G.R. No. L-2894
JOSE LASERNA TUPAZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RAFAEL LOZADA, defendant-appellee.
August 5, 1909

FACTS:
On January 6, 1887, Fausto Lozada (father of defendant Rafael Lozada) executed a promissory note for P162.40 to Jose Laserna Tupaz (plaintiff), payable on January 6, 1888. On July 22, 1890, Fausto Lozada indorsed the note, acknowledging the debt and promising to pay when he could sell his land. Fausto Lozada died in 1891. No administrator was appointed for his estate.

Around October 1902, plaintiff Jose Laserna Tupaz demanded payment from Fausto’s son, Rafael Lozada. On February 26, 1903, the plaintiff requested Rafael to execute a new contract for the payment of the indebtedness. Rafael replied on February 27, 1903 (Exhibit B), explicitly stating he would not assume the account, denied responsibility for the debt, and claimed any prior payments he made were purely voluntary, not due to an obligation.

Plaintiff filed a case against Rafael Lozada. During the trial, the plaintiff and his son testified that Rafael had paid P40-P60 on the debt and promised to pay the balance. Rafael, the defendant, admitted paying P60 but asserted these payments were made solely to avoid a lawsuit and that he never promised to pay the obligation. There was no evidence presented that Rafael inherited any property from his father. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, finding the plaintiff had no right to recover against the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether Rafael Lozada, the son of the deceased debtor, is legally liable for his father’s debt.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Rafael Lozada was not liable for his deceased father’s debt.

1. No New Promise/Contract: The letter (Exhibit B) written by Rafael Lozada was not an acknowledgment of the debt or a promise to pay. On the contrary, it clearly expressed his renunciation of any intention to pay and denied any obligation on his part, stating that prior payments were voluntary.
2. Voluntary Payments: The partial payments made by Rafael were found to have been made to avoid a lawsuit, not as an admission of responsibility or a new promise to pay the debt. The mere payment of a part of a debt under such circumstances cannot be regarded as a promise to pay the entire debt.
3. No Proof of Inheritance: There was no evidence presented to show that Rafael Lozada had inherited any property from his deceased father. Without such proof, Rafael could not be held liable on the theory of taking possession of his ancestor’s property, thereby implicitly promising to pay the ancestor’s debt.
4. Requirement for New Contract: Rafael could only be held liable if he had entered into a new, valid contract, upon sufficient consideration, to pay the indebtedness. The evidence did not establish that such a contract was entered into by the defendant.

Therefore, Rafael Lozada was not legally obligated to pay his father’s debt.