Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    OBLICON - 14. Floriano v. Delgado - Digest

    Uploaded by

    MichaelVillalon
    The defendants were ordered to pay a debt of P1,352.89 plus 10% annual interest to the plaintiff based on a promissory note dated January 20, 1907. The defendants did not respond to the complaint or appeal the initial judgment ordering payment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding that the promissory note set no conditions or timeline for payment, so the debt was immediately demandable under the Civil Code. As the defendants did not claim annulment of the judgment or request a new trial, and the debt was valid and overdue, the defendants were not exempt from payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    OBLICON - 14. Floriano v. Delgado - Digest

    Uploaded by

    MichaelVillalon
    1K views2 pages
    The defendants were ordered to pay a debt of P1,352.89 plus 10% annual interest to the plaintiff based on a promissory note dated January 20, 1907. The defendants did not respond to the complaint or appeal the initial judgment ordering payment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding that the promissory note set no conditions or timeline for payment, so the debt was immediately demandable under the Civil Code. As the defendants did not claim annulment of the judgment or request a new trial, and the debt was valid and overdue, the defendants were not exempt from payment.

    Original Description:

    Floriano v Delgado digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendants were ordered to pay a debt of P1,352.89 plus 10% annual interest to the plaintiff based on a promissory note dated January 20, 1907. The defendants did not respond to the complaint or appeal the initial judgment ordering payment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding that the promissory note set no conditions or timeline for payment, so the debt was immediately demandable under the Civil Code. As the defendants did not claim annulment of the judgment or request a new trial, and the debt was valid and overdue, the defendants were not exempt from payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    OBLICON - 14. Floriano v. Delgado - Digest

    Uploaded by

    MichaelVillalon
    The defendants were ordered to pay a debt of P1,352.89 plus 10% annual interest to the plaintiff based on a promissory note dated January 20, 1907. The defendants did not respond to the complaint or appeal the initial judgment ordering payment. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding that the promissory note set no conditions or timeline for payment, so the debt was immediately demandable under the Civil Code. As the defendants did not claim annulment of the judgment or request a new trial, and the debt was valid and overdue, the defendants were not exempt from payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Floriano v. Delgado, G.R. No.

    4410, 27 August 1908


    Case No. 14 – Obligations and Contracts
    Michael F. Villalon

    FACTS:
    On 17 February 1907, Urbano Floriano filed a complaint against the married couple Esteban Delgado
    and Regina Bertumen alleging that the latter were indebted to Floriano (Plaintiff) the sum of P1,352.89, duly
    admitted by the debtors, who engaged to pay it together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum as
    appears by a promissory note on 20 January 1907.
    The amount has not been paid either in whole part, notwithstanding demand thereof, Plaintiff asked the
    court to enter judgment and sentencing the defendants to pay the said sum with interest thereon at the rate of
    10% per annum, from 20 January 1907, until the date of payment, with costs, as well as any further remedy that
    the court might consider just and equitable.
    The defendants appeared within the time prescribed but they did not answer the complaint and the time
    for answering had elapsed. On 22 March 1907, Delgado and Bertumen, to be in default, ordered the plaintiff to
    proceed with his evidence and entered judgement ordering the defendants to pay the amount claimed together
    with interest from 20 January 1907 until such time as payment was made, with cost.
    On 9 April 1907, defendant Delgado appealed form said judgment. A bill of exception was submitted,
    and after hearing the adverse party, it was brought to this court.
    The subject in litigation is the fulfillment of an obligation contracted by the defendant spouses to pay
    certain sum stated in a document of indebtedness which is set out in the complaint, with the particularly that no
    date was fixed therein for the payment of the debt.
    The defendant appellants did not ask for the annulment of the judgment appealed from nor for the
    holding of a new trial, but simply excepting to said judgment.

    ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not the defendants are entitled for exemption under the law.

    HELD:
    In reference to the nature and character of the obligation continued in the document of indebtedness, it is
    sufficient for the purposes of the decision to say that, in accordance with the old laws enforced prior to the
    enactment of the present Civil Code, when obligation is pure, simple, and unconditional and no particularly day
    had been fixed for tis fulfillment of the same may be demanded ten days after it is contracted.
    Nevertheless, under the provisions of Civil Code, the payment of the obligation may be demanded at
    once, unless from nature and circumstances of the creditor to grant the debtors some extension of time, in which
    case the duration thereof should be fixed by the courts. (Art. 128, Civil Code.)
    It can not be inferred from the language of the said document that it was the intention of Urbano
    Floriano to grant the defendants any extension of time in the payment, the duration of should be fixed by
    judicial authority; and inasmuch as a complaint was filed in court twenty-seven days after the obligation was
    executed, after payment had been demanded from the debtors, the latter have no right at all to claim an
    extension for the fulfillment of the obligation, the existence and legality of which they have expressly
    recognized.
    Article 113 of the Civil Code provides:
    Every obligation, the fulfillment of which should not depend upon a future or uncertain event or
    upon a past event, unknown to the parties in interest, shall be immediately demandable.
    The document of indebtedness contains no term or condition whatever upon which depends the
    fulfillment of obligation contracted by the debtors; therefore, there exists no motive or reason that would
    exempt them from compliance therewith.
    For the foregoing reasons, and as the judgment appealed from is an accordance with the law, it is our
    opinion that it should be AFFIRMED, with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

    You might also like