Ferrer v. Abejuela
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leopoldo Ferrer, as the legal representative of his minor children Vicenta, Amparo, and Enrique Ferrer y Moreno, initiated an action to recover the amount due on a written agreement evidencing a loan of 2,100 pesos. The loan was made by the defendant, Ramon Neri Abejuela, on November 16, 1895. Procedural History: The defendant claimed that Leopoldo Ferrer testified that the borrowed money actually belonged to the conjugal partnership formerly existing between Leopoldo Ferrer and his wife. The court below disregarded this testimony, holding that the defendant must return the money to the person with whom he contracted. The Petition: The defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that the evidence did not justify the decision and that the appellate court should only review the evidence mentioned in his bill of exceptions, specifically the oral testimony of Leopoldo Ferrer, and not the written loan document.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant can challenge the lender's right to repayment when the day of payment has arrived, based on the origin of the funds. Whether the appellate court is limited to reviewing only the evidence presented in the bill of exceptions, as prepared by the appellant.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of challenging the lender's right to repayment: The Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court, citing the principle established in Dougherty vs. Evangelista. The Court held that a defendant cannot, on the day of payment, challenge the right of the lender, which right was not questioned at the time of borrowing. The defendant borrowed the money from the minor children, and it is to them that he must repay it, regardless of the title under which the legal representative held the funds. The testimony regarding the origin of the funds was deemed of no importance in this context. On the issue of appellate review of evidence: The Court rejected the appellant's claim that the appellate court could only review the evidence mentioned in his bill of exceptions. The Court clarified that it is the duty of the appellant to prepare a bill of exceptions and to ensure that all evidence introduced at the trial below is brought before the appellate court for review. The appellant cannot selectively present evidence and then claim a reversal based on the insufficiency of the presented evidence. The appellate court's review is not limited by the appellant's choice of what evidence to include in the bill of exceptions if the appellant seeks a review of the evidence.
Main Doctrine
A defendant who borrowed money cannot challenge the right of the lender to repayment when the day of payment arrives, if such right was not questioned at the time of borrowing. The duty to prepare a bill of exceptions rests with the appellant, who must ensure all relevant evidence is presented for appellate review.