Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > January 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4194 January 26, 1909 - KO BENGCO v. SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO, ET AL.

012 Phil 595:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4194. January 26, 1909. ]

KO BENGCO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Franck E. Green, for Appellants.

Guanko, Avanceña & Albeto, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DEBTS AND DEBTORS; TRANSFER OF OBLIGATIONS; APPLICATION OF PAYMENTS. — The original action in the court of the justice of the peace was upon a contract executed by U. in favor of T. agreeing to pay to the latter the sum of P300. The contract was then indorsed by T. to N., who afterwards indorsed and delivered it to the plaintiff. Subsequently U. paid the money to the justice of the peace, who delivered it to the sheriff, indicating that the payment was to be applied to the liquidation of the contract debt. The court below rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The sheriff, however, paid the money to other defendants who had been permitted to intervene, upon petition, in the subsequent action by the plaintiff against the sheriff and his deputy: Held, That the original debtor, in making the payment to the justice of the peace, had the right to indicate how the money should be applied, and that the sheriff and his deputy are liable to the plaintiff for the money wrongfully paid to other persons.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


On the 3day of December, 1906, the plaintiff commenced an action against the said sheriff and the said deputy sheriff, to recover the sum of P300. On the 17th day of January, 1907, the said defendants, to wit, the sheriff and the deputy sheriff, filed their answer to the said complaint. Later, on petition, the said Marquez Lim and Hang Wo were made defendants in said cause and on the 19th day of February, 1907, filed their answer.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Honorable Henry C. Bates, judge, found from said evidence that the plaintiff was entitled to recover of the defendants, the said sheriff of the Province of Iloilo and his deputy, Lorenzo Guevara, the sum of P300, without rendering a judgment for costs against any of said parties. From this judgment the defendants appealed.

From an examination of the record brought to this court the following facts appear:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That on or about the 9th day of July, 1907 (Chinese calendar), one Uy Cebio executed and delivered to one Jose Melliza Te Juat, a contract promising to pay to the latter the sum of P300.

Second. That some time after the execution and delivery of said contract, the said Te Juat indorsed the same to one Pe Naco.

Third. That later Pe Naco indorsed and delivered the said contract to the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff claims that the indorsement by Pe Naco to him was made upon the 31st day of August. The defendants dispute not only the fact that the contract was indorsed on that date, but also the fact that it was indorsed at all to the plaintiff.

Fourth. That on the 4th day of September, 1906, the said Marquez Lim commenced an action in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Iloilo, against the said Pe Naco for the recovery of a certain sum of money. On the same day the said justice of the peace issued an attachment in said cause in favor of the plaintiff and an attempt was made to attach said contract and to prevent the payment of the same by Uy Cebio to the said Pe Naco.

Fifth. That on the 6th day of September, 1906, the said Hang Wo commenced an action in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Iloilo against the said Pe Naco for the purpose of recovering a certain sum of money. On the same day the justice of the peace issued an attachment in said cause in favor of the plaintiff and an attempt was made to attach the said contract and to prevent the payment of the same to the said Pe Naco.

Sixth. That on the 29th day of September, 1906, Ko Bengco commenced an action in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of Iloilo against the said Uy Cebio, which action was based upon the said contract executed and delivered by the said Uy Cebio to the said Jose Melliza Te Juat.

Seventh. That on the 1st day of October, 1906, the defendants, Marquez Lim and Hang Wo, presented a petition in the said court of the justice of the peace, asking that they be made parties to the said action between Ko Bengco and Uy Cebio, alleging that they were the true owners of the said contract in question.

Eighth. That on the 4th day of October, 1906, the said justice of the peace rendered a judgment in said action by Ko Bengco v. Uy Cebio upon said contract, for the sum of P300 and costs and denied the petition of the said Marquez Lim and Hang Wo.

Ninth. Various executions were issued by the justice of the peace in favor of Marquez Lim and Hang Wo upon their respective judgments against Pe Naco, as well as the judgment which Ko Bengco held against the said Uy Cebio.

Tenth. That on the 8th day of October, 1906, the said Uy Cebio went to the office of the justice of the peace for the purpose of paying him the P300 which he owed on said contract. The justice of the peace not being able to take care of the money in his office, advised the said Uy Cebio to pay the same to the sheriff, which he on the same day did.

Eleventh. That on the same day (the 8th of October, 1906) the said sheriff paid out of the said sum of P300 to Marquez Lim and Hang Wo, the sums of P124.10 and P175.90, respectively.

During the trial of the cause in the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff attempted to show that at the time (September 4 and 6) the said attachments were issued in favor of Marquez Lim and Hang Wo against Pe Naco, to prevent the payment of the said contract by Uy Cebio, said contract had before that date (the 31st of August) been indorsed or transferred by the said Pe Naco to the plaintiff herein. The defendants attempted to prove that at the time of said attachments, Pe Naco was still the holder and owner of said contract. Upon this question w e make no finding of fact, for the reason that the question who was the owner of said contract was submitted to the justice of the peace in the action of Ko Bengco v. Uy Cebio, in which action the said Marquez Lim and Hang Wo were present and took part, and the said justice of the peace there decided that Ko Bengco was the owner of said contract and was entitled to a judgment thereon, and did on the 4th day of October, 1906, render a judgment on said contract in favor of Ko Bengco. None of the parties appealed from this judgment; the judgment, therefore, became final as to all of the parties to it.

It is clear that the defendant Uy Cebio, when he paid to the sheriff the said sum of P300, intended to have it applied upon the contract which he had theretofore executed and delivered in favor of Jose Melliza Te Juat. He indicated that fact to the justice of the peace when he offered him the money and also took a receipt from the sheriff, stating that the payment was for the purpose of paying the amount due on said contract.

Our conclusion is, therefore, that the judgment of the justice of the peace with reference to the ownership of said contract is conclusive and the P300 which the said Uy Cebio paid to the sheriff having been paid for the purpose of liquidating the amount due on the said contract, the sheriff had no right or authority to apply the said money to the payment of the judgments of Marquez Lim and Hang Wo, respectively, v. Pe Naco. The sheriff and his deputy having therefore wrongfully applied the said sum of P300 to the payment of the judgments of Marquez Lim and Hang Wo, money which they had received for the benefit of Ko Bengco, they are responsible to the said Ko Bengco for the same. Uy Cebio had a right to indicate upon which of the various claims against him the said payment should be applied.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore hereby affirmed, with costs.

Arellano C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, 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





January-1909 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4000 January 5, 1909 - ANDRES ELUMBARING v. HERMOGENES ELUMBARING

    012 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4001 January 5, 1909 - SILVESTRA LUBRICO v. LEONA ARBADO

    012 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4393 January 8, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. CITY OF MANILA

    012 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 4648 January 8, 1909 - CLAUS SPRECKELS, ET AL. v. D. H. WARD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 4762 January 8, 1909 - ALBERTO LAGAHIT v. SIMEON NENGASCA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 4841 January 8, 1909 - JAMES F. MACLEOD v. PHILIPPINE PUBLISHING COMPANY

    012 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 5120 January 8, 1909 - TIMOTEO GONZALEZ v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    012 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 4680 January 9, 1909 - ROBERTO MORENO v. AGO CHI

    012 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 4350 January 11, 1909 - MONICA CASON v. F. W. RICKARDS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4627 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO QUE-QUENCO

    012 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 4634 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. UY-KUE-BENG

    012 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 4089 January 12, 1909 - ARTURO PELAYO v. MARCELO LAURON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 4604 January 12, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    012 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 4849 January 12, 1909 - TIMOTEO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 4596 January 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN FORTALEZA

    012 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4810 January 13, 1909 - VICTORIA GARCIA v. B. MONTAGUE

    012 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 4495 January 14, 1909 - TY SUE, ET AL. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 5050 January 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO-SIACO

    012 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 4461 January 16, 1909 - MACARIO SAMSON v. VICENTE SALVILLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 3187 January 19, 1909 - MICHAEL SANDELIZ v. PAZ REYES

    012 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 3966 January 19, 1909 - JUAN LEANO I, ET AL. v. AGAPITO LEANO

    012 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 3988 January 19, 1909 - GUILLERMO YACAPIN v. JULIAN JIBERO

    012 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 4563 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GARINO SORIANO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 4676 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOGONON

    012 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 4720 January 19, 1909 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    012 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 4750 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO F. GUTIERREZ

    012 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 4766 January 19, 1909 - ANG QUIAN CIEG, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 4915 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VY CAN SIU

    012 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5049 January 19, 1909 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 4765 January 20, 1909 - ANG SENG QUEN, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 4291 January 21, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. CUSTODIO DAUDEN

    012 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5101 January 21, 1909 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 4721 January 23, 1904

    RICARDO v. BASILIO MAJINAY

    012 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 4813 January 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO SIAMSICO

    012 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 3714 January 26, 1909 - ISABELO M. MONTANO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    012 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 3783 January 26, 1909 - DAMASO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 4194 January 26, 1909 - KO BENGCO v. SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4374 January 26, 1909 - RUFINA ROCES v. FRANCISCO JALANDONI, ET AL.

    012 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 4710 January 26, 1909 - LEON AGCAOILI v. BENITO ACASIO

    012 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 4715 January 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CHIA-TUA

    012 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4474 January 27, 1909 - BERNABE ALCERA v. SATURNINO NERY

    012 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 4706 January 27, 1909 - RAMON PAPA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    012 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 4816 January 27, 1909 - FRANCISCO Q. GONZALEZ v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    012 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4725 January 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 4832 January 28, 1909 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 3016 January 29, 1909 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITIES OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    012 Phil 639