Gotiaoco Hermanos v. Enriquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 26, 1926, defendants (except Concepcion Carratala) signed a public document (Exhibit D) acknowledging receipt of P6,000 from Gotiaoco y Hermanos, binding themselves to pay 12% annual interest, and mortgaging a parcel of land covered by original certificate of title No. 8696 as security. Procedural History: The plaintiff, successor of Gotiaoco y Hermanos, filed a complaint to recover P6,000 with interest. The trial court dismissed the complaint against Concepcion Carratala but ordered the other defendants to pay interest, declaring the P6,000 as a personal debt of Gabino Veloso. Both parties appealed. The Appeal: The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its claim for the principal sum of P6,000. The defendants appealed the order to pay interest and, specifically Consuelo Carratala, argued the nullity of her signature due to lack of her husband's consent.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants who signed Exhibit D are liable for the principal sum of P6,000. Whether the defendants are liable to pay interest at 12% per annum. Whether Consuelo Carratala can evade liability by alleging the nullity of the document for lack of her husband's consent.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is modified. The defendants, with the exception of Concepcion Carratala and her husband, are ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P6,000. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the defendants who signed Exhibit D are liable for the P6,000. The terms of the document were explicit, stating they had received the sum to their full satisfaction and referred to it as "our debt." The Court reasoned that even if the debt was originally contracted by Gabino Veloso, the signing of Exhibit D constituted a novation by the substitution of debtors, creating a new obligation on the part of the defendants. The testimony of Gabino Veloso, while stating it was his personal debt, did not negate the defendants' intention to assume the obligation as evidenced by the document. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the defendants are liable to pay the stipulated interest. Since they are liable for the principal debt, they must also pay the interest they expressly bound themselves to pay. The Court dismissed the argument that the mortgage was the principal obligation and the interest an accessory, as the defendants' obligation to pay interest was clearly stipulated in the document. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court concurred with the trial court that Consuelo Carratala cannot evade the effect of the document by alleging nullity due to her husband's lack of consent. The Court stated that such a question of nullity can only be raised by the husband or his heirs, not by the wife who signed the document.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the defendants who signed the public document (Exhibit D) are liable for the P6,000 debt, as the terms of the document explicitly stated they had received the sum to their full satisfaction and bound themselves to pay interest. The Court found that the original contract of loan between Gabino Veloso and the plaintiff's predecessor was novated under Exhibit D by the substitution of the persons who signed it as debtors. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a married woman's allegation of nullity for lack of her husband's consent can only be raised by the husband or his heirs.