GR L 4045; (August, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4045
ILDEFONSO DORONILLA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GRACIANO GONZAGA, defendant-appellant.
August 23, 1909
FACTS:
Ildefonso Doronilla, the plaintiff, was previously the tutor of the minor heirs of Pablo Ledesma. After administering their estate, Doronilla reached a settlement with the heirs and the family council. Under this agreement, Doronilla became obligated to pay a certain sum to the heirs, and in exchange, he acquired ownership of all uncollected accounts due to Ledesma’s estate. One such account was a debt owed by Graciano Gonzaga, the defendant, to the estate, amounting to P3,208.50.
Doronilla filed an action in May 1905 to collect this debt from Gonzaga. The lower court found Gonzaga indebted for P3,208.50 and also ordered him to pay 6% interest from January 1, 1897, totaling P5,117.55. Gonzaga appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) Doronilla’s lack of legal capacity to sue, (2) the non-existence of the P3,208.50 debt, and (3) the erroneous imposition of interest from January 1, 1897. Notably, Gonzaga did not bring the evidence from the lower court to the Supreme Court for review.
ISSUE:
1. Did the lower court err in holding that Ildefonso Doronilla had legal capacity to bring the present action against Graciano Gonzaga?
2. Did the lower court err in holding that Graciano Gonzaga was indebted to Ildefonso Doronilla in the sum of P3,208.50?
3. Did the lower court err in sentencing Graciano Gonzaga to pay legal interest on the capital of P3,208.50 from January 1, 1897?
RULING:
1. No error. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Doronilla had legal capacity. By virtue of the settlement with the heirs and the family council, Doronilla became the owner of the uncollected account due to Ledesma’s estate. Having settled his obligations to the heirs by paying an agreed amount, he was the proper party to maintain an action to collect the said account.
2. No error. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s finding regarding the P3,208.50 debt. Since the appellant (Gonzaga) failed to bring the evidence from the trial court to the Supreme Court for review, the Court was bound by the lower court’s express finding of fact that the debt existed.
3. Yes, the lower court erred regarding the commencement date of interest. The Supreme Court held that, under Articles 1755 and 1100 of the Civil Code, if a contract does not specify interest, interest can only be collected after a judicial or extrajudicial demand has been made. In this case, there was no indication that the account bore interest from the outset or that any demand was made before the commencement of the action in May 1905. Therefore, interest should only accrue from the date of the judicial demand, which was the filing of the lawsuit.
The judgment of the lower court was modified. Graciano Gonzaga was ordered to pay Ildefonso Doronilla the sum of P3,208.50, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from May 31, 1905 (the month the action commenced), and costs.