G.R. No. 34533; March 31, 1932
Tan Tua Sia, et al., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Yu Biao Sontua, et al., defendants. Federico Gotua, appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, heirs of the deceased partner Sebastian Sontian, filed an action to recover the sum of P28,243.40 based on a promissory note executed by the partnership Yu Biao Sontua Hermanos y Cia., Yu Biao Sontua, and Federico Gotua. The note represented the liquidated share of Sebastian Sontian in the partnership, left as a loan payable in five years with interest. The defendants failed to pay the stipulated monthly interest, prompting the suit. Defendant Federico Gotua appealed the trial court’s judgment holding him jointly and severally liable, claiming he was deceived into signing the note without knowing its contents.

ISSUE

Whether Federico Gotua is liable on the promissory note despite his claim that he signed it without reading it and under a mistaken belief about its character.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. A person who has the capacity and opportunity to read a contract before signing it is bound by its terms, in the absence of fraud or special circumstances excusing the failure to read it. Gotua, an adult businessman, is presumed to have acted with due care and knowledge of the document’s contents. His own testimony failed to prove fraud or deception. His signature on the promissory note is genuine, and his obligation thereunder is valid and enforceable. The failure to pay the stipulated interest made the entire principal and interest due immediately, as per the note’s terms.

AI Generated by Armztrong.