Azarraga v.

Rodriguez (1908)
Petitioner: Juan Azarraga
Respondent: Jose Rodriguez
Ponente: Torres, J.
DOCTRINE: The lack of documentary stamp on the document of
indebtedness, decree (court judgment against Rodriguez) of May 16,
1886 and the instructions for its application do not declare the nullity
of any document, which does not have such stamp. It limits itself, by
Article 82 thereof, to imposing a fine on whoever should violate the
decree by executing and issuing a document without proper stamp.
FACTS:
1. Jose Rodriguez executed in favor of Regino Ramirez a document
(document of indebtedness) whereby Rodriguez bound himself to pay
Ramirez the amount of P400.25 on May 15, 1899. This was in payment
of Fray Perezs debt to Ramirez.
2. Subsequently, the document was indorsed by Ramirez in favor of
Azarraga as payment of a debt. (Azarraga wrote a letter to Rodriguez
requesting payment of P400.25 as a consequence of the indorsement
in Azarragas favor.

3. Rodriguez wrote a letter as an answer, acknowledging his

indebtedness and obligation and engaging to pay the same.
4. Despite several requests, Rodriguez did not pay Azurraga, and instead
asked for several extensions.
5. Thus, Azurraga decided to file a complaint against Rodriguez. CFI ruled
that Rodriguez is liable for the amount.
ISSUES: WON the lack of documentary stamp on the documents
presented by the parties nullifies the said documents
RULING + RATIO: NO.
With reference to the lack of a documentary stamp on the document of
indebtedness, the decree of May, 16, 1886, and the instructions for its
application do not declare the nullity of any document which does not
have such stamp; it limits itself, by article 82 thereof, to imposing a fine
on whoever should violate the decree by executing and issuing a
document without a proper stamp.
* no other discussion on documentary stamp except this part.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.