G.R. No. L-2278

FACTS:
1. Plaintiff-Appellant: Sua Tico
Defendant-Appellee: Carlos Gemora
2. Sua Tico filed an action against Carlos Gemora based on two written instruments:
– A promissory note for 1,042 pesos, signed “Carlos Gemora,” payable to Que Sue Co., and endorsed to the plaintiff with a stamped Chinese character and the name “Rhey Suego.”
– A vale (IOU) for 1,100 pesos, signed “Gemora,” but lacking endorsement.
3. The defendant failed to appear or plead, resulting in a default judgment under Section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The court required proof of the claim but found the evidence insufficientneither instrument was authenticated, and no testimony linked Gemora to the signatures.
5. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s claim, dissolved a prior injunction, and ruled without costs.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in denying the default judgment despite the defendant’s failure to appear, given the lack of proof authenticating the signatures or connecting Gemora to the instruments.

RULING:
1. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that:
– A default judgment requires proof of the cause of action, including authentication of the defendant’s signatures on the instruments.
– The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence (e.g., witness testimony) proving Gemora executed the documents or that the plaintiff lawfully owned them.
– Mere submission of the instruments, without verification of signatures or ownership, was insufficient to establish liability.
2. The Court noted that under the Code of Civil Procedure, even in default judgments, proof of the claim remains mandatoryunlike some U.S. jurisdictions where verified complaints alone suffice.
3. Costs were awarded against the appellant for failing to meet the burden of proof.

Disposition: Judgment affirmed; case remanded for execution.
Concurring Justices: Arellano (C.J.), Torres, Johnson, Carson, Willard.
Not Participating: Mapa.

(Note: The case underscores the necessity of proving execution and ownership of documentary evidence, even in default proceedings.)