G.R. No. L-4630 October 30, 1952
NICOMEDES SULLER, protestant-appellee, vs. PRIMITIVO S. PEREZ, protestee-appellant.

FACTS

In the 1937 general elections, Primitivo Perez was proclaimed elected Mayor of San Manuel, Pangasinan. Nicomedes Suller filed an election protest. After proceedings in the lower court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, the protest was finally lost. Upon return of the records, the Court of First Instance, by order of November 27, 1941, approved the bill of costs filed by protestee Perez amounting to P1,967 against protestant Suller and his bondsmen. The protestant and bondsmen sought reconsideration. Due to the outbreak of war, a motion was not heard until September 27, 1944, when the bondsmen, Francisco Asuncion and Bonifacio Sicam, filed a petition praying that the protestee be ordered to receive from the Clerk of Court the sum of P1,000 they had deposited in payment of the costs and that the Register of Deeds be ordered to deliver to them the Torrens Titles of their parcels of land given as mortgage security. The lower court granted this petition by order dated October 25, 1944. Protestee Perez appealed, contending the court had no jurisdiction during the Japanese occupation and that the deposit of P1,000 in Japanese military notes was not a valid payment of the P1,967 obligation.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly ordered the protestee-appellant to accept the P1,000 deposit made by the bondsmen in Japanese military notes as satisfaction of their liability under the bond for costs.

RULING

Yes, the appealed order is affirmed. The lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the bondsmen’s petition. While political laws were suspended during the Japanese military occupation, the order of November 27, 1941, awarding costs became a source of civil obligation, and the court could enforce it. The appellant’s contention that he could not be compelled to accept partial payment of the P1,967 obligation is without merit because the liability of the bondsmen under their bond was limited to P1,000. Therefore, as to the bondsmen, the P1,000 deposit constituted full payment of their obligation, without prejudice to the appellant’s right to recover the unpaid balance from the principal judgment debtor, the protestant. The fact that the deposit was in Japanese military notes is immaterial, as they were legal tender at the time of deposit in September 1944.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Pablo dissented, arguing that the obligation to pay P1,967 in costs, demandable from November 27, 1941, should be paid in Philippine currency according to the terms of the bond. The bondsmen deposited P1,000 in Japanese military notes in September 1944. Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, payment of money debts must be made in the species stipulated. The Japanese proclamation of January 10, 1942, did not prohibit but sanctioned the use of Philippine peso currency. Therefore, the protestee had the right to demand payment in legitimate Philippine currency, and the consignation was ineffective. The bondsmen should pay the P1,000 in Philippine currency.