Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1904 > April 1904 Decisions > G.R. No. 1492 April 15, 1904 - TAN MACHAN v. MARIA GAN AYA DE LA TRINIDAD, ET AL.

003 Phil 684:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1492. April 15, 1904. ]

TAN MACHAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIA GAN AYA DE LA TRINIDAD ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

A. V . Herrero, for Appellants.

P. Q. Rothrock, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PROMISSORY NOTES; SURETIES; PAROL EVIDENCE. — Parol proof may be received to show as between the original parties to a note of their successor in interest that the relation between the makers was that of principal and surety.

2. EVIDENCE; BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. — Where the introduction in evidence of books of account is objected to upon the ground that they are not kept in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Commerce, the bill of exceptions must show that such was the fact in order to make the exception available in the appellate court.

3. ID.; ID.; WRITINGS OF DECEASED PERSONS; REFRESHING MEMORY OF WITNESS. — Books of account, even if not kept in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Commerce, may be admitted if within the rule as to writings of deceased persons, or may be used by witness to refresh his memory.

4. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; GROUNDS OF OBJECTION; EXCEPTION. — In examining the question as to whether the ruling of the court below on an objection to evidence was correct or not the appellate will not consider any other ground of objection than that raised in the court below.


D E C I S I O N


COOPER, J. :


This action was brought by the plaintiff, Tan Machan, against Maria Gan Aya de la Trinidad, wife of Manuel Gay; Filomena Gan Aya de la Trinidad, wife of Benito Sanchez; Catalina Gan Aya de la Trinidad, wife of Esteban de la Cruz; Emilia Gan Aya de la Trinidad, wife of Jose Abello; and Carmen Canete, wife of Antonio Navarro.

The suit was against the defendants as the heirs and legal representatives of Señora Ruperta Gualinco, except Dona Carmen Canete, who is sued under the allegation that she has a contract with the heirs for the purchase of the hacienda, the property of Señora Gualinco, deceased, and upon it is sought to establish a lien for the satisfaction of the claim the subject of the complaint.

It is alleged in the complaint that Señora Ruperta Gualinco, the deceased, executed a certain promissory note in the sum of $9,000, on the 9th day of August, 1894, payable to the order of Don Clemente Zulueta; that the plaintiff, Tan Machan, and one Lim Ponson signed said note as sureties; that the said Señora Ruperta Gualinco failing to pay the same, the plaintiff was obliged to pay said debt; that by reason of the payment of the said debt by the plaintiff, he became subrogated to all the rights of Don Clemente Zulueta, and the plaintiff asks that judgment be rendered in his favor for the sum of $7,361.03 (the amount due him after deducting payments made to him), together with interest at the rate of 6 per annum from the 27th day of April, 1895, the date of the payment of the debt by the plaintiff; and that the property of Señora Gualinco, deceased. mortgaged to secure the payment of the debt, be subjected to the claim of the plaintiff in satisfaction of the debt.

Doña Carmen Canete failed to answer and judgment by default was rendered against her, subjecting the property to the debt as to any claim which she might assert against it.

The defendants, the heirs of Señora Gualinco, denied in their answer that the plaintiff, Tan Machan, and Lim Ponson signed as sureties and allege that they were principals in the making of the obligation and as such were liable for their proportionate part of the debt.

Judgment was rendered by the court in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants as the heirs and legal representatives of Dona Ruperta Gialinco, for the sum of $7,361.03, principal, with $3,569.08, interest, and subjecting the hacienda, machinery, and other articles appurtenant to the same to the payment of the debt.

The errors assigned by the defendants are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The court erred in admitting proof at the trial to show that the plaintiff and Lim Ponson signed the note as sureties.

(2) That the court erred in admitting the books of account kept by the plaintiff, Tan Machan, in which books said note was entered as a bill payable given as security for Dona Ruperta Gualinco for $9,000, the payment to Zulueta by the plaintiff, Tan Machan, on the 9th day of February, 1895,m of the sum of $5,000 and on the 28th day of February of $4,000.

(3) That the court erred in holding that the note was signed by plaintiff and Lim Ponson as sureties and not as principals and in not giving due weight to the testimony of the defendants to the effect that the note was made by the plaintiff Dona Ruperta Gualinco and Lim Ponson jointly, and that the money received on said loan was equally divided between the said makers of the note.

The question raised by the last assignment of error can not be considered.

No motion having been made for a new trial, this court can not review the evidence taken in the court below, nor retry the questions of fact. (Sec. 497, Code of Civil Procedure.) We will state, however , that an examination of the evidence contained in the record only discloses a conflict of testimony with the preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff and the finding of the court in this particular must have been sustained.

The Court of First Instance did not err in admitting testimony to show that the plaintiff and Lim Ponson signed the note as sureties for Señora Ruperta Gualinco. The admission of such proof is not a violation of the rule which prohibits the admission of oral evidence to contradict a written instrument. The transaction between the sureties does not purport to be covered by the document. It was a collateral agreement which could be proven by evidence outside of the instrument itself. (McKelvey on Evidence, 368; Brandt on Suretyship, sec. 30.)

The remaining assignment of error to be considered is as to admission of the books of account kept by the plaintiff.

The objection to the admission of the books is evidence was "that the books were not kept in accordance with the provisions of the code Commerce." There is no statement made in the bill of exceptions as to whether the books were kept in accordance with the Code of Commerce or not.

Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the party excepting shall cause to be presented to the judge of brief statement of the facts of the case, sufficient to show the bearing of the rulings, orders, or judgments excepted to.’A statement should have been made in the bill of exceptions as to the particular in which the books were deficient.

If such was the fact, it should have been stated in the bill of exceptions that the books received in evidence were not certified by the municipal judge of the district, nor were the pages of the books stamped with the seal of the municipal judge or justice of the peace.

The statement contained in the brief of the appellants that such was the case can not be considered. It should have appeared in the bill of exceptions.

Under section 338 of the code of Civil Procedure a witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting the fact by anything written by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact fresh in his memory and he knew the same was correctly stated in the writing.

And under section 328, the entries and other writings of a deceased person, made at or near the time of the transaction, and in a position to know the facts stated, may be read as prima facie evidence of the therein stated when they were made in the course of the ordinary and regular duty of the person making the entry.

Books of account, when they come within the provisions of section 328 or 338, Code of Civil Procedure, are admissible without regard to the provisions of the Code of Commerce.

We can not consider the additional objection made in the brief of counsel — that is, that the were not admissible under the provisions of article 1228 of the Civil Code.

The rule is that, in examining the question as to whether the ruling of the court below on an objection to the evidence was correct or not, the appellate will not consider any other ground of objection than that raised in the court below. (8 Enc. Pl. and Pr., 223.)

There was no objection made at the time the books were admitted in evidence that they were not admissible under the provisions of article 1228 of the Civil Code and we therefore can not consider this objection.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, and the cost of appeal is adjudged against the defendants.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, McDonough and Johnson, 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






April-1904 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1656 April 2, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO DE LA CRUZ

    003 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 1627 April 2, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WASHINGTON

    003 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 1107 April 2, 1904 - IN RE: AUGUSTUS A. MONTAGNE & FRANK E. DOMINGUEZ

    003 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 1490 April 2, 1904 - O. F. CAMPBELL AND GO-TAUCO v. BEHN, MEYER & CO.

    003 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 1132 April 2, 1904 - MARTINIANO M. VELOSO v. PETRONA NAGUIT, ET AL.

    003 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 1645 April 4, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. HOGU REYES, ET AL.

    003 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 1564 April 5, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DE LA PATA, ET AL.

    003 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 1625 April 7, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. EULALIO BUNDOC, ET AL.

    003 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 1462 April 8, 1904 - LA RAZON SOCIAL DE HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. ROSENDO LACSON

    003 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 1587 April 8, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO DALAWAN

    003 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 1673 April 8, 1904 - PETRONILA ENCARNACION v. B. S. AMBLER

    003 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. 1542 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CORNELIO DEVELA, ET AL.

    003 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 1559 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO ALBANO

    003 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 1585 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN VIRAY

    003 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 1586 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE NAVARRO

    003 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 1905 April 9, 1904 - FLAVIANO FELIZARDO, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF IMUS

    003 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 1326 April 9, 1904 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. W. F. NORRIS

    003 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. 1614 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ANACLETO EMBATE

    003 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 1535 April 11, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GINETE

    003 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 1447 April 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO DE LEON, ET AL.

    003 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 1573 April 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS DE GUZMAN

    003 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 1620 April 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO GUILLERMO

    003 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 1318 April 12, 1904 - PRISCA NAVAL, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    003 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. 1547 April 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MANIQUE, ET AL.

    003 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 1574 April 13, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CHOA CHI CO

    003 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 1529 April 13, 1904 - ESTEFANIA VILLAR v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA

    003 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 1492 April 15, 1904 - TAN MACHAN v. MARIA GAN AYA DE LA TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    003 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. 1603 April 15, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FLAVIANO SIMEON

    003 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 1688 April 15, 1904 - FINDLAY & CO. v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    003 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 1329 April 15, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL SAMIO

    003 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 1362 April 15, 1904 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    003 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 1356 April 15, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES BARNES

    003 Phil 704

  • G.R. No. 1412 April 15, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. J. C. WINEBRENNER

    003 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 1853 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN P. MILLER

    003 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 1479 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORINA DE LOS SANTOS

    003 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. 1501 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO

    003 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 1546 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE RAMA

    003 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 1590 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. TELESFORO RORALDO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 1646 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. VENTURA MARIANO

    003 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 1552 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. DAVID TOMULAC

    003 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 1592 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO NATIVIDAD

    003 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 1705 April 22, 1904 - TOMAS BLANCO v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    003 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 1779 April 22, 1904 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    003 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 1385 April 22, 1904 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ ET AL.

    003 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 1477 April 22, 1904 - MARIA GONZALEZ v. SIMEON BLAS

    003 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. 1505 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN BUTARDO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. 1110 April 22, 1904 - ROMAN SARMIENTO v. MORTGAGE & DOMINGUEZ

    004 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 1184 April 22, 1904 - COMPAÑIA AGRICOLA DE ULTRAMAR v. ANACLETO REYES ET AL.

    004 Phil 2

  • G.R. No. 1244 April 22, 1904 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MIGUEL TOPINO ET AL.

    004 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 1596 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO ZAFRA ET. AL.

    004 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 1616 April 22, 1904 - JUAN CAÑIZARES HIVA v. THE PHILIPPINE TRADING COMPANY

    004 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 1626 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES ONTI

    004 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 1806 April 22, 1904 - SERVILIANO LANZUELA SANTOS v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    004 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 1810 April 22, 1904 - EULOGIO GARCIA v. B. S. AMBLER

    004 Phil 81