Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > December 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 24788 December 17, 1926 - FULGENCIO M. DEL CASTILLO v. RUFINO MADRILEÑA

049 Phil 749:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 24788. December 17, 1926. ]

FULGENCIO M. DEL CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUFINO MADRILEÑA, administrator of the estate of J. Pablo Garcia, deceased, Defendant-Appellant.

Simeon Bitanga for Appellant.

Fernando Mapa, Jr. for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CONTRACTS; "VALES;" REVENUE STAMPS. — Vales or contracts containing the elements of a promissory note must be stamped with the internal revenue stamps as required by law. The law does not, however, fix the time when shall stamp shall be placed thereon. They may be stamped at the time they are executed and delivered or at the time they are presented in evidence. The stamp shall be paid for by the person making the contract or vale.

2. REVENUE STAMPS MUST BE PLACED ON "VALES," SHOULD BE PLACED AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT. — Under the provisions of section 2771 of the Administrative Code, as amended by section 16 of Act No. 2835, any persons who fails to fix and cancel the requisite stamp or stamps to any document at the time required by law shall be subject to a fine of not more than P300.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The purpose of this action was to recover the sum of P1,795.20 together with 47 cavans of palay or their equivalent in the sum of P5 per cavan, and costs. The said sum of P1,795.20, as alleged by the plaintiff, was the amount due for merchandise sold by the plaintiff to J. Pablo Garcia and his wife during his lifetime together with certain sums of money loaned to hem from time to time. The 47 cavans of palay was the balance of a larger number sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant interposed a general and special defense together with a counterclaim.

After hearing the evidence upon the issue presented by the petition and answer, the Honorable M. L. de la Rosa, auxiliary Judge, denied the contention of the plaintiff in re said 47 cavans of palay and also the special defense and counterclaim of the defendant as well as a part of the claim of the plaintiff for the said sum of P1,7952.20, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P1,774.55. From that judgment the defendant appealed, and presents several assignments of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

From an examination of the record it appears that during the trial of the cause the plaintiff, in support of his contention that the defendant owed him the said sum of P1,795.20 presented a number of vales as proof of said indebtedness. Objection was made to the admissibility of said vales upon the ground that an internal revenue stamp, as required by paragraph (g), section 1449, in relation with section 1452 of the Administrative Code, had not been placed thereon in order to make them admissible in evidence. The lower court found that some of the chits and proof presented by the plaintiff did not sustain his contention, and refused to allow them as evidence of the claim of indebtedness against the defendant. After the elimination of said chits the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the amount due upon the vales admitted in evidence amounting to P1,774.55. The lower court further ordered that the plaintiff, in order to conform with the law, should placed the revenue stamps required by law upon the vales admitted in evidence, and that no execution should be issued upon the judgment rendered until the plaintiff had complied with that order. From that judgment the defendant appealed.

In his first assignment of error the appellant alleges that the lower court committed an error in admitting said vales as evidence, without the same having been stamped with the internal revenue stamps in accordance with paragraph (g) of section 1449 An examination of said vales will show that they are in fact promises to pay money; that they are signed by the defendant; that said vales contain all of the elements required by the Negotiable Instruments Law for promissory notes and therefore must be stamped in accordance with the provisions of the law. By reference to sections 40 and 41 of the revised rules relating to documentary stamps, it will be seen by section 41 that all vales containing the necessary elements of a promissory note must be stamped with the internal revenue stamps. That being true, the lower court committed an error in admitting said vales as evidence until they were stamped in accordance with the provisions of the law.

That error, however of the lower court was cured by his refusal to allow an execution upon the judgment rendered until said vales had been stamped. The rule requiring said vales to be stamped does not contain any provision as to the time when they shall be stamped. The result is, therefore that they may be stamped at the time they are executed and delivered or at the time they are presented in evidence. The lower court evidently recognized that fact and admitted them in evidence without being stamped, erroneously but gave the plaintiff an opportunity to stamp them in order to obtain an execution upon his judgment. Section 1459 provides that the tax shall be paid by the person making said vales, by the person signing them, by the person issuing them, or by the person accepting them or transferring them, and shall be paid at the time such act is done or transaction had. However, the rule is well established that this tax may be paid at any time either before or at the time said documents are presented in evidence. The lower court committed no error, therefore, by requiring the plaintiff, in order to secure an execution of his judgment, to place the necessary stamps upon said vales.

Attention is called, however, to the provisions of section 2721 of the Administrative Code, as amended by section 16 of Act No. 2835, which provides a penalty for the failure to affix the necessary stamps. Said section 16 of Act No. 2835 provides: "Any person who fails to affix and cancel the requisite stamp or stamps to any document at the time required by law shall be subject to a fine of not more than three hundred pesos."cralaw virtua1aw library

The appellant further contends that the lower court committed an error in admitting a large number of said vales in evidence, for the reason that they had either been changed or altered without the consent of the appellant. With reference to the said assignment of error, an examination of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause clearly sustains the conclusions of the lower court. The appellant further contends in his fifth assignment of error that the lower court should have admitted his counterclaim. An examination of the record in relation with said assignment of error clearly justifies the conclusion of the lower court in denying said counterclaim.

From all of the foregoing, and after a careful examination of the record, we find no reason for changing or modifying the judgment of the lower court. The same is therefore hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, 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






December-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 23451 December 2, 1926 - JUAN SUMULONG v. JOSEFA MORAN

    048 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 26320 December 3, 1926 - S. W. O’BRIEN, ET AL. v. Hon. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 25604 December 6, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ELIGIO AMANTE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 26170 December 6, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TEODORO LUCHICO

    049 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 23871 December 7, 1926 - MUNICIPALITY OF LEMERY v. ANDRES MENDOZA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 24995 December 8, 1926 - EUSEBIO MACASA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF APOLONIO GARCIA

    049 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 25235 December 9, 1926 - LIM JULIAN v. TIBURCIO LUTERO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 23386 December 12, 1926 - MERCEDES GUSTILO, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

    048 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 25963 December 14, 1926 - SUSANA GLARAGA v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. 25976 December 16, 1926 - FRANCISCO J. GONZALES, ET AL. v. PAULINA FRANCISCO

    049 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 24788 December 17, 1926 - FULGENCIO M. DEL CASTILLO v. RUFINO MADRILEÑA

    049 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. 25845 December 17, 1926 - PARIS MANILA PERFUME CO. v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO.

    049 Phil 753

  • G.R. No. 26202 December 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FILEMON CABIGAS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. 26337 December 17, 1926 - CELSO LEDESMA v. MUN. OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. 25940 December 18, 1926 - ALEJANDRA MEJICA v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

    049 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. 24047 December 17, 1926 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. LACSON COMPANY, INC.

    048 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 23483 December 18, 1926 - ANTONIO AMATA, ET AL. v. JUANA TABLIZO, ET AL.

    048 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 23810 December 18, 1926 - CATALINO VALDERRAMA v. NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO., INC.

    048 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 25072 December 18, 1926 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. DOMINGO LEGARDA

    048 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 25954 December 18, 1926 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JUAN GISBERT, ET AL.

    049 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. 25267 December 24, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIO PAMINTUAN

    049 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 25488 December 24, 1926 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VDA. DE SY QUIA

    049 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. 25739 December 24, 1926 - MAXIMO VIOLA, ET AL. v. VICENTA TECSON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 25846 December 24, 1926 - JUAN CAMAHORT v. JUAN POSADAS

    049 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. 25950 December 24, 1926 - E. AWAD v. FILMA MERCANTILE CO., INC.

    049 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. 26483 December 24, 1926 - SMITH, BELL & CO., ET AL. v. Hon. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 26615 December 24, 1926 - MANUEL RODRIGUEZ v. Hon. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 24930 December 31, 1926 - TAN PHO, ET AL. v. AMPARO NABLE JOSE

    049 Phil 828

  • G.R. No. 25694 December 31, 1926 - LEOCADIA ANGELO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. 25811 December 31, 1926 - BPI v. ULRICH FOERSTER

    049 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 26062 December 31, 1926 - JOSE V. RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. J. R. REDFERN

    049 Phil 849

  • G.R. No. 26374 December 31, 1926 - NICANOR JACINTO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    049 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. 25853 December 31, 1926 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. CIPRIANO E. UNSON

    050 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. 26118 December 31, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MARIANO ESCUETA

    050 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. 23239 December 31, 1926 - FELIPE DIZON v. NICOLAS RIVERA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 996

  • G.R. No. 24003 December 31, 1926 - JULIAN SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. PEDRO SANTOS, ET AL.

    048 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 23352 December 31, 1926 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO. v. JUAN M. POIZAT, ET AL.

    048 Phil 536