Alejandro Samson, Petitioner, vs. Andrea B. Andal de Aguila, et al., Respondents, G.R. No. L-5932, Feb. 25, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Title

Language

English

Source

The Lawyers Journal Volume XIX (Issue No.6) June 30, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Obligations (Law) -- Cases -- Philippines

Ballantyne schedule

Court of First Instance -- Manila

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[On March 4, 1947, Alejandro Samson filed against Agapito B. Andal and Valentina Berana de Andal in the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint for declaratory relief, praying that judgment be rendered fixing the amount which Alejandro Samson should pay to Agapito B. Andal and Valentina Berana de Andal under a deed of mortgage executed by the former in favor of the latter, and that the defendants be ordered to cancel the mortgage upon payment of said amount.]

Fulltext

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS Alejandro Srm1son, Petitioner, V3. Andrea B. Andat de Agui. h, ct al., Respondent:>, G.R. Nt). L-5932, Feb. 25, 1954, Pnrns, C.J.: OBLIGATION PAYABLE DURING THE JAPANESE OC.. CUPATION; PAYMENT AFTER LIBERATION MUST BE ADJUSTED WITH THE BALLANTYNE SCHEDULE.The Supreme Court has heretofore sustained the yroposition that, when an obligation is payable within a certain period of time, and the whole or part thereof coincides with the JapaneSe occupation, payment after the liberation must be adjusted in accordance with the Ballantyne schcdul'E!, because the debtor could have paid said obligation in Ja}Jd:i.ese war notes during the occupation. <Asis vs. Agdamag, G.R. No. L-3709, October 25, 1951; Ang Lam vs. Peregrino., G.R. No. L-4871, Ja:lUary 26, 1953) ; Jales vs. Gamara, G. R. No. L-4460, Oct. 31, 1053.) The debto1·'s mere failu.re to accomplish p<ayment during the Japanese occupation did not make him liable to pay, as dam:ige or penalty, the ':liffr-renc<• between th{' value of tl,e Japanese war notes at the time the obligation became payable and of the Philippine currency at the time of r,ayment. <G0n1ez vs. Tnhia, 47 O.G. 641.) It is true that the creditors herein could not demand payment prior to October 25, 194f;, but this did not prcdudE' the debtor, herein petitioner, from paying l'>is obligation at any time within one year from October 25, 1944, if he had wanted tQ du so. llbid.) Se11.<;1n S. Ceniza for petiifoncr. Sison, Sevilla, Aqitino & Paras and Pedro P. Colina for res;JOndents. DECISION PARAS, C.J.: On March 4, 1947, Alejanrlro Samson filed aga.inst Agapito B. Anda! and Valentina Berana de Andal in the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint for declaratory l'clief, praying that judgment be rendered fixing tht! amount which A!PjaT?drn Samson should pay to Agapito JJ. Andal and Valentina Bcrana de Anda! under a deed of mortgage executed by the former in favor of the latter, and that the defendantF be ordered to co.reel the mortgage upon pa.yment of said amount. On August 26, 1949, the court rendered a dedsion, declaring that the amount du~ from the plaintiff to the defendants is P150.00, Philippine currency, plus annual interest a.t the r::ite of 7% from October 25, 1!:144, and O!'dering the defendants to execute t he proper deed of cancellation upon payment by the plaintiff of said amount. The coui-t applied the Ballantyne scale of values. Agapito B. Andai and Valentina Berana de Anda! appealed to the Court of Apr~'als which, on J une 9, 1952, rendered a decision hclding that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants f'6,000.00 (the full amllunt of the loan obtained by the pl~nt!ff from the defendants on October 25, 1044), in actual Philippine currency, plus the stipulated intert:st, but subject to the mor!ltorium law. Fi·cm this decision Alejandro Samson has appealed to this Court by way of certiorari. By resolution cf October 17, 1952, Agapito B. Andal and Valentir.a Berana de Andcl 'who had <lier!) wel"C ordercci substituted as parties respondents by their heirs, Andrea B. Andal de Aguila '1nd others. The Court ;f Appeals found that Alejandro Sams1m, hnreir. petitionE"r, obtained from Agapito B. Andal and Valentina B. de Anda! on October 25, 1944, a. lo::i.n of f'6,000.00, with intr.rest at ':% per :innum and, to secure its payment, the former execut~d in favor of the latter a real estate m:n·tgage. 'fhat court, i.n holding that the pelitirmer ahould pay f'6,000.00 in p:P.sent Philippine r.'un·ency, argued that while t he loan was made during the: Japan<:se occupation, it became due and pnyable Q nly afte1· said period. We ha'"e heretofore sustained the pruposition that, when :lll r>bligUtion is payable within a certain 1ieriod of time, and the whole or part thereof coincides with the Japanese uccup:;.tion, payment after the liberation must be adjusted in accordance with the Ballantyne schedule, because the debtor could have paid said obligation in Japanese war notes during the occupation. (Asis vs. Agdamag, G.R. No. L-3709, . 0 ctober 25, 1951; Ang Lam vs. Pcregrina, G.R. No. L-4871, January 26, 1953.) As Mr. Justice Feria indicated in his crmcurring opinion in the case of Gomez vs. Tabia, 47 0 .G. G41, the debtor's mere failure to accomplish 1ia~·mrnt during the Japanese occupation did nvt make him li&b\c to pay, as damage or penalty, the difference between the value of the Japanese war notes at the time the obligatbn became paynble and of the Philippine cuncncy at the time of payment. It is true th:lt the creditors herein could not demand payment prior to October 25, 1945, but this did not preclude the debtor, herein petitioner, from paying his obligation at any time within one year from October 25, 1944, if had wanted to do so. Wherefore, the decision of t.he Court of Appeals is hereby reversed, and it is declared that the amount which the petitioner should pay to cancel his mortgage is only the sum of !'150.00, the c -quivlllent in actual Philippine currency of PG,000.00 in Japanese war notes on October 25, 1944, phis ar,nual interf!st at the rate of 7% on the said sum of !'150.00 from October 25, 1944. So 01·dered without costs. 8 e11g::on, Reyes, Ju90, Ba.utista A.ngdo and Labrador, J.J., concur. Justice Padilla concurred in tlie rf' . .!<Ult. Just·ice Montemaycn- a.nd Justice Pablo took no part. II Benita S. Balinon, Petitioner, vs. Celestino 111. de Leon et al., Respondents, ADM. Ca:Je No. 104, Ja,n. 20, 1954, P<Nras, C.J.: ATTORNEY AT LAW; SUSPENSION; CASE AT DAR. - This Court had heretofore imposed the penalty of suspension upon an atforney who prepared a document stipulating, among other, that the contracting parties, who al"e husband and wife, authorized ce.ch other to marry again and that each renounced whatever right of action one might have against the party so marrying (/11 Te Roque S:intiago, 40 Off Gaz. [5th Supp.] p. 208>. In effect the affid-ivit prepared and dgned by respondent De Leon has similar implicaticn, in that althoni?h it does not bluntly authorize said respondent to marry another during his subsisting wedlock with Vertudes Marquez, he made it appear th::i.t he could take in :lnother woman as a lifetime partner to whom he would remain loyal and faithful ss a lawful and devoted loving husband and whom he could take and respect as his true and lawful wife ; thereby virtually permitting himself to commit the crime of concubinage. It is true, as respondent De Leon argues, that the consent or pardon of either spouse constitutes a bar to a criminal prusecutivn for adultery and concubinage, but, as the Solicitor General observes, said crimes are not thereby lega.lized, the result bdnz merely that prosecution is such cases would not lie. The contention th:lt the affidavit is only a unilateral declaration nf facts is of no moment, since it uudoubtedly enabled respondent De Leon to attain his purpose of winning over Regina S. Balinon with some degree of permanence. F'irst A ssistant S(·Ucircn- General Ruperto Kapv;nan, Jr. and S olicitor Juan T. Alano for petitioner. Jose W. Viokno, Justo '/'. V r!ltlyo &lld Celestino de Leon for respondent . DE C I SION PARAS, C. J.: The Solicitor General has filed a. complaint against the resJ une 30, 1054 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL 271

pages

271

Media