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
 

   
August-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1261 August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3059 August 2, 1949 - VICENTE G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-1494 August 3, 1949 - ALLISON J. GIBBS v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1514 August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-1826 August 5, 1949 - JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUELA TABIA

    084 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-48346 August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

    084 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1438 August 11, 1949 - SOCORRO C. VDA. DE ARANETA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP.

    084 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL

    084 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. L-2062 August 11, 1949 - JESUS B. LOPEZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-1367 August 16, 1949 - PIO PORTEA v. JACINTO PABELLON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-1892 August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1956 August 16, 1949 - LETICIA H. CALDERA, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO BALCUEBA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-3025 August 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR.

    084 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949 - PEDRO SYQUIA, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    084 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1029 August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS

    084 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-2016 August 23, 1949 - RICHARD THOMAS FITZSIMMONS v. ATLANTIC, GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA.

    084 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-2035 August 23, 1949 - ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF POSTS

    084 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-1761 August 24, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE LEELIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-1544 August 25, 1949 - F. V. LARRAGA, ET AL. v. EULOGIA B. BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2766 August 25, 1949 - PABLO P. ROBATON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2828 August 25, 1949 - JOAQUIN GOZUN, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

    084 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-1760 August 26, 1949 - MARIA MOLATO, ET AL. v. CELEDONIA ARCOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. L-2372 August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1617 August 29, 1949 - PANFILO B. MORALES, ET AL. v. OSCAR VENTANILLA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 459

  • G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA

    084 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-1563 August 30, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE GO v. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-1542 August 30, 1949 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-1485 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DESLATE

    084 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-1442 August 30, 1949 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-2166 August 30, 1949 - ESTRELLA LEDESMA v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    084 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2452 August 30, 1949 - LORENZO LLAMOSO v. VICENTE FERRER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-2894 August 30, 1949 - BUCRA CORP. v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG. ET AL.

    084 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3063 August 30, 1949 - MACARIO QUINTERO, ET AL. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3226 August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-1358 August 31, 1949 - MARIETA J. ROTEA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-1827 August 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-2262 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2345 August 31, 1949 - SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    084 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2480 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR

    084 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2754 August 31, 1949 - FIDEL ABRIOL v. VICENTE HOMERES

    084 Phil 525

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1892   August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 300

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1892. August 16, 1949.]

    JACINTO NOTOR, Petitioner, v. RAMON MARTINEZ, as guardian of the incompetent, Pedro Martinez, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

    Calanog & Alafriz and Jose A. Buendia for Petitioner.

    No appearance, for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF CONSIGNATION; WAIVER BY ADMISSION AND STIPULATION. — The absence of allegation in the complaint with respect to notice of consignation as required by article 1177 of the Civil Code, may be waived by admission and specific stipulation for a distinct issue.

    2. PROMISSORY NOTE; PAYMENT; RIGHT OF RENEWAL BY CREDITOR DOES NOT AFFECT DEBTOR’S RIGHT TO PAY WITHIN THE TERMS STIPULATED. — The mere fact that a contract contains a clause to the effect that it is renewable at the discretion of the creditor, such pact will not inhibit the debtor to pay his obligation according to the terms of his promissory note.

    3. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; PAYMENTS MADE DURING JAPANESE OCCUPATION; JURISDICTION OF COURTS AFTER LIBERATION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF. — The judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice during the Japanese military occupation as well as payments of obligations during such period which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid and, by virtue of the principle of postliminy in international law, remained good and valid after the liberation of the Philippines.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    On February 28, 1943, Pio Martinez, as guardian of Pedro Martinez, executed a promissory note for P2,000 in favor of Jacinto Notor, with interest at 10 per cent annually, and payable within two years from said date. In a mortgage executed on March 28, 1943, covering said note, it was further provided that the contract was "renewable at the discretion of the mortgagee," and that the mortgagor promised to pay the sum specified in the note "according to the terms thereof." Due to additional sums subsequently obtained from Jacinto Notor, plus interest, the total indebtedness amounted as of January 29, 1945, to P10,111.

    Some time prior to this date, the guardian of Pedro Martinez offered to pay the debt, but the creditor Jacinto Notor refused to accept the payment, as a result of which the present action was instituted by the guardian of Pedro Martinez in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, wherein, the necessary amount was deposited. In the complaint (filed before the liberation of the Philippines), it was prayed that the debtor be declared as having fully paid his indebtedness to Jacinto Notor. After trial, the lower court, on August 18, 1945, (already after liberation) rendered judgment declaring that the plaintiff, Ramon Martinez, as guardian of Pedro Martinez, had paid in full his indebtedness to the defendant, Jacinto Notor, from the time he consigned the amount thereof by depositing it with the clerk of court of First Instance of Batangas. From this judgment, Jacinto Notor appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on November 25, 1947, rendered a decision affirming the judgment of the court of origin. From the latter decision, Jacinto Notor (the petitioner) has come to this court in an appeal by way of certiorari. He alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in holding (1) that there was a valid consignation; (2) that the respondent debtor can pay off the mortgage within two years although the parties agreed "that this contract is renewable at the discretion of the mortgagee" ; and (3) that the courts of the Commonwealth and their successors, the courts of the Philippine Republic, have jurisdiction over the case.

    It appearing from the stipulation of the parties that the defendant Jacinto Notor "admits the allegations contained in the complaint in sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and that "the only question to be raised in the complaint is whether, according to the contract Exhibit A, the defendant-mortgagee has the right to renew or not the mortgage contract at his discretion, as embodied in paragraph 2 of Exhibit A," the herein petitioner cannot now allege that there was no valid consignation. It is true that there is no allegation in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint to the effect that there was notice of consignation, as required by article 1177 of the Civil Code, but the absence of such allegation is cured by the positive stipulation that the only question to be raised is whether the creditor has the right to renew the mortgage contract at his discretion. The first assignment of error is therefore without merit.

    It is the view of the herein petitioner that he has the absolute right to renew the term of the promissory note and accordingly refuse to accept payment from the debtor. It is noteworthy that the note is payable within two years from February 28, 1943, and that the clause providing that the contract is renewable at the discretion of the creditor, contains the condition that the debtor promises to pay according to the terms of the promissory note. Since at the time (prior to January 29, 1945) the promissory note in question was undeniably in force, the debtor had the right thereunder to pay within two years from February 28, 1943. The pact allowing payment within two years will be meaningless, if the theory of the herein petitioner were correct. At any rate, it is futile to speak of any renewal before the note had even matured and unless the debtor was unable to pay within the original term of two years. The second assignment of error is also untenable.

    There can be no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Commonwealth and of the Republic. In the case of Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 Phil., 113, 371; 41 Off. Gaz., 779, we have held that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice during the Japanese military occupation which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid and, by virtue of the principle of postliminy in international law, remained good and valid after the liberation of the Philippines. The litigation between the parties herein is certainly not of a political complexion, since it involves merely their civil rights, and it is immaterial whether the currency in dispute was Japanese military notes. At any rate, the tender of payment was made during the Japanese military occupation when said military notes were legal tender. Under the rules of Public International Law, the right of the military occupant, in the exercise of his governmental power, to issue military currency as legal tender has never been seriously questioned. (Haw Pia v. China Banking Corporation, 80 Phil., 604; 45 Off Gaz. (Supp. to No. 9), 229; Philippine Trust Company v. Araneta, G.R. No. L-2734, March 17, 1949 1). In the case of Haw Pia v. China Banking Corporation, supra, we have already recognized the validity of a payment of a mortgage indebtedness in Japanese military notes. This has to be so, because "the law made by the occupant within his admitted power, whether morally justifiable or not will bind any member of the occupied population as against any other member of it, . . . as far as it produces an effect during the occupation." (Hilado v. De la Costa and Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. L-150, April 30, 1949 2). In the case at bar we are not authorizing the circulation of Japanese military notes, as legal tender at present, but we are merely giving effect to a payment that was valid and binding at the time it was made. The third assignment of error is likewise without merit.

    Wherefore, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with costs against the herein petitioner. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. 83 Phil., 132.

    2. 83 Phil., 471.

    G.R. No. L-1892   August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 300


    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