Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > August 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5054 August 31, 1953 - ENRIQUE A. GARCIA v. NATIVIDAD DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

093 Phil 683:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5054. August 31, 1953.]

ENRIQUE A. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIVIDAD DE LOS SANTOS, assisted by her husband MAXIMINO VASQUEZ, SEVERINO DE LOS SANTOS, PEDRO DE LOS SANTOS, RAMON DE LOS SANTOS, and JOSEFINA DE LOS SANTOS, represented by NATIVIDAD DE LOS SANTOS, as Guardian Ad-Litem, Defendants-Appellants.

Galang, Angeles & Galang for Appellants.

Hermogenes Datuin for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; PROMISSORY NOTES. — TERM OF PAYMENT SPECIFYING FOUR YEARS AFTER DATE. — Where a promissory note executed during the Japanese occupation was made payable at a fixed period after date and payment was to be in the currency prevailing at the end of that period, that is, at the maturity of the note, the promissor must pay in Philippine currency and may not discharge his debt by paying only the equivalent of the Japanese currency he had received.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.:


This is an action for foreclosure of mortgage.

It appears that on September 9, 1944, defendants executed in favor of plaintiff a promissory note for P10,000, Philippine currency, payable "four years after date," with interest at 10 per cent per annum, and as security for the note, they also constituted a mortgage on a piece of land in the City of Manila, with the stipulation "that payment of the interests as well as the aforesaid obligation shall be made in full whatever legal tender and currency is prevailing and in use at the time such interests or the obligation becomes due and payable." As the note was not paid when it fell due, with the exception of the sum of P500 delivered by defendants to plaintiff in 1946, the latter brought the present action for foreclosure, and judgment having been rendered in his favor for the sum due, plus P600 for attorney’s fee and costs, defendants have appealed to this Court, assigning several errors. But such of these as have to do with the question of moratorium have become moot and untenable in view of our decision in the case of Rutter v. Esteban * (49 Off. Gaz., (5) 1087) invalidating the law and executive orders on moratorium. There only remains for determination the question of whether defendant’s debt should now be paid in present-day currency peso for peso or only its equivalent according to the Ballantyne scale of values.

The question is not new, the same having been already decided in the case of Cristobal Roño v. Jose L. Gomez Et. Al. 1 (46 Off. Gaz., Supp. to No. 11, p. 339), which appears to be on all fours with the one at bar. In that case, action was brought on October 15, 1945 on a promise made on October 5, 1944, "to pay one year after date the sum of P4,000 . . . in currency that will be prevailing by the end of the stipulated period of one year," and this Court there held that the promissor "must pay 4,000 pesos in Philippine currency" and "may not discharge his debt by paying only the equivalent of the Japanese currency he had received in 1944." It should be noted that in that case, as well as in the present, the note was made payable at a fixed period after date and payment was to be in the currency prevailing at the end of that period, that is, at the maturity of the note. The ratio decidendi is given in the report of that case and need not be repeated here.

Appellants, however, claim that the promissory note here in question should be construed as permitting payment at any time within four years after its date, and that giving it that interpretation, it could have been paid during the Japanese occupation, and in accordance with the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Feria in the case of Jose L. Gomez v. Miguela Tabia 2 (47 Off. Gaz., 641), the obligation could be discharged after liberation by payment of its equivalent in Philippine currency at the rate fixed in the Ballantyne schedule. But this interpretation is contrary to the clear and express language of the instrument, which enjoins payment "four years after date," a period presumed to be established for the benefit of both creditor and debtor (Art. 1127 of the old Civil Code; Art. 1196 of the new) and may not — in the absence of a showing that it was established for the benefit of the debtor alone — be shortened at the mere will of the latter by allowing him to pay the debt before the lapse of the stated period without the consent of the creditor. The provision in the mortgage that its duration shall not exceed four years from date does not necessarily argue that the promissory note secured by it could be paid at any time during those four years even without the consent of the promise. The provision may have been inserted to forestall any attempt to make the mortgaged property answerable for any extension of the note.

The case of De Asis v. Agdamag Et. Al. (90 Phil., 249), cited by appellants is not in point, because there the loan was payable "on or before" a specified date. Neither may appellants invoke the case of Colmenar v. Cosca (76 Phil. 857), which concerns the right of the vendor a retro to repurchase five years from the date of the instrument, with the provision that the property sold would automatically belong to the vendee should the right not be exercised within that period. In the latter case it is obvious that the intention was not to allow the repurchase only after the expiration of the five years since that would amount to a denial of that right.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the applicants.

Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PARAS, C.J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent for the same reasons stated in my opinion in the case of Roño v. Gomez, 83 Phil., 890.

Endnotes:



* Supra, p. 68.

1. 83 Phil., 890. 2 84 Phil., 269.




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






August-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5968 August 5, 1953 - CLARO RIVERA, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO OCAMPO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-4933 August 6, 1953 - PLACIDO NACUA v. ZACARIAS ALO

    093 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-6056 August 11, 1953 - TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    093 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. L-4842 August 20, 1953 - YU GOAT v. RESTITUTO HUGO

    093 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-5214 August 21, 1953 - INOCENCIO SIPIN, ET AL. v. FILADELFO S. ROJAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-5275 August 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASIG

    093 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-6096 August 25, 1953 - NICANOR JACINTO v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-5588 August 26, 1953 - SALVADOR E. BIMEDA v. ARCADIO PEREZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-3607 August 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO E. BERNARDINO

    093 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-4371 August 27, 1953 - MARIA GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4827 August 27, 1953 - JACINTO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO UNGSON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. L-5793 August 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ESTOISTA

    093 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-5197 August 28, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO GAMMUAC

    093 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-4083 August 31, 1953 - L. F. LANG v. ACTING PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF SURIGAO

    093 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-4689 August 31, 1953 - JOSE T. VALENZUELA v. JOSE I. BAKANI

    093 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-4900 August 31, 1953 - FINANCING CORPORATION OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-5054 August 31, 1953 - ENRIQUE A. GARCIA v. NATIVIDAD DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-5113 August 31, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPINO TANGBAOAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-5180 August 31, 1953 - CONSEJO INFANTE v. JOSE CUNANAN

    093 Phil 691

  • G.R. Nos. L-6355-56 August 31, 1953 - PASTOR M. ENDENCIA, ET AL. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    093 Phil 696