FACTS:
On February 17, 1907, Urbano Floriano (plaintiff-appellee) filed a complaint against the married couple Esteban Delgado and Regina Bertumen (defendants-appellants) to collect a debt of P1,352.80, plus 10% interest per annum. This debt was evidenced by a promissory note executed on January 20, 1907, which stated: “We promise to pay to Sr. Urbano Floriano the sum of one thousand three hundred and fifty-two pesos and eighty centavos (P1, 352.80), Conant, for balance standing against us on this date. Until said amount is paid to Sr. Floriano we engaged to pay interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, as agreed. Ligao, January 20, 1907.” The promissory note did not specify a particular date for payment.

Despite demands, the defendants failed to pay. They also failed to answer the complaint within the prescribed time and were consequently declared in default by the lower court on March 22, 1907. The lower court then rendered judgment ordering the defendants to pay the claimed amount with interest from January 20, 1907, until fully paid, plus costs. Esteban Delgado, on behalf of himself and his wife, appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court, limiting the appeal to questions of law, particularly concerning the demandability of an obligation without a fixed term.

ISSUE:
1. Whether an obligation, such as the one evidenced by the promissory note which does not fix a date for its fulfillment, is immediately demandable or if the debtors are entitled to an extension of time.
2. Whether the declaration of default against both defendants and the joint nature of the judgment were proper.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court in the case of G.R. No. 4410 , promulgated on August 27, 1908.

1. On the demandability of the obligation: The Court held that the obligation was immediately demandable.
Under the old laws enforced prior to the Civil Code, an obligation that was pure, simple, and unconditional, without a fixed day for its fulfillment, could be demanded ten days after it was contracted.
Under Article 113 of the Civil Code, “Every obligation, the fulfillment of which should not depend upon a future or uncertain event or upon a past event, unknown to the parties in interest, shall be immediately demandable.”
The promissory note contained no term or condition upon which the fulfillment of the obligation depended. The Court found no inference from the document’s language or the circumstances that Urbano Floriano intended to grant the defendants an extension of time. As a complaint was filed twenty-seven days after the obligation was executed and after payment had been demanded, the debtors had no right to claim an extension. The Court also noted that Article 128 of the Civil Code, which allows courts to fix the duration of an obligation if the nature and circumstances imply an extension, was not applicable in this case.

2. On the declaration of default and the nature of the judgment: The Court found these aspects to be proper.
The plaintiff’s initial error in his pleading by charging only the husband with default was corrected by the lower court, which correctly held both defendants in default, as both were sued and summoned.
* The judgment ordering payment was properly understood as imposing the obligation jointly upon the spouses, in accordance with the mutual character of the debt contracted by them, consistent with Articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code. The judgment did not impose a several obligation on each spouse to pay the whole amount.

Thus, the judgment of the lower court was found to be in accordance with the law.