[No. 3128. December 19, 1907.

1]
UN PAK LEUNG, plaintiff and appellee, vs. JUAN NIGORRA ET AL., defendants and appellants.

1.APPEAL, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, REVIEW.—When the appellant de  sires the Supreme Court to review the evidence
adduced at the trial, it is his duty to make the motion for a new trial in the lower court and then bring into the
appellate court all evidence in the case and not merely a part of it. (Ferrer vs. Abejuela, 9 Phil. Rep., 324.)
2.CONTRACT; JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY.—Parties to a contract are not severally liable for the obligation thereby created,
in the absence of an express agreement to that effect. (Art. 1137, Civil Code.)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
F. Dominguez, for appellant Juan Nigorra.
Haussermann, Colin & Williams, for appellee.

_____________________________________________________
1Rehearing, page 486, post.
382

382 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
UN PAK LEUNG vs. NIGORRA ET AL.

JOHNSON, J.:
This action was originally commenced in the court of the justice of the peace of the city of
Manila for the purpose of recovering of the defendants the sum of P443.35. Upon a consideration
of the facts adduced during the trial of said cause in the court of the justice of the peace, the
justice of the peace rendered a judgment against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff for
the sum of P443.35, with interest from the 23d day of March, 1905, and the costs. From this
decision of the justice of the peace the defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance and the
case was tried de novo in said court.
After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the judge of the Court of First
Instance on the 2d day of December, 1905, found that the defendants were indebted to the
plaintiff in the sum of P443.35, and rendered a judgment against the defendants and in favor of
the plaintiff for the said sum, including the costs incurred in the Court of First Instance. From
this decision of the Court of First Instance the defendant, Juan Nigorra, only, appealed to this
court, after having made a motion for a new trial in the lower court, and made six assignments of
error in this court. All of these assignments of error, except the sixth, relate to the sufficiency of
the proof adduced during the trial of the cause in the lower court.
Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant Juan Nigorra made a motion for a new trial in
the Court of First Instance, for the purpose evidently of enabling this court to examine the
evidence adduced during the trial, he has failed to bring to this court all of the evidence, a part of
the evidence only being brought here. We therefore refuse to examine part of the evidence only,
for the purpose of ascertaining what facts were presented to the lower court. We must confine
ourselves to the facts stated in the complaint and answer presented in the lower court, together
with the facts found in the decision of the court, for the purpose of ascertaining what the facts
were. (Ferrer vs. Abejuela.)1 If parties desire this court to examine the
______________________________________________________
1Page 324, supra.
383

VOL. 9, DECEMBER 19, 1907 383

 UN PAK LEUNG vs. NIGORRA ET AL.

evidence adduced in causes in the lower courts they must make a motion for a new trial, basing
the same upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of facts of the
lower court, and then they must bring all of such evidence to this court.
The sixth assignment of error made by the appellant Juan Nigorra, is "that the lower court
committed an error m decreeing that both of the defendants ‘como razon social' and each of them
were individually liable for the payment of the amount claimed by the plaintiff." The lower court
found as a fact from the proof adduced during the trial of the cause that the defendants were
partners in the management of the bakery La Isleña and from this finding of facts held that the
defendants were jointly and individually liable for the payment of the sum claimed by the
plaintiff. This finding of fact must be accepted by us inasmuch as the proof is not here.
The lower court made no finding of fact which in any way shows that the defendants were
individually liable, by virtue of any agreement, or contract, between the defendants and the
plaintiff, whereby they became jointly and individually liable. Upon the finding of facts of the
lower court the defendants were liable only for their respective share of said obligation. Article
1137 of the Civil Code provides that parties to a contract are not severally liable for the obligation
created thereby in the absence of an express agreement to that effect. Said article 1137 provides :
"The concurrence of two or more creditors, or of two or more debtors in a single obligation, does not imply
that each one of the former has a right to ask, nor that each one of the latter is bound to comply in full with
the things which are the object of the same. This shall only take place  when the obligation determines it
expressly, being constituted as a joint obligation."

   In the absence of a finding of facts therefore that the defendants made themselves individually
liable for the debt incurred, they are each liable only for one-half of said obligation.

384 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

UNITED STATES vs. HAZLEY.

For these reasons the judgment of the lower court, holding that the appellant was individually
liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of the obligation incurred by the defendants, is hereby
modified as to this appellant and it is hereby ordered that a judgment be rendered against the
appellant, Juan Nigorra, for one-half of the sum claimed by the plaintiff, together with one-lialf
the costs incurred in the court of the justice of the peace, the Court of First Instance, as well as
this court, and interest upon said amount at the rate of C per cent from the 23d day of March,
1905. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified.

_____________