Suller v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the 1937 general elections, Primitivo Perez was proclaimed Mayor of San Manuel, Pangasinan. Nicomedes Suller filed an election protest which, after proceedings in lower courts and the Court of Appeals, was ultimately lost by Suller in the Supreme Court. Procedural History: Upon return of the records to the court of origin, the latter approved the protestee's bill of costs amounting to P1,967.00 on November 27, 1941. The protestant and his bondsmen, Francisco Asuncion and Bonifacio Sicam, sought reconsideration. Due to the war, their motion was not heard until September 27, 1944, when they filed a petition to have the protestee or his lawyers ordered to receive P1,000.00 they had deposited with the Clerk of Court as payment for the costs, and to have the Register of Deeds cancel their Torrens Titles used as mortgage security. The protestee's counsel appealed this order on November 17, 1944. After liberation, the record on appeal was approved on August 30, 1950. The Appeal: The protestee-appellant appealed the order dated October 25, 1944, which directed the acceptance of P1,000.00 as payment for costs and the cancellation of the mortgage. The appellant's primary contention was that the lower court lacked jurisdiction because the election law under which costs were awarded was not in force during the Japanese regime. He also argued that the P1,000.00 deposit was not a full payment of the P1,967.00 judgment for costs, and thus, he could not be compelled to accept partial performance under Article 1169 of the old Civil Code. The appellant also questioned the validity of payment in Japanese military notes.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to order the acceptance of partial payment of costs during the Japanese regime. Whether the P1,000.00 deposited by the bondsmen constituted a full payment of their obligation. Whether payment in Japanese military notes was valid at the time of deposit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order, holding that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the bondsmen to direct the appellant to accept the P1,000.00 deposit. The Court ruled that the P1,000.00 represented the full payment of the bondsmen's obligation, and that payment in Japanese military notes was valid as they were legal tender at the time.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the validity of the order during the Japanese regime: The Court held that while political laws were suspended during the Japanese military occupation, the order of November 27, 1941, awarding costs in the amount of P1,967.00, merely became the source of a civil obligation against the appellee and his bondsmen. Consequently, the lower court retained jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the bondsmen to direct the appellant to accept the P1,000.00 deposited by them in satisfaction of their civil liability. The Court found no merit in the argument that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, as the proceedings concerned a civil obligation arising from a prior judgment. On whether the P1,000.00 constituted full payment of the bondsmen's obligation: The Court ruled that the contention that the P1,000.00 was not a full payment of the P1,967.00 judgment was without merit. It reasoned that the liability of the bondsmen under their bond was limited to P1,000.00, which was the very amount they deposited in court. Therefore, as to the bondsmen, the P1,000.00 represented the full payment of their obligation, without prejudice to the appellant's right to recover the unpaid balance from the appellee, who was the principal judgment debtor. This distinction between the principal debtor's and the bondsmen's liability was crucial in upholding the order. On the validity of payment in Japanese military notes: The Court found the fact that the amount deposited was in Japanese military notes to be of no moment. It reasoned that these notes were legal tender at the time of the deposit, making the payment valid. The Court also noted that while the order of November 27, 1941, did not specify a period for payment, the amount could be paid at any time thereafter without waiting for coercive execution, as judgment debtors are expected to pay voluntarily.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the order compelling the protestee to accept a partial payment of costs from the bondsmen, clarifying that the bondsmen's liability was limited to P1,000.00, which constituted full payment of their obligation under the bond. The Court emphasized that while a creditor cannot generally be compelled to accept partial performance of an obligation, this rule does not apply when the partial payment fully satisfies the specific obligation of a third-party guarantor or bondsman, without prejudice to the creditor's right to pursue the principal debtor for the remaining balance.