GR 40372; (August, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 40372 ; August 4, 1934
Gotiaoco Hermanos, Inc., plaintiff-appellant, vs. Feliciana Enriquez, et al., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
On May 26, 1926, defendants (except Concepcion Carratala) signed a public document (Exhibit D) in favor of Gotiaoco y Hermanos, stating they received P6,000 “to our full satisfaction,” bound themselves to pay 12% annual interest, and mortgaged a parcel of land as security. The document was not registered. Plaintiff, as successor, filed to recover the P6,000 and interest. Defendants alleged the debt was personally contracted by Gabino Veloso, they received no part of the sum, and they signed only to secure his loan with a mortgage on their property. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Concepcion Carratala, absolved the other defendants from paying the principal P6,000 (declaring it Veloso’s personal debt), but ordered them to pay the interest. Both parties appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether the defendants who signed Exhibit D are personally liable for the payment of the P6,000 principal debt.
2. Whether the defendants are liable for the payment of interest.
3. Whether defendant Consuelo Carratala can evade liability by alleging lack of her husband’s consent to the contract.
RULING
1. Yes. The defendants are personally liable for the P6,000 principal. The terms of Exhibit D are explicit: they declared receipt of the sum “to our full satisfaction” and referred to it as “our debt.” The defense that they only intended to secure Veloso’s debt and did not assume the obligation lacks evidentiary support, as the sole witness (Veloso) did not testify to that specific intent. The original loan to Veloso was novated by the substitution of debtors under Exhibit D.
2. Yes. The defendants are liable for the stipulated 12% annual interest. Having bound themselves to pay the debt, they are also bound to pay the expressly stipulated interest. The mortgage is an accessory obligation to the principal debt of payment.
3. No. Consuelo Carratala cannot invoke the nullity of the contract for lack of her husband’s consent. Only the husband or his heirs can raise that question of nullity.
The appealed judgment was modified. Defendants (except Concepcion Carratala and her husband) are ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P6,000 with interest. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
AI Generated by Armztrong.