Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > August 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 2905 August 3, 1909 - LA VIUDA DE SOLER v. AURELIO RUSCA.

013 Phil 622:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2905. August 3, 1909. ]

LA VIUDA DE SOLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AURELIO RUSCA., Defendant-Appellant.

Manuel G. Gavieres, and Enrique Llopis, for Appellant.

Thos. D. Aitken, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. Action to Recover Price of Goods, Wares, and Merchandise. — S sold to R certain merchandise. Later R recognized his liability to S. At the time of the trial R introduced certain receipts, all of which showed that they represented payments for merchandise sold by S to R, prior to the time of the sale of the merchandise upon which the action was brought. S had given R credit for all payments made on the merchandise upon which the action was founded. The record clearly shows that the amount of the judgment rendered against the defendant was less than the amount due the plaintiff. The plaintiff not having appealed from the judgment of the lower court, that error will not be corrected.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover of the defendant the sum of P854.24, alleging that the same was a balance due for goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff, upon the 31st day of August, 1904.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial, the lower court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of P600.87, Philippine currency, and half of the costs, and allowed half of the costs to the defendant. From this decision of the lower court the defendant appealed and made several assignments of error.

During the trial the plaintiff attempted to prove that she had sold to the defendant goods, wares, and merchandise to the amount of P1,554.24, and that the defendant had only paid on said account the sum of P700. During the trial the plaintiff also proved by a letter (Exhibit F) that the defendant had acknowledged that he was indebted to the plaintiff.

The defendant attempted to prove during the trial that he had overpaid the account and that there was due him from the plaintiff the sum of P2.51, and presented several exhibits to sustain this contention. This exhibits were made up of various receipts. By reference to these exhibits or receipts it will appear, for example, that Exhibit 1, which was a receipt signed by the plaintiff for the sum of P195.70, was a receipt given for goods sold and delivered in the month of July, 1902, whereas the account upon which the plaintiff sues in the present case was not contracted until the 12th of August, 1902. It will be seen, therefore, that this receipt was given for other goods, wares, and merchandise sold before the date of the sale of the merchandise for which the present action is brought.

An examination of the Exhibits Nos.1 to 10, inclusive, will also demonstrate the fact that they were receipts for goods sold and delivered in the month of February, 1902, about eight months before the sale of the goods constituting the basis of the present action. To defendant also presented a receipt marked “Exhibit No. 15” for the payment of certain goods, wares, and merchandise, but upon examination it will be seen that this receipt also was for goods sold and delivered prior to the 12th day of August, 1902. Exhibit No. 16 is a receipt dated the 4th day of August, 1902.

The plaintiff gave the defendant credit for payment on the original account for goods sold and delivered on the 12th day of August, 1902, in the sum of P700. The defendant presented receipts marked Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 14, each being a receipt for the sum of P200, except Exhibit NO. 14, which was a receipt for P100, making in all the sum of P700. There is no proof other than these receipts showing that the defendant had paid more than the sum of P700 upon the said account, leaving a balance of P854.24.

We are unable to understand upon what theory the lower court arrived at his conclusion that there was due and unpaid on said account the sum of $691, Mexican, which reduced to Philippine currency amounted to P600.87. However, the plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment of the lower court and has presented no question here with reference to the amount of the judgment rendered by the lower court.

There being no sufficient reason shown by the appellant why the amount of the judgment of the lower court should be changed, and the plaintiff not having appealed, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





August-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2905 August 3, 1909 - LA VIUDA DE SOLER v. AURELIO RUSCA.

    013 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 3228 August 3, 1909 - UNITED STATES ET AL. v. WENCESLAO MERCADO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 4163 August 4, 1909 - ED BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    013 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 2894 August 5, 1909 - JOSE LASERNA TUPAZ v. RAFAEL LOZADA

    013 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 5114 August 5, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME ARREGLADO

    013 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 2085 August 10, 1909 - TIBURCIO SAENZ v. FIGUERAS HERMANOS

    013 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 5154 August 12, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SUPILA

    013 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 3666 August 17, 1909 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    013 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. 5184 August 17, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PLATON IBAÑEZ

    013 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 343 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL RIOTA, ET AL.

    014 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 4378 August 18, 1909 - CHAN KEEP, ET AL. v. LEON CHAN GIOCO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 4507 August 18, 1909 - MACARIA MANUEL, ET AL. v. FRIDOLIN WIGETT, ET AL.

    014 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 4859 August 18, 1909 - MANUEL JIMENO, ET AL. v. LOPE GACILAGO

    014 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 5071 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO CAS

    014 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. 5111 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE REYES, ET AL.

    014 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 5220 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL PINDONG, ET AL.

    014 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 5235 August 18, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN CELESTINO, ET AL.

    014 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 5110 August 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. FABIANA LEGASPI, ET AL.

    014 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 4045 August 23, 1909 - ILDEFONSO DORONILA v. GRACIANO GONZAGA

    014 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 4674 August 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO PANALIGAN

    014 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 3377 August 24, 1909 - BONIFACIO PIMENTEL v. EUGENIO GUTIERREZ

    014 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4918 August 26, 1909 - FELICIANA DARIANO v. JOSE FERNANDEZ FIDALGO

    014 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 3989 August 28, 1909 - LI HANG SHEONG v. VENANCIO C. DIAZ

    014 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 4426 August 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FILOTEO

    014 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 5292 August 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MANALINDE

    014 Phil 77