EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-10060. November 27, 1956.]
MARIA S. PASCUAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE LACSAMANA, Defendant-Appellant.
J. C. Orendain for appellee.
Eligio G. Lagman for appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CONTRACTS; WHEN NOVATION OF OBLIGATIONS EXISTS. — For a novation to exist, there must be a change, substitution or renewal of an obligation or obligatory relation, with the intention of extinguishing or modifying essentially the former, debitum pro debito.
2. ID.; ID.; EXTENSION OF PAYMENT AND ADDITION OF ANOTHER OBLIGATION. — Mere extension of payment and the addition of another obligation not incompatible with the old one is not a novation thereof.
3. ID.; NOVATION NEVER PRESUMED. — Novation is never presumed; there must be a declaration to the effect in unequivocal terms; or that the old and the new obligations must be incompatible.
2. ID.; ID.; EXTENSION OF PAYMENT AND ADDITION OF ANOTHER OBLIGATION. — Mere extension of payment and the addition of another obligation not incompatible with the old one is not a novation thereof.
3. ID.; NOVATION NEVER PRESUMED. — Novation is never presumed; there must be a declaration to the effect in unequivocal terms; or that the old and the new obligations must be incompatible.
D E C I S I O N
LABRADOR, J.:
On July 23, 1951, the defendant executed a document in Tagalog, presented at the trial as Exhibit A, which reads:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"ALAMIN NG LAHAT NG MAKABABASA NITO:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"Na ako, si Jose Lacsamana, may sapat na gulang, may asawa, at kasalukuyan naninirahan sa 1039 Trabajo, Sampaloc, Manila ay nagpapatunay ng sumusunod:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"Una. — Na ako ay umutang ng halagang anim na libo apat na daan at limang piso at limang pu at tatlong sentimos lamang (P6,405.53) kualtang pilipino, kay Gng. Maria S. Pascual ng Malabon, Rizal ngayong araw na ito.
"Ikalawa. — Na ang nasabing utang ay ipinangangako kong bahayaran sa nasabing Ginang sa Deciembre 31, 1951.
"Ikatlo. — Na ang lahat ng isdang huhulihin sa aming palaisdaang "MAGPITO" at "PULO" na nasa Pampanga, sa punduhan ng isda sa Hulong Duat, Malabon, Rizal, upang ipagbili at sa lahat ng pagbibilhan ay aawasin ang kangyang komissiong 5 porciento.
"Ikaapat. — Na ang nasabing halaga ay aking bibigyan ng tubo o interest ng 12 porciento isang taon sa nasabing Ginang mula ngayon araw na ito hanggang sa Deciembre 31, 1951.
"Ikalima. — Na kung sakali’t hindi ako makabayad sa aking utang sa nasabing Ginang sa taning na nakalagay dito, at ang pagsiñgil sa akin ay umabot sa "jusgado" ako ay nangangako na magbabayad ng aking pagkakautang at bukod sa doon ay magbabayad ako ng 25 porciento ng aking pagkakautang bilang daños y perjuicios o costas ng abogado.
"SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT NG ITO, ako ay lumagda sa ibaba nito, dito sa Malabon, Rizal ngayong ika 23 ng Julio, 1951.
"Jose Lacsamana"chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On February 27, 1953, he again executed another document, presented at the trial as Exhibit "D", which read:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"SA LAHAT AY AKING PINATUTUNAYAN:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"Ako, si JOSE LACSAMANA, matapos na makapanumpa, ay nagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"1. Na ako ay may nakuhang cualta sa Gng. Maria Pascual, sa halagang Anim na libong piso at apat na daan at lima at limanpu’t tatlong centimos (P6,405.53) noong 23 ng Julio ng 1951.
"2. Na bilang katunayan na ako ay handang magbayad ng nasabing utang ako ay nangakong maghuhulog ng isda kay Gng. Maria Pascual, at bukod dito’y ako’y nangakong magpapatong ng nuukol na interes sa halagang aking nautang hanggang sa mabayaran ang halagang aking nakuha.
"3. Na ako’y nangakong magbayad ng nasabing utang, kasama and nauukol na interes, sangayon sa kasulatang aking nilagdaan, noong ika a 31 ng Deciembre, 1951.
"4. Na hangga sa ngayon ay hindi pa ako nagbabayad ng nasabing utang kay Gng. Maria Pascual.
"5. Na noong Deciembre, 1952, ako ay nakipagusap kay Gng. Maria Pascual at ulit ay nangakong magbabayad ng nasabing utang nitong katapusan ng Febrero, 1953, nguni’t hindi pa rin ako nagbayad ng nasabing utang.
"6. Na ngayong ika 27 ng Febrero, ako’y muling nakipagusap sa kay Gng. Maria Pascual at sa kay Atty. Arsenio Roldan, Jr., at sa harap nitong huli, ako ay nangakong muli na magbabayad ng nasabing utang sa fecha 20 ng Marzo, 1953.
"SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT NG ITO, ako ay lumagda sa kasulatang ito, ngayong ika 27 ng Febroro, 1953.
"Manila, Philippines
"JOSE LACSAMANA"chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Plaintiff brought this action alleging that defendant has not paid the indebtedness that he had agreed and promised to pay in accordance with his promisory note of July 23, 1951 (Exhibit A); that defendant also promised therein to sell all the fish that would be harvested from his two fishponds, through the plaintiff, who will receive 5 per cent commission, but failed to comply with this obligation, depriving plaintiff of an unrealized commission estimated at P700. She, therefore, prays that defendant be sentenced to pay the sum of P6,405.53, the amount of the debt, plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the execution of the instrument until the debt is fully paid, and that she also be ordered to pay plaintiff P700, representing the 5 per cent commission which the plaintiff failed to realize. She also prays that defendant be sentenced to pay P1,601.38, representing 25 per cent of the debt, as liquidated damages.
The defendant claims that the facts are not presented clearly by plaintiff. He alleges that on February 27, 1953, he and plaintiff settled and liquidated all their outstanding accounts, and in consideration of said cancellation and renovation, defendant executed the contract, Exhibit "D ". By way of counterclaim, he alleges that he had delivered fish valued at P1,198.15, and that after deducting plaintiff’s commission thereon, plaintiff still owed him a balance of P1,004.25. He, therefore, asks that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, and that plaintiff be sentenced to pay the sum stated in his counterclaim.
After the trial and on January 4, 1954, the court rendered judgment sentencing defendant to pay the sum of P6,405.53, plus interest thereon at 12% per annum from July 23, 1951 until the whole amount is fully paid, and the further sum of P1,601.38, representing 25 per cent of the aforementioned amount, as liquidated damages and attorney’s fees, plus the costs. Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.
Against the above judgment, defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in due time, certified the case to Us, on the ground that only questions of law are involved. The only error assigned in the appeal is that the lower court erred in holding that Exhibit D did not novate Exhibit A.
A comparison between the two instruments will readily show that the second one, Exhibit D, is absolutely silent on defendant’s obligation to deliver all the fish produced from his two fishponds to the plaintiff, as well as on the payment of liquidated damages of 25 per cent. It contains nothing but a recital of past unfulfilled promises to pay made by defendant, and a final promise to pay the obligation on March 20, 1953. Whether or not plaintiff agreed to this date of payment does not appear, but even if she did, the change would be limited to the date of payment and it cannot be held to extend to all other particulars of the contract. For a novation to exist, there must be a change, substitution, or renewal of an obligation or obligatory relation, with the intention of extinguishing or modifying essentially the former, debitum pro debito. (4 S. R. 424.) If the second instrument was accepted by plaintiff so that the period for the payment was intended to be postponed, there would still be no novation because mere extension of payment and the addition of another obligation not incompatible with the old one is not a novation thereof (Inchausti & Co. v. Yulo, 34 Phil. 978). Furthermore, novation is never presumed; there must be a declaration to that effect in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations must be incompatible (Article 1292, Civil Code).
Finding no error in the judgment of the court a quo, the same is hereby affirmed in toto, and it appearing that the appeal is frivolous, defendant is hereby sentenced to pay double costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
"ALAMIN NG LAHAT NG MAKABABASA NITO:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"Na ako, si Jose Lacsamana, may sapat na gulang, may asawa, at kasalukuyan naninirahan sa 1039 Trabajo, Sampaloc, Manila ay nagpapatunay ng sumusunod:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"Una. — Na ako ay umutang ng halagang anim na libo apat na daan at limang piso at limang pu at tatlong sentimos lamang (P6,405.53) kualtang pilipino, kay Gng. Maria S. Pascual ng Malabon, Rizal ngayong araw na ito.
"Ikalawa. — Na ang nasabing utang ay ipinangangako kong bahayaran sa nasabing Ginang sa Deciembre 31, 1951.
"Ikatlo. — Na ang lahat ng isdang huhulihin sa aming palaisdaang "MAGPITO" at "PULO" na nasa Pampanga, sa punduhan ng isda sa Hulong Duat, Malabon, Rizal, upang ipagbili at sa lahat ng pagbibilhan ay aawasin ang kangyang komissiong 5 porciento.
"Ikaapat. — Na ang nasabing halaga ay aking bibigyan ng tubo o interest ng 12 porciento isang taon sa nasabing Ginang mula ngayon araw na ito hanggang sa Deciembre 31, 1951.
"Ikalima. — Na kung sakali’t hindi ako makabayad sa aking utang sa nasabing Ginang sa taning na nakalagay dito, at ang pagsiñgil sa akin ay umabot sa "jusgado" ako ay nangangako na magbabayad ng aking pagkakautang at bukod sa doon ay magbabayad ako ng 25 porciento ng aking pagkakautang bilang daños y perjuicios o costas ng abogado.
"SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT NG ITO, ako ay lumagda sa ibaba nito, dito sa Malabon, Rizal ngayong ika 23 ng Julio, 1951.
"Jose Lacsamana"chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On February 27, 1953, he again executed another document, presented at the trial as Exhibit "D", which read:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"SA LAHAT AY AKING PINATUTUNAYAN:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"Ako, si JOSE LACSAMANA, matapos na makapanumpa, ay nagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod:chanroblesvirtual 1awlibrary
"1. Na ako ay may nakuhang cualta sa Gng. Maria Pascual, sa halagang Anim na libong piso at apat na daan at lima at limanpu’t tatlong centimos (P6,405.53) noong 23 ng Julio ng 1951.
"2. Na bilang katunayan na ako ay handang magbayad ng nasabing utang ako ay nangakong maghuhulog ng isda kay Gng. Maria Pascual, at bukod dito’y ako’y nangakong magpapatong ng nuukol na interes sa halagang aking nautang hanggang sa mabayaran ang halagang aking nakuha.
"3. Na ako’y nangakong magbayad ng nasabing utang, kasama and nauukol na interes, sangayon sa kasulatang aking nilagdaan, noong ika a 31 ng Deciembre, 1951.
"4. Na hangga sa ngayon ay hindi pa ako nagbabayad ng nasabing utang kay Gng. Maria Pascual.
"5. Na noong Deciembre, 1952, ako ay nakipagusap kay Gng. Maria Pascual at ulit ay nangakong magbabayad ng nasabing utang nitong katapusan ng Febrero, 1953, nguni’t hindi pa rin ako nagbayad ng nasabing utang.
"6. Na ngayong ika 27 ng Febrero, ako’y muling nakipagusap sa kay Gng. Maria Pascual at sa kay Atty. Arsenio Roldan, Jr., at sa harap nitong huli, ako ay nangakong muli na magbabayad ng nasabing utang sa fecha 20 ng Marzo, 1953.
"SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT NG ITO, ako ay lumagda sa kasulatang ito, ngayong ika 27 ng Febroro, 1953.
"Manila, Philippines
"JOSE LACSAMANA"chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Plaintiff brought this action alleging that defendant has not paid the indebtedness that he had agreed and promised to pay in accordance with his promisory note of July 23, 1951 (Exhibit A); that defendant also promised therein to sell all the fish that would be harvested from his two fishponds, through the plaintiff, who will receive 5 per cent commission, but failed to comply with this obligation, depriving plaintiff of an unrealized commission estimated at P700. She, therefore, prays that defendant be sentenced to pay the sum of P6,405.53, the amount of the debt, plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the execution of the instrument until the debt is fully paid, and that she also be ordered to pay plaintiff P700, representing the 5 per cent commission which the plaintiff failed to realize. She also prays that defendant be sentenced to pay P1,601.38, representing 25 per cent of the debt, as liquidated damages.
The defendant claims that the facts are not presented clearly by plaintiff. He alleges that on February 27, 1953, he and plaintiff settled and liquidated all their outstanding accounts, and in consideration of said cancellation and renovation, defendant executed the contract, Exhibit "D ". By way of counterclaim, he alleges that he had delivered fish valued at P1,198.15, and that after deducting plaintiff’s commission thereon, plaintiff still owed him a balance of P1,004.25. He, therefore, asks that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, and that plaintiff be sentenced to pay the sum stated in his counterclaim.
After the trial and on January 4, 1954, the court rendered judgment sentencing defendant to pay the sum of P6,405.53, plus interest thereon at 12% per annum from July 23, 1951 until the whole amount is fully paid, and the further sum of P1,601.38, representing 25 per cent of the aforementioned amount, as liquidated damages and attorney’s fees, plus the costs. Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.
Against the above judgment, defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in due time, certified the case to Us, on the ground that only questions of law are involved. The only error assigned in the appeal is that the lower court erred in holding that Exhibit D did not novate Exhibit A.
A comparison between the two instruments will readily show that the second one, Exhibit D, is absolutely silent on defendant’s obligation to deliver all the fish produced from his two fishponds to the plaintiff, as well as on the payment of liquidated damages of 25 per cent. It contains nothing but a recital of past unfulfilled promises to pay made by defendant, and a final promise to pay the obligation on March 20, 1953. Whether or not plaintiff agreed to this date of payment does not appear, but even if she did, the change would be limited to the date of payment and it cannot be held to extend to all other particulars of the contract. For a novation to exist, there must be a change, substitution, or renewal of an obligation or obligatory relation, with the intention of extinguishing or modifying essentially the former, debitum pro debito. (4 S. R. 424.) If the second instrument was accepted by plaintiff so that the period for the payment was intended to be postponed, there would still be no novation because mere extension of payment and the addition of another obligation not incompatible with the old one is not a novation thereof (Inchausti & Co. v. Yulo, 34 Phil. 978). Furthermore, novation is never presumed; there must be a declaration to that effect in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations must be incompatible (Article 1292, Civil Code).
Finding no error in the judgment of the court a quo, the same is hereby affirmed in toto, and it appearing that the appeal is frivolous, defendant is hereby sentenced to pay double costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
