G.R.No.3717,Velascov.Masa,10Phil.

279
RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURTManila
ENBANC
March5,1908
G.R. No. 3717FELIX VELASCO,plaintiffappellant,vs.
MARTINMASA,defendantappellee.
S.Lagudaforappellant.M.Minaforappellee.
TORRES,J.:
Onthe2ndofDecember,1902,FelixVelascofiledacomplaint
against Martin Masa asking that, without prejudice to the
criminal action which he might bring, judgment be entered
orderingthedefendanttopay2,804pesos,withinterestthereon
attherateof12percentperannumfromthe1stofJuly,1899,
untilthefullpaymentoftheprincipal,lossesanddamages,and
thecostsoftheproceedings.Heallegedthatonthe1stofJuly,
1898,MartinMasareceivedfromhimasaloan,inthepueblo
ofSanRemegio,thesaidamount,payableonthesamedayin
Julythefollowingyear.Thedebt,healleged,wassetforthina
privatedocumentsignedbythedebtor,butthatthedefendant,
Masa,takingadvantageoftheconditionsthenprevailingon

accountofthelaterevolution,andbymeansofcoercionand
trickeriesexercisedwithrespecttohiswife,managedtoobtain
possessionofthedocumentofindebtednesswhiletheplaintiff
wasdetainedasaprisonerinthejailatthecapitalofAntique;
thatoneyearandsomemonthsaftertheconditionofthingshad
becomenormal,hefiledhisclaimbeforetheprovostcourtfor
therobberyofthesaiddocument,but,assaidcourtconsidered
that it had no jurisdiction in the premises, the plaintiff
presented an information to the Court of First Instance, a
certifiedcopyofwhosedecisionisannexed;andthatbetween
theplaintiffandthedefendantinterestattherateof12percent
hadbeenagreedupon,whichwastobeaddedtotheprincipal
attheendoftheyearifthedefendantwasunabletopaythe
same.
Thedefendantinhisanswerdeniedallthemainpointsofthe
complaint,inasmuchastheaforesaiddocument,whichwasthe
subjectofthesame,hadbeenvoluntarilyhandedovertohim
throughLuisOcsea;thatsaiddocumentdidnotcallfor2,804
pesos but for 1,000 pesos, with interest of 20 per cent per
annum,andwassigned,notintheyearcitedinthecomplaint
but in 1889; that he admitted the third paragraph of the
complaint regarding the claim presented, not to the provost
courtbuttothethenprovincialgovernor,andsubsequentlyto
the Court of First Instance, charging the defendant withthe
robbery, by means of threats, of the said document of
indebtednessfor2,804pesos,fromwhichchargethedefendant
wasacquittedforthereasonthatitwasproventhatthesame
had been delivered to the latter for reasons of gratitude, as

stated in the judgment, a copy of which is attached to the

complaint;thedefendantthereforeaskedthatthecomplaintbe
dismissedwithcostsagainsttheplaintiff.
After the foregoing answer was presented the defendant
demurred to the complaint and asked that his motion be
granted,andthatthecomplaintbedismissedwithcostsagainst
theplaintiff,allegingthatthejudgmentrenderedbythecourt
onthe7thofMarch,1902,was,intheformofacertifiedcopy,
attached to the complaint as a part thereof; that the said
judgment being of executory character was not subject to
appeal,forwhichreasonthedefendantbelievedthatneitherthe
courtnoranyothertribunalhadjurisdictionoverthedefendant
inconnectionwiththedocumentreferredtointhecomplaint
whereinnofactsareallegedwhichmightconstituteacauseof
action. On the 13th of July, 1903, the said demurrer was
overruledbythecourt,towhichthedefendantexcepted.
Uponevidencebeingadducedbybothpartiesandtheirexhibits
attachedtotherecord,thecourt,onthe4thofNovember,1905,
entered judgment dismissing the complaint against Martin
Masawithoutanyspecialrulingastocosts,towhichjudgment
theplaintiffexceptedandmovedforanewtrialontheground
that the conclusions stated in the decision were openly and
manifestlycontrarytotheweightoftheevidence;thismotion
wasoverruledbythecourt,andtheplaintiffexceptedthereto.
Anothermotionmadebythedefendant,askingthatthebillof
exceptions presented by the plaintiff be disallowed, was

likewiseoverruled,thedefendantexceptingthereto.
Ifitistruethatadocumentwasexecutedbythedefendant,
MartinMasa,onthe1stofJuly,1898,whereinwassetforth
the loan of 2,804 pesos payable on the same date in the
following year and which the plaintiff, Felix Velasco, had
granted him, it is also true that, after the outbreak of the
insurrectionagainstSpainintheProvinceofAntique,asequel
to that in Manila, and on a certain day in the month of
Decemberofsaidyear1898,ifnotbyorderoftheplaintiff,yet
with his approval, the said document of indebtedness was
voluntarily returned to the defendant by the wife of the
creditor, renouncing the debt and waiving, for reasons of
gratitudetowardthedebtor,therighttocollectthesame.
The fact that the aforesaid document was spontaneously
returnedwasconsideredbythejudgeasdulysubstantiatedby
thepreponderanceoftheevidenceofferedbythedefendant,
inasmuchasnosatisfactoryproofhadbeensubmittedbythe
plaintifftoshowthatthedefendanthadobtainedthedocument
bymeansofcoercionandtrickeryexercisedwithrespecttohis
wifeatatimewhenhewasconfinedinthejailatthecapitalof
Antique.
Undersection273oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,thecourtor
tribunal may, in determining the preponderance or superior
weight of evidence on the issues, consider all the facts and
circumstancesofthecase,thewitnesses'manneroftestifying,

theirmeansandopportunitiesofknowingthefactstowhich
theytestify,theprobabilityorimprobabilityoftheirtestimony,
their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility, and the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance of proof may not necessarily rest with the
greaternumber.
The record contains no reason or legal cause showing that,
whenthislitigationwasdecided,theCourtofFirstInstance
ignoredorfailedtobearinmindtheprovisionsofthesection
oftheCodeofProcedurecitedabove,becausetheconclusions
arrivedatbythesaidcourt,deducedfromthefactsconsidered
by it as duly proven, are, according to the rules of sound
criticismandgoodsense,adjustedtothelawandtothemerits
ofthecase.
Whileinthecriminalproceedingsitcouldnotbeprovedthat
Martin Masa had obtained possession of said document
throughviolenceorintimidation,andforsuchreasonhewas
acquittedofthechargeofrobbery,soalsointhepresentaction,
whereby it is pretended to collect the amount stated in the
document, it has not been proved that the defendant, Masa,
managed to obtain delivery thereof from the wife of the
plaintiffbymeansofcoercionortrickeryasalleged.
Theconclusionstatedbythejudgeinthejudgmentappealed
from,thatthereturnofthedocumentmadebythewifeofthe
plaintiff to the defendant debtor, through Luis Ocsea, was

voluntary, and that she did it by orders from the plaintiff

creditor, according to the testimony of the defendant's
witnesses,appearstobefoundeduponandproperlysustained
by the evidence and other merits of the case, and it is not
possible to hold that the said conclusion is openly and
manifestly contrary to the weight and preponderance of the
evidence, nor that the court erred when arriving at such
conclusion, inasmuch as such an affirmation would find no
basisorsupportintheproofsofferedbytheplaintiffnorinthe
other data furnished by the record. Therefore, there is no
reasonablegroundtorejecttheconclusionofthecourtinthe
judgmentappealedfrom.
Assumingthatthedocumentofindebtednesswasvoluntarily
returnedtothedebtor,thequestionatissuewouldbe,Whether
thedebtwaslegallyrenounced,andifthecreditorhasthereby
waived his right to recover the amount from the defendant
debtor?
The first paragraph of article 1187 of the Civil Code [and
articles1188and1189]providethat
Aremissionmaybemadeeitherexpresslyorbyimplication.
ART.1188.Thesurrender,madevoluntarilybyacreditorto
hisdebtor,ofaprivateinstrumentprovingacredit,impliesthe
renunciation of the action which the former had against the

latter.
Ifinordertoinvalidatethisrenunciation,itshouldbeclaimed
thatit is illegal, thedebtor andhis heirs may supportit by
provingthatthedeliveryoftheinstrumentwasmadebyvirtue
ofthepaymentofthedebt.
ART.1189.Whenevertheprivateinstrumentfromwhichthe
debtappearsshouldbeinthepossessionofthedebtor,itshall
be presumed that the creditor delivered it of his own will,
unlessthecontraryisproven.
Itisanunquestionablefact,dulyprovenatthetrial,thatthe
instrument proving the debt now claimed passed to the
possessionofthedebtorandforthisreason,unlessthecontrary
be proven, it must be presumed, in accordance with the
provisions of law, that the delivery of the instrument was
voluntarilymade,andthatthisfactimpliesarenunciationof
theactionwhichthecreditorhadfortherecoveryofhiscredit.
Itshouldbenotedthatthedocumentreturnedtothedebtorisof
aprivatenature,theonlycasesubjecttotheprovisionsofthe
abovequoted articles of the Civil Code, so that a tacit
renunciationofthedebtmaybepresumed,intheabsenceof
proofthatthedocumentwasdeliveredforsomeotherreason
thanagratuitouswaiverofthedebtandthecompleteextinction
oftheobligationtopay.

ThedoctrineestablishedbythesupremecourtofSpain,when
applying the abovementioned articles of the Civil Code,
confirmstherulelaiddown.Amongothers,thecourtinthe
decisionofthe19thofOctober,1897,statesthat
Inorderthatthepresumptionjuristantumestablishedbythis
article (1189) may be applicable, it is necessary as the
precedingone(1188)provides,thatthedeliveryoftheprivate
document proving the credit, made by the creditor to the
debtor,beavoluntarilyactoftheformer.
Ithasalreadybeensaidthat,accordingtoarticle1189ofthe
code, the possession by the debtor of a private document
provingadebtsupposesandcreatesthepresumptionthatthe
creditordelivereditvoluntarily,unlessthecontraryisproven,
andnosuchproofhasbeenofferedbytheplaintiffuponwhom
theburdenreststodestroythesaidpresumption.
Article1250oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Presumptionsestablishedbylawexemptthosefavoredthereby
fromproducinganyfurtherproof.
Andarticle1251ofthesamecodereads:
Presumptionsestablishedbylawmaybedestroyedbyproofto

the contrary, except in the cases in which it is expressly

prohibited.
Therefore,consideringthatthedeliveryofthedocument,made
by the plaintiff's wife to the defendant Masa, through Luis
Ocsea, was approved, though tacitly, by the said plaintiff
creditor,forthereasonsstatedinthejudgmentappealedfrom,
andnoproofappearingintherecordthatthedeliveryofthe
documentwasnotvoluntarilymade,itappearsfromthewhole
oftheforegoingthatthedebtnowclaimedwasremittedfor
reasons of gratitude and in acknowledgment of the services
renderedbythedebtortotheplaintiffcreditor,andthatthe
latterhasimplicitlywaiveditsrecovery,andifthereafterhe
filedacomplaintagainstthedefendantitwasevidentlydueto
some trouble which subsequently arose between them, thus
putting an end to a long friendship which existed between
them.
Inviewoftheforegoing,andacceptingtheconclusionsofthe
judgmentappealedfrom,itisouropinionthatthesameshould

be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the

appellant.Soordered.