G.R. No. L-2763

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellee W.L. Wright filed an action to recover payment on a promissory note dated June 20, 1904. The defendants-appellants, Alfred F. Smith et al., contended that the promissory note was void and unenforceable because it lacked the requisite revenue stamp as allegedly required under Article 11 of the Royal Decree of May 29, 1894.

ISSUE:
Whether the absence of a revenue stamp on the promissory note renders it void and unenforceable.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court, citing its prior ruling in Rodriguez v. Martinez ( G.R. No. 1913 , September 29, 1905), held that the lack of a revenue stamp does not invalidate the promissory note or bar its enforcement. The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, with costs against the appellants. The case was ordered remanded to the lower court for execution of the judgment.