G.R. No. L‑2242

FACTS
– Plaintiff Houston B. Parot, as indorsee, sued defendant Carlos Gemora (one of the makers) in the Iloilo Court of First Instance over a promissory note dated 1 April 1899 for ₱5,857 (Mexican currency).
– The note was payable “juntos o separadamente” to Tomasa Gemora, widow of Pérez, as administrator and guardian of the Pérez‑Gemora children.
– Asunción Aguilar, a co‑maker, died Feb 1901 (admitted by the defendant). Tomasa Gemora indorsed the note to the Lizarraga Hermanos on 20 Feb 1901; they indorsed it to the plaintiff on 16 Jan 1903.
– Defendant admitted execution and delivery of the note but claimed it had been paid.
– Trial court (with two assessors) found: (1) the note was validly executed and indorsed as alleged; (2) the note remained unpaid; (3) the defendant owed the plaintiff ₱5,857 (Mexican) plus 6% annual interest from 31 Mar 1903; (4) the exchange rate was ₱1 (Philippine) = ₱1.06 (Mexican).
– The court awarded the plaintiff ₱5,845.30 (Philippine) with interest and costs.
– Defendant appealed, asserting three errors: (a) liability should be pro‑rata, not for the full amount; (b) “Exhibit 1” was wrongly declared false; (c) the finding that he had not paid was a question of fact.

ISSUE
Whether the phrase “juntos o separadamente” in the promissory note makes each maker jointly and severally liable for the entire amount, thereby justifying judgment against Carlos Gemora for the full debt.

RULING
– The Supreme Court held that “juntos o separadamente” is an express term creating individual (several) liability akin to “mancomun o insolidum.” Under Articles 1137‑1138 of the Civil Code, absent such an express clause the liability would be pro‑rata; the clause here overrides the default rule.
– The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ordering the defendant to pay the full amount with interest at 6% from 18 Mar 1904 and costs.
– The other two alleged errors (falsehood of Exhibit 1 and factual findings on payment) were deemed issues of fact; since no motion for a new trial was filed, the Supreme Court could not revisit them.

Disposition: Judgment of the Court of First Instance affirmed; interest at 6% from 18 Mar 1904 and costs awarded to plaintiff.