations and so notified the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff accepted him as the new debtor. The trial court found that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the second transfer of the bakery until after it had presented its claim to the commissioners and that the P1,200 were paid with the understanding on the part of the plaintiff that the same would be applied to the account of the deceased Claro Ong. The record does not by any means justify a reversal of these findings. It is true that the transfer of the bakery from Laudico to Ubaldo was published in the local newspapers, but these publications were not called to the attention of the officers of the plaintiff company. The foregoing facts fall far short of showing that the plaintiff consented to a substitution of a new debtor in lieu of its old one. Article 1205 of the Civil Code provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Novation, consisting in the substitution of a debtor in the place of the original one, may be made without the knowledge of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor."cralaw virtua1aw library

    There was no novation of the contract in question. Novation is never presumed. (Martinez v. Cavives, 25 Phil. Rep., 581.)

    As to the third alleged error, the facts are these: The last item of P339 in the plaintiff’s account was for goods sold and delivered to the bakery on June 19, 1913, just one day after the bakery was sold by Claro Ong to Laudico, two days before Claro Ong died, and some eight days before the bakery was sold to Ubaldo. In view of the fact that Ubaldo assumed all outstanding obligations, one of which was the P339, and he having paid P1,200 on the indebtedness, no reason exists why the P339 should not be considered a part of the P1,200.

    In discussing the last assignment of error, counsel for the appellant says: "We admit that the defendant is an administratrix of the estate La Fortuna, but she is only a special administratrix of that property appointed for the only purpose of keeping in trust that bakery while the probate of the will of Claro Ong was pending;" and then cites the provisions of section 661 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that a special administratrix shall not be liable to an action by a creditor, or pay any debts of the deceased. Shortly after Mauricia Sotto was appointed special administratrix of the estate of the deceased Claro Ong, commissioners were appointed and these commissioners proceeded to hear and consider claims presented against that estate. The claim in question was one considered by the commission. The plaintiff’s complaint, presented after the appeal had been taken, makes the estate of Claro Ong, defendant, represented by Mauricia Sotto. If any objection was ever made upon this point in the court below or before the commissioners, our attention has not been called to it in the briefs. The first time the question was raised was in the printed briefs filed in this court. The correctness of the plaintiff’s claim has been fully considered by the court below after hearing and the presentation of all the testimony by both parties. The fact that Mauricia Sotto is only the special administratrix cannot prejudice in any way the interests of the estate which she represents.

    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, it being understood, however, that the amount of the claim, together with the interest and costs, including the costs in this instance, will be paid out of the estate of the deceased Claro Ong by the regular administrator, or executor, as the case may be. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10578   March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO<br /><br />034 Phil 237




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED