osmena v rama

7/26/2019 Osmena v Rama

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/osmena-v-rama 1/3

Today is Friday, June 17, 2016

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

E !"#

R. No. 4437 September 9, 1909

MAS OSMEÑA, plaintiff$appellee,

NONA RAMA, defendant$appellant&

mon Sotto for appellant.H. Junquera for appellee.

HNSON, J.:

ppears fro( the record that upon the 1)th day of o%e(ber, 1*+0, the defendant herein eecuted and deli%ered to -ict(e/a the folloin contract

E34'!'T "&

P200&00&

#E!5, November 15, 1890.

', o/a #enona Ra(a, a resident of this city, and of leal ae, ha%e recei%ed fro( on -ictoriano .s(e/asu( of two hundred peo in cash hich ' ill pay in suar in the (onth of January or February of the co(year, at the price rulin on the day of deli%erin the suar into his arehouse, and ' ill pay hi( interest at rate of half a !uartillo per (onth on each peso, beinnin on this date until the day of the settle(ent and ifnot pay in full, a balance shall be struc8, shoin the a(ount outstandin at the end of each June, includin

interest, and such as (ay be outstandin aainst (e shall be considered as capital hich ' ill alays paysuar, toether ith the interest (entioned abo%e& ' further pro(ise that ' ill sell to the said 9e/or .s(e/the suar that ' (ay har%est, and as a uarantee, plede as security all of (y present and future property, special security the house ith tile roof and round floor of stone in hich ' li%e in Paina in proof hereofthis docu(ent, and he shall be entitled to (a8e clai( aainst (e at the epiration of the ter( stated in thisdocu(ent&

:9ined; #E. R"M"&



<itnesses

F"59T. PE=">.9"&FR"#'9#. ME">>E&

the 27th day of .ctober, 1*+1, the defendant eecuted and deli%ered to the said -ictoriano .s(e/a the folloin cont

E34'!'T !&

#E!5, "!tober #$, 1891.

.n this date ' ha%e as8ed for further loan and ha%e recei%ed fro( on -ictoriano .s(e/a the su( of se%epesos in cash, fifty pesos of hich ' ha%e loaned to on E%aristo Pe/ares, hich e ill pay in suar in the(onth of January of the co(in year accordin to the for(er conditions&

:9ined; #E." R"M"&

Fro( on E%aristo Pe/ares P)0

o/a #enona Ra(a 20

P70

Recei%ed ? E%aristo Pe/ares&

(e ti(e after the eecution and deli%ery of the abo%e contracts, the said -ictoriano .s(e/a died& 'n the settle(ent andsion of the property of his estate the abo%e contracts beca(e the property of one of his estate the abo%e contracts becproperty of one of his heirs, "ustina Rafols& >ater, the date does not appear, the said "ustina Rafols ceded to the prntiff all of her riht and interest in said contracts&

the 1)th day of March, 1+02 the plaintiff presented the contracts to the defendant for pay(ent and she ac8noleded ponsibility upon said contracts by an indorse(ent upon the( in the folloin lanuae

E34'!'T #&

#E!5, %ar!h 15, 190#.

.n this date ' hereby pro(ise, in the presence of to itness, that if the house of stron (aterials in hichin Paina is sold, ' ill pay (y indebtedness to on To(as .s(e/a as set forth in this docu(ent&

:9ined; #E." R"M"&



e defendant not ha%in paid the a(ount due on said contracts the plaintiff, upon the 26th day of June, 1+06, co((encsent action in the #ourt of First 'nstance of the Pro%ince of #ebu& The co(plaint filed in said cause alleed the eecutio%ery of the abo%e contracts, the de(and for pay(ent, and the failure to pay on the part of the defendant, and the praye(ent for the a(ount due on the said contracts& The defendant ansered by filin a eneral denial and settin up the sense of prescription&

e case as finally brouht on to trial in the #ourt of First 'nstance, and the only itness produced durin the trial as thntiff hi(self& The defendant did not offer any proof hate%er in the loer court&

er hearin the e%idence adduced durin the trial, the loer court rendered a @ud(ent in fa%or of the plaintiff and aainsendant for the su( of P200 ith interest at the rate of 1* ABC per cent per annu(, fro( the 1)th day of o%e(ber, 1*+0the su( of P20 ith interest at the rate of 1* ABC per cent per annu(, fro( the 27th day of .ctober, 1*+1, until the saide paid& Fro( this @ud(ent the defendant appealed&

e loer court found that P)0 of the P70 (entioned in Ehibit ! had been borroed by the defendant, but by one E%arist/ares therefore the defendant had no responsibility for the pay(ent of the said P)0&

e only Duestions raised by the appellant ere Duestions of fact& The appellant allees that the proof adduced durin thecause as not sufficient to support the findins of the loer court& 't as suested durin the discussion of the case irt that, in the ac8noled(ent abo%e Duoted of the indebtedness (ade by the defendant, she i(posed the condition th

uld pay the obliation if she sold her house& 'f that state(ent found in her ac8noled(ent of the indebtedness should arded as a condition, it as a condition hich depended upon her eclusi%e ill, and is therefore, %oid& :"rt& 111), #i%il

e ac8noled(ent, therefore, as an absolute ac8noled(ent of the obliation and as sufficient to pre%ent the statutation fro( barrin the action upon the oriinal contract&

are satisfied, fro( all of the e%idence adduced durin the trial, that the @ud(ent of the loer court should be affir(ed&ered&

llano, '. J., (orre, 'aron, and %oreland, JJ., concur&

e >aphil Pro@ect $ "rellano >a Foundation

osmena v rama

Documents