Faelnar v. Escaño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Agustina Faelnar, et al. filed an action against defendant Jacinta Escaño to recover P10,900 plus interest, based on a promissory note dated May 10, 1901, allegedly signed by the defendant. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Leyte rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs as prayed for in the complaint. The defendant moved for a new trial, asserting that the evidence did not justify the decision, and excepted to the order denying her motion. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision, assigning several errors, including the court's denial of her motion for a new trial and the merits of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the amended complaint was filed within the time fixed by the court. Whether the defendant executed the promissory note or authorized its execution. Whether the instrument in question is a commercial document. Whether the denial of the defendant's motion to present a counterclaim was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the instance.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the amended complaint: The Court found that the bill of exceptions did not establish that the amended complaint was not filed within the time fixed by the court. The defendant's allegation of not being notified of the amendment until after the time had elapsed was insufficient to prove that the amendment was not made within the stipulated period. On the execution of the promissory note: The Court held that the evidence overwhelmingly favored the plaintiffs. The defendant's claim of not signing the document or authorizing anyone to sign it was contradicted by the evidence. The explanation regarding the ink color was deemed sufficient, and the defendant's daughter, who initially testified to receiving the money, confirmed she delivered it to the defendant. Crucially, the answer did not contain a sworn denial of the note's execution as required by Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the nature of the instrument: The Court ruled that the instrument was not a commercial document. The phrase "Value received from said gentlemen in cash to my entire satisfaction and as a loan to meet my requirements" indicated a loan, not a commercial transaction. Furthermore, the parties were not merchants, and there was no evidence that the money was used for commercial operations, citing Articles 311 and 532 of the Code of Commerce and previous jurisprudence. On the denial of the counterclaim: The Court found no error in the denial of the defendant's motion to present a counterclaim. The motion was made after the plaintiffs had closed their testimony and during the presentation of the defendant's proofs, and the counterclaim had no connection with the instrument sued upon, thus coming too late.
Main Doctrine
A denial of the execution of a document must be under oath as required by Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be given legal effect.