G.R. No. L‑2644
November 24 1906

FACTS
– In 1895 José Evangelista borrowed ₱2,000 from the Roman‑Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Nueva Segovia, receiving a receipt that identified the source of the money as the funds of the Cofradía de las Ánimas of the Vigan Cathedral and stipulated 6 % interest.
– After a year, with interest unpaid, the Bishop advanced an additional ₱120, which Evangelista acknowledged.
– The plaintiff‑appellee, Bishop Dennis J. Dougherty (successor to the granting Bishop), sued for repayment.
– Evangelista (defendant‑appellant) argued that the Bishop, as mere administrator of the co‑fraternity’s funds, had no right to recover the loan.
– The trial court entered a default judgment against Evangelista when he failed to serve his answer within the five‑day period prescribed by Rule 9 of the Courts of First Instance, despite having prepared the answer on 12 January and mailing it only on 2 March, which caused a delay.
– Evangelista moved for a new trial under § 145(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming accident or surprise, and also questioned whether the judgment should be rendered in Philippine pesos as required by Sec. 3 of Act No. 1045.

ISSUE
1. Whether the successor Bishop, as the administrator of the co‑fraternity’s funds, may enforce the loan despite the defendant’s contention that the bishop’s authority was limited to administration.
2. Whether the defendant’s delayed service of his answer, after the statutory period, bars relief under the doctrine of laches.
3. Whether a judgment expressed in “pesos” must be construed as Philippine currency, or if the specific denomination of the original loan (plata‑pesos) should be considered.

RULING
1. The Court held that the Bishop, being the lawful administrator of the co‑fraternity’s monies, stepped into the shoes of his predecessor; thus the loan was a valid obligation payable to the incumbent Bishop of Nueva Segovia.
2. The defect in service was not excused by the mere postal delay. Evangelista’s six‑week neglect to dispatch the answer after the statutory deadline constituted unreasonable delay; the doctrine of laches barred his request for a new trial.
3. Applying Gaspar v. Molina and the principle of stare decisis, the Court affirmed that a judgment rendered in “pesos” is to be understood as pesos of the prevailing Philippine currency at the time of judgment, absent clear evidence to the contrary. Consequently, no further proof on the relative value of the old “plata” pesos was required.
4. The trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED with costs against the defendant. Judgment to be entered after twenty days; the record to be remanded to the lower court after ten additional days for compliance.

Dissent (Justice Carson) Argues that the term “pesos” should be read in its original contractual sense (plata‑pesos) and that the trial court erred by not requiring evidence on the conversion to Philippine currency. Recommends remand for such determination.