G.R. No. L-2645

FACTS:
In the spring of 1895, plaintiff-appellee Francisca Cabreros delivered ₱4,000 to defendant-appellant Victorino Prospero. The agreement was for Prospero to use the money in business and to divide half of the profits with Cabreros after deducting expenses. In October 1895, upon Cabreros’s demand for the money’s return, Prospero promised to repay the ₱4,000 with interest by February 1, 1896, after deducting expenses. Prospero failed to fulfill this promise. Cabreros filed an action to recover the ₱4,000. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Cabreros for ₱4,000, less ₱866 which Prospero had repaid in small amounts. Prospero appealed the judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant-appellant is liable to return the ₱4,000 capital to the plaintiff-appellee based on his subsequent promise to repay, notwithstanding the nature of their original agreement.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the original arrangement constituted a partnership. The defendant’s subsequent promise in October 1895 to return the capital with interest by a fixed date effectively fixed his obligation to repay the amount received. The Court rejected the defendant’s claim for deductions for alleged expenses and prior payments, finding his testimony on these points “manifestly false.” The Court also held that any error in the overruling of the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint was not prejudicial. The defendant-appellant was ordered to pay the balance due, with costs.