Delgado v. Amenabar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellees Enrique Delgado and Concepcion Figueroa instituted an action against defendant-appellant Agustin Amenabar to recover the sum of P2,261. The debt arose from various transactions concerning the rent and use of a hacienda owned by the plaintiffs. A settlement of accounts occurred on February 11, 1908, and subsequently, on March 5, 1908, the defendant signed an obligation (Exhibit A) acknowledging an indebtedness of P2,261 to the plaintiffs, resulting from the liquidation of accounts based on a compromise agreement. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. The defendant appealed this decision. The Petition: The defendant insisted that the action was prematurely brought and that Exhibit A, the document forming the basis of the action, was null and void because the required internal-revenue stamps were not affixed thereto, as mandated by section 58 of Act No. 1189.
Issue(s)
Whether the action was prematurely brought. Whether Exhibit A, the promissory note, is null and void due to the absence of internal-revenue stamps.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, ordering the defendant-appellant to pay the plaintiffs-appellees the sum of P2,261, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of premature action: The Court held that the obligation (Exhibit A) was pure, simple, and unconditional, with no date fixed for its fulfillment. Under the Civil Code, payment could be demanded at once, as there was no evidence or inference from the nature of the obligation that the plaintiffs intended to grant an extension of time for payment. The Court cited Floriano vs. Delgado and Article 1128 of the Civil Code to support the principle that payment of an unconditional obligation is demandable immediately unless an extension is explicitly granted or can be inferred. Therefore, the action commenced on November 23, 1908, after demand was made, was not premature. On the issue of the nullity of Exhibit A: The Court acknowledged that Section 58 of Act No. 1189 states that a document to which stamps are not affixed as required shall be void until rendered valid by the affixture of proper stamps. It was the duty of the defendant, as the maker of the note, to pay for and affix the stamps. The Court noted that the stamps were never affixed to the note. However, the Court reasoned that even if the note (Exhibit A) were discarded due to the missing stamps, there was still abundant testimony in the record to support the judgment. Plaintiff Enrique Delgado testified positively that the defendant justly owed them the sum of P2,261. The defendant himself admitted signing both Exhibits A and B and did not deny the correctness of the amount or that he justly owed the plaintiffs. This testimony, independent of the note, established the debt.
Main Doctrine
A document, such as a promissory note, to which internal revenue stamps are not affixed as required by law, is void until rendered valid by the affixture of the proper stamps. However, the underlying obligation may still be enforced through other evidence if the note itself is discarded.