W. W. ROBINSON vs . MARCELINO R.

VILLAFUERTE

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5346. January 3, 1911.]

W. W. ROBINSON , plaintiff-appellee, vs . MARCELINO VILLAFUERTE Y
RAÑOLA , defendant-appellant.

R. Diokno for appellant.
Haussermann, Cohn and Fisher for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. POWERS OF ATTORNEY; EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW POWERS TO BE
FALSE. — In order to prove the falsity of two powers of attorney, executed on different
dates before two different notaries, is not enough to show, by the testimony of several
witnesses of doubtful capacity, and by unauthenticated documents, that, on the dates
of their respective execution, the principal was absent from the place where it is
supposed that the said instruments were drawn up and authenticated; it is necessary
that clear, strong, and irrefutable evidence to be produced showing that the rotaries
could not have certi ed that the said person was actually in their presence, that they
heard him ratify the contents of the respective documents, and that they could not have
certi ed to the number of his cedula, the only one exhibited to both notaries manifestly
perverting the truth. Public instruments authenticated by a notary or by a competent
public of cial, with the formalities required by law, are evidence, even against a third
person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the dated of the latter. They
are also evidence against the contracting parties and their legal representatives with
regard to the declarations the former may have made therein. (Arts. 1216, 1218, Civ.
Code.)
2. ID.; ID.; CERTIFICATE OF PRESENTATION OF PERSONAL CEDULA. — Without
proof, or rational explanation to believe that the personal certi cate of registration,
which identi es a citizen, was for several months in the possession of another person
residing in a distant place; therefore the categorical af rmation of two notaries, that a
cedula of the same date and number was, on different days, exhibited to them by a
person whom they knew and whose name appears thereon, may not be rejected
without positive and conclusive proof that their statements were false; this for the
reason that a notarial documents, guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with
the law, must be sustained in full force and effect so long as he who impugns it does
not present strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of
some flaw or defect provided against by law.
3. ATTORNEY-AT-LAW; INTERVENTION BY ONE NOT AN AUTHORIZED
PRACTICING ATTORNEY. — There are no legal provisions authorizing a private person
to intervene at the hearing of a suit, even though he be a clerk for the attorneys of one
of the litigants, if he does not process the quali cations of a practicing attorney, and is
not one of the parties interested in the litigation; his intervention was improperly
allowed, even though an attorney acting in place of original counsel was present at the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

1908. for the judgment afterwards rendered in the case was a result of the merits of the evidence. R. 1906. as a whole. hearing.50 in four monthly installments from that date. that in the said instrument the defendant moreover bound himself to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P500 for costs and expenses. INTRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. and there is much less reason for rejecting the cross-questions put to the same witnesses by the attorney for the other side. Vicente Marcelo Concepcion. © 2016 cdasiaonline. a business which he still continued. after the attorney for the other side had consented that the documents exhibited should continue to be attached to the record. D. established therein. and the answers thereto. acknowledged and confessed that he owed the plaintiff the net sum of P3. to be adjusted and paid at the time of paying each of the installments xed. be declared null and void.com . proceeded to discuss and assails their authenticity and validity and concluded by asking that the said documents. as well as the inscription of some of them.. adduced by the party in whose favor it was pronounced. can not be considered to have in any manner prejudiced the rights and interests of the adverse party. Williams. and rati ed on the same date before the notary public of Manila. alleging as a rst cause of action: That the plaintiff was engaged. unauthorized by law. Robinson entered suit in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas against Marcelino Villafuerte y Rañola. in the city of Manila and at the time speci ed further on. Inc.50 for the last one. based upon any positive prohibition of the law is submitted to authorize the striking out of the answers given by the witnesses interrogated. ID. and who. INTERROGATION OF WITNESSES. — Even though the questions addressed by a private person to the witnesses of the litigating party whom he endeavored to represent be considered as stricken out.. ID. DECISION TORRES . upon objection being raised to the presence of the said private person and to his intervention in the suit and to the performance by him of acts incumbent upon an attorney-at-law. through the agency of Castle Brothers. with an of ce in the city of Manila. that the defendant. Wolf & Sons.852. the judge should have sustained such objection by the attorney for the opponents and should have refused to allow the private party to conduct the trial. Tayabas. J : p On April 30. ID. The intervention of the said person. as well as a result of the inefficacy and worthlessness of the testimony given by the opposing party. — The exhibition of documents of probative character by a person who does not possess the qualifications of an attorney-at-law may not be held to be improper when such exhibition was authorized by an attorney who was the legal representative of the interested party and was present at the hearing. at the rate of P1.50. W. that by the said instrument duly executed the defendant bound and pledged himself to pay to the plaintiff the said sum of P3. therefore. in the importation and sale of our and other products from abroad. a resident of Lucena.. by his attorney in fact and legal representative.000 for each of the rst three installments and P852. by an instrument duly executed on October 19. 4. in case the latter should recur to judicial CD Technologies Asia.852. 5. who was fully empowered and authorized for the purpose. even though such answers may have been provoked by questions by a person not authorized by law. ID.. W. yet no reason. and likewise the interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.

. planted with 1. D. back. A rural estate. p. and that. This deed does not appear to have been canceled. 75. Inc. consisting of improved land. A rural estate. as security for the payment of the said debt. Lucena. p. consisting of land planted in coconut trees. in the barrio of Cotta. planted with 200 coconut trees and situated in the same barrio and pueblo. No. 73. I. process for the collection of the aforementioned debt. 57 ares.. p.. No. Lucena.. in the same barrio and pueblo. 74. No. p. A rural estate. with an area of 36 ares and 5 centares. A rural estate. No. 433. 440. p. K. A rural estate. consisting of coconut land containing 700 coconut trees. 75. planted with 100 coconut trees and situated in the barrio Cotta. 73. H. 74. consisting of unirrigated land containing 1. No 436. 75. liability P200. p. 73. 81 ares. 2 hectare.00 CD Technologies Asia. © 2016 cdasiaonline. No. by means of the said instrument and in favor of the plaintiff. 441. back. It was stated in the instrument referred to. which are: A. consisting of improved land. Lucena. of 93 ares and 22 centares in area. Lucena. consisting of coconut land containing 500 coconut trees. consisting of coconut land containing 800 coconut trees. and 4 centares. 916. F. in the same barrio of Lucena.00 Estate letter B. No.000 coconut trees situated in the barrio of Dumacaa.. of 13 ares and 4 centares in area. A rural estate. 72. in the barrio of Dumacaa of the municipality of Lucena. consisting of land planted with 300 coconut trees. p. A rural estate. p. of the interest thereon and of the amount for costs and expenses. 914. A rural estate. 12 ares. the defendant voluntarily executed. 915. back. of 7 hectares. C. and constitutes an encumbrance on the properties described in favor of the plaintiff.. The respective bounderies of each one of the estates above enumerated were set fourth in the said instrument of mortgage. with an area of 98 ares and 66 centares. consisting of coconut land containing 300 coconut trees. that the liability of the property mortgaged was distributed in the following manner: The estate described under letter A responded for P800 of the debt and for the sum of P75 as costs P875. measuring 50 ares and 73 centares. E. p. and 73 centares. A rural estate. and containing an area of 2 hectares. B. No. p.. G.200 coconut trees. consisting of improved land.. in the same barrio and pueblo. consisting of coconut land in the barrio of Canlorang Mayao. 4 ares. A rural estate... which was duly inscribed in the property registry of Tayabas. costs P40 240. 75. No 435. and measuring 52 ares and 66 centares in area. No. No 438. and 78 centares in area. a special mortgage upon the properties of his absolute ownership and control. and 60 centares in area.. and with and area of 1 hectare and 84 centares. and with and are of 7 hectares. p. Lucena. back. A rural estate. 434.com . 79. 439. in the same barrio and pueblo. J. in the barrio of Silangan Mayao.

433. © 2016 cdasiaonline. 1906.00 Estate letter D. among other things: That the defendant. as an express condition. liability P150. as a rst cause of action. Inc. costs P40 200. coconut land containing 1. p. by his attorney in fact and legal representative. As a second cause of action against the defendant. 72. costs P40 170. Estate No.com . situated in the same barrio and pueblo. The complaint further alleged. that default of payment of any of the installments speci ed in the fourth preceding paragraph would cause the entire obligation to mature and would entitle the plaintiff (it says "defendant") to require the payment of the same in its totality and forthwith to institute foreclosure proceedings against any and all of the mortgage properties.50 Estate letter F. back. costs P40 300. 71. coconut CD Technologies Asia.000 coconut trees. liability P1. rst inscription. notwithstanding the repeated demands made upon the defendant.400. costs P40 320. Estate letter C. A part of this land is planted with coconut and nipa palm trees and the rest is arable.00 Estate letter J. and 73 centares in area. by means of an instrument duly executed on December 21.57 as interest due from December 6. Estate No. and 87 centares in area.00 Estate letter G.352.50.000 coconut trees.00 Estate letter K. and that he had not been paid the whole nor any part of the sum expressed in the preceding paragraph. liability P280. the complaint alleged. the latter had not paid his debt nor the interest thereon. No. liability P92. 26 hectares. 57 ares. 432. volume 28. 3. Williams — and in consideration of the credit which the plaintiff agreed to allow the said defendant up to the sum of P3.00 Estate letter E.302. wherefore the defendant owed the plaintiff the sum of P3. costs P40 170. rst inscription of the same volume. Estate No. rst inscription of the same volume. costs P40 190. liability P130. costs P75 1. 1906. 56 ares. 2 hectares. general register.475. who was fully empowered and authorized — an instrument rati ed on the same date before the notary Daniel R. liability P130. 72. liability P160.50 It was stated further. to the date of the lling of the complaint. costs P30 122.00 Estate letter I.50. 1. Lucena. p. 2. No. liability P250. paid on different dates on account of the debt and interest due. liability P260. coconut land containing 1. excepting the sum of P550. costs P40 290. Vicente Marcelo Concepcion. back. 431.560. situated in the barrio of Dumacaa. the remainder of his debt and besides P385. p. that the plaintiff was then the legal owner of the mortgage. executed a special voluntary mortgage of the properties of his absolute ownership and control which are described as follows: No.00 ———— Total 4.00 Estate letter H. that.

containing 300 coconut trees and situated in the barrio of Cotta. 7 hectares. 1 responded for P800 of the debt and for the sum of P90 as costs P890. with an area of 7 hectares. 52 ares and 66 centares in area. The respective boundaries of each of the estates above enumerate were set forth in the said instrument of mortgage. 50 ares and 73 centares in are. 9. Lucena. 93 ares and 22 centares in area. 5.com . 7 p. Estate No. 435. p. rst inscription of the volume aforesaid. 4. p. 127. Estate No. 8. © 2016 cdasiaonline. which was duly inscribed in the property registry of Tayabas. an improved piece of land. Estate No. and 78 centares in area. consisting of improved land planted with 1. rst inscription of the same volume. and 49 centares in area. No. p. 2 hectares. back. Lucena. back. No. 98 ares and 66 centares in area. No. volume 106 general register. 438. 75. 16 hectares. 13 ares and 4 centares in area. Estate No. and 54 centares in area. an improved piece of land. back. 79 ares. No. 73. 434.500 coconut trees. an improved piece of coconut land. No. situated in the barrio of Canlorang Mayao. 11. Lucena.000 coconut trees. coconut land containing 1. Inc. No. 916. rst inscription of the said volume. 932. land containing 1.00 CD Technologies Asia. rst inscription of the same volume. 75. 81 ares. rst inscription of the same volume. in favor of the plaintiff.200 coconut trees. 1 hectare. 76. 12 ares. that the liability of the property mortgaged was distributed in the following manner: The estate described under No.000 coconut trees and located in the barrio of Dumacaa. 73. p. back. It was stated.000 coconut trees. coconut land. Estate No. p. volume 106 general register. No. Estate No. containing 200 coconut trees and situated in the same barrio and pueblo. and 60 centares. Lucena. situated in the same barrio and pueblo. and does not appear to have been cancelled. 14. 79.000 coconut trees. located in the barrio of Dumacaa. Estate No. p. No. coconut land. 10. 915. situated in the barrio of Silangan Mayao. Estate No. Estate No. containing 500 coconut trees and also located in the same barrio and pueblo. rst inscription of the volume mentioned. coconut land. 74. p. 12. Estate No. situated in the same barrio and pueblo. 2 ares. containing 800 coconut trees and situated in the barrio of Cotta. coconut land. 914. Estate No. 74. 13. containing 500 coconut trees and situated in the same barrio and pueblo. in the instrument referred to. p. 441. p. Lucena. 73. containing 2. and constitutes an encumbrance on the properties described. and 4 centares in area. 2 hectares. 436. 440. and 27 centares in area. 88 ares. Lucena. volume 106 general register. 36 ares and 5 centares are. containing 300 coconut trees and located in the same barrio and pueblo. No. 75. 4 ares. p. 6. rst inscription of the same volume. No. back. coconut land containing 1. coconut land containing 7. 439. No.

1906.00 Estate No. and defendant was to make use of it in taking our from the plaintiff's warehouse. costs P25 105.00 Estate No. costs P30 130. costs P30 120.00 Estate No. at current prices. that the defendant should be bound to pay to the plaintiff P600. Estate No. 11. rati ed before notary Williams. 2. on which date all the orders or duebills issued by the defendant against the said credit should be considered as matured.00 Estate No. 1906. in the event that the latter should fail to pay the amount of his previous duebills or orders at the time they should respectively fall due. and release.560 and was granted for the period of six months from the 20th of November.00 Estate No. 9. costs P40 150. 13. cancellation.00 Estate No. costs P40 460. liability P80. if not paid before.00 Estate No.50 Estate No. liability P110. 14. costs P30 130. and it was stipulated that the amount or value of each one of them should bear an annual interest of 8 per cent from the date of their maturity. 4. liability P420.00 Estate No. 3. liability P90. 6.00 That the aforementioned mortgage was executed as security for the payment to the plaintiff of the sum or sums which the defendant might owe him by reason of the said credit. That total amount of what the defendant might be owing. by the 20th of May. liability P110. liability P100. That the said written duebills or orders should be paid within thirty days from their date. liability P120.00 Estate No. Inc. 3. should be settled and entirely paid.160. © 2016 cdasiaonline. 2.com . 1906. 8. 7.00 Estate No. and also to pay all the expenses that might be occasioned by the execution of the said instrument of December 21. costs P40 150. liability P420. 4. liability P120. liability P900. cost P40 150. or should fail to comply with and observe any of the conditions and stipulations contained in the said instrument of October 19. 1907. costs P40 160.00 ——— Total 4. 10. in case of litigation. liability P100. That the said credit should not exceed the sum of P3. costs P40 460. together with the interest thereon. 5. as CD Technologies Asia. which was granted under the following terms and conditions: 1. costs P90 999. costs P25 150. by means of written duebills or orders signed by the defendant or by his attorney in fact. That it should be optional be optical on the part of the plaintiff to honor the duebills or orders which the defendant Marcelino Villafuerte might issue against the said credit. 12. costs P40 160. liability P80. by reason of the said credit. even though the extension above mentioned should not have expired. liability P110.00 Estate No. those of its inscription in the registry.

on different dates between the 20th of November and the 19th of December. it was stipulated that in case W.302. (5) for the sum of P174. availing himself of the credit granted in the aforementioned instrument of December 21. that the plaintiff was then the legal owner of the mortgage above referred to. 4. inclusive. by clause 14 of the said instrument of December 21. in addition. with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from date until payment. 1906. with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the complaint until payment. W.15. that the aforementioned instrument of December 21. by virtue of the said instrument of October 19 of the present year.95. that.50. 1906. and to collect their revenues.000 for costs and attorney's fees. and 13.213. in case Robinson should have to proceed judicial against the property therein mentioned in order to collect any amount to the payment of which they were subject. and interest thereon at 8 per cent per annum from date until its payment. well as the expenses incurred by the plaintiff on account of the instrument of October 19. the interest on this sum at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the complaint until paid. Inc. by clause 15 of the said instrument of December 21. 5. that the amount credited for the expenses referred to in No.57.79. for the following amounts: (1) For the sum of P3. referred to in the rst cause of action. the interest due on the principal mentioned in the preceding paragraph. together with the interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from date until it's payment.588. 1906. Robinson. that at the time of the complaint the said defendant owed the plaintiff the sums of P174. CD Technologies Asia. and that the our which the said defendant.95 and P5. the ful llment of which is demanded in the rst cause of action. 1906. 9. moreover. should be retroactive in its effect from the 20th of November of the same year. in addition to P503. and products for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the judgment. the total value of which amounted to P5. Vicente Marcelo Concepcion. provided.213.95. (3) for the sum of P5. 7 of the fth paragraph of this cause of action reached P174. the amount of the debt claimed in the second cause of action. bore a rst mortgage in favor of the plaintiff executed as security for the obligation. that the defendant.15. all the orders or duebills issued on account of the credit granted in the said instrument should be considered as matured and payable. 1906. the plaintiff. that.213. 11. 2. Robinson should be entitled to take charge of the management of all or any of the said realities until they should be sold. as interest due on the principal mentioned in the preceding paragraph and remaining unpaid. together with those of its inscription in the registry. rentals.00. and. took and withdrew from the plaintiff's warehouses. 8.79 as interest due up to the date of the complaint. © 2016 cdasiaonline. (2) for the sum of P385. 1906. with the privilege of levying upon all or any of the realities comprised with the mortgage mentioned in the said instrument. 1906. fruits. had withdrawn from the plaintiff's warehouses since the 20th of November. 7. 10. and was owing a balance of P5. and that none of the sums mentioned nor any part thereof had been paid to him: wherefore the plaintiff asked that judgment be rendered in his favor against the defendant. that the estates described under the Nos. it was also stipulated that it was expressly covenanted that. except the sum of P375.com . should have to institute foreclosure proceedings against the property above described.15. (6) for the sum of 1. (4) for the sum of P503. should be include in the credit opened. claimed in paragraph 9 of the second cause of action. and Robinson should be entitled forthwith to demand the payment of any balance found to be due him by Marcelino Villafuerte y Rañola. that the defendant had not paid any part of this amount. the principal demanded in the rst course of action. or of the obligation affecting the said property. through his attorney in fact. 12. 6. either by reason of the mortgage hereby placed on the same. in his favor. various quantities of our. and.15.

and authorizing him to collect and receive the revenues.302. fruits. nor to accept from and open with the plaintiff any credit nor establish with him any business in our. or moneys whatsoever from any person. and other products of the said estates and to retain them in his possession in order to satisfy the judgment that would be rendered in this case. in addition to the interest on the said principal at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. rentals. on December 15 of the same year. besides P503. nor authorize the execution of a power of attorney of any kind whatsoever in favor of Vicente Marcelo Concepcion. in answering to the counter complaint.213. nor dispose of. The plaintiff. consent to. made a general and speci c denial of each and all of the allegations of the plaintiff for each and all of the actions instituted by him in each and all of the paragraphs of the complaint. in his answer. and as a special defense. or otherwise dispose of. any of the properties mentioned in the complaint. and after the presentation of oral evidence by both parties. or encumber any of the properties described in the complaint. nor did the latter intervene therein and that the said power of attorney had no true reason for existence.com . also the P500 stipulated in the said instrument as payable by the defendant as costs and expenses in case of litigation. fraudulent. P5. to the plaintiff or to any person whatever. nor for any other sum of money. mortgage. 1908. rendered judgment whereby it directed that the plaintiff should recover from the defendant the sum speci ed in the rst instrument of mortgage. © 2016 cdasiaonline.50. 1908. in order that he might administer them during the course of this suit and until they should ultimately be sold. the court. Inc. which power of attorney was ctitious. as expenses for the execution of the instrument.95. that he did not give his consent to all of to any one of the mortgages alleged in the complaint. form the date just of P174. besides the interest on the said principal. The defendant. the additional sum of P385. empowering the latter to mortgage. CD Technologies Asia. 1908. and that all the said mortgages on the properties therein mentioned were founded on a supposed power of attorney said to have been executed by the defendant in favor of Vicente Marcelo Concepcion. as interest up to the 30th day of April. and the sum mentioned in the second instrument of mortgage. that it was not executed by the defendant.79. the documentary evidence being attached to the record. and prayed that judgment be pronounced in his favor. and that in case the said judgment be not satis ed thereby. set up a general and speci c denial of each and all of the allegations of the defendant with respect to each and all of the actions brought by him in each and all of the paragraphs of the counter complaint. in conformity with the petitions made in his complaint. and against the defendant. at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date just above mentioned until its complete payment. P3. by annulling each and all of the mortgages alleged in the complaint and the inscription of each of them in the of ce of the register of property of Tayabas.15 as principal. pledge. and in his crosscomplaint. alleged: That the defendant did not execute. false. null and void. The plaintiff further prayed that an order be issued directing the delivery to the plaintiff of the properties described in the complaint. The case came up for hearing on November 30. and by ordering the cancellation of all the inscriptions of the said mortgages and encumbrances of the aforementioned properties. nor execute any power of attorney nor grant any authority whatever in favor of the said Concepcion so that the latter might represent him and accept in his name credit. that the defendant received no sum whatever from the plaintiff nor was he in the latter's debt for the amount claimed in the complaint. the sale of the said properties be ordered and the proceeds thereof be applied to the purpose. as principal. wherefore the defendant asked that judgment be rendered absolving him from the complaint with the costs against the plaintiff.57 as interest up to April 30.

and inscribed in the property registry of the Province of Tayabas. amounting to P385. for the reasons stated in the said order. 1909. is the collection of various sums owed by the defendant. who led the proper bill of exceptions. or his attorney in fact. and costs. and although the credit of P3. 1906. Robinson. did not comply with his obligation nor pay his debt in conformity with the tenor of the said instrument. and moved for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insuf cient to warrant the judgment rendered and that the latter was contrary to law. the payment of which is secured by a mortgage on the real properties set out in the two notarial documents evidencing the debt. 1906. and forwarded to the clerk of this court. © 2016 cdasiaonline. the proceeds of the sale to pay the principal.57. with the interest and costs. The purpose of the suit led by the plaintiff. it was provided that the execution of the aforesaid judgment should not be suspended pending the appeal. Gomez. Marcelino Villafuerte y Rañola. that the quantities of our which were taken from the plaintiff's warehouse since the said November 20. which was certi ed to. W. The defendant.50. This motion was denied and exception was taken by the appellant.50. Inc. unless the defendant. which amounts to P3. 1906. was to have been paid in four installments from October 19. and that. The mortgage action brought by the creditor. W. With respect to the credit mentioned in the instrument. from November 20.302. 1906. announced that he would le a bill of exceptions. for he only paid the creditor the sum of P550 delivered partially on different dates. and granted by the plaintiff to the defendant Villafuerte under agreement that the latter should make use of the said credit by taking our from the creditor's warehouse by means of written duebills or orders signed by the debtor. and the additional sum of P600. cancellation. it was also a condition that the aforesaid instrument should be deemed to be retroactive in its effect. and acquaintance. Exhibit B. based upon the two aforementioned notarial documents is proper. took exception thereto. in account with the defendant. exhibited under letter A and B. with the interest due from the 6th of December. as provided for in clause 17 of the said instrument.000 in each one of the three rst months and P852. when noti ed of this judgment. 1909. for its inscription. the mortgages should be foreclosed and a nal writ should be issued directing that all the properties before described the sold. The judgment further ordered that the defendant should pay the several amounts above mentioned. after the deduction of the said P550 from the principal. in case such order should not be compiled with. should give a bond for P10. inasmuch as it is sought to collect certain sums speci ed in the said instruments on account of their not having been paid within the periods therein stipulated. on or before the rst day of the sitting of the court in April. should be considered as included. at the rate of P1. and that the total amount of CD Technologies Asia.com . and consequently the real properties offered as security for the solvency of the debts contracted by the debtor are duly liable for the satisfaction of the same. under condition that the value or amount of the said duebills should be paid within thirty days from their date and that these acknowledgments of debts should bear interest of 8 per cent per annum from the date of their maturity. which it was stipulated in the second instrument the defendant should pay for costs and expenses in case of litigation. letter A. notwithstanding the demands made upon him.000.852. yet since the debtor.50 in the fourth and last month. approved. the default of payment of any of the installments agreed upon produces the effect that all of these must be deemed to have matured and entitles the creditor to demand the payment of his entire credit and to proceed against the mortgaged properties for the purpose of collecting his credit. and referred to in the instrument lettered A. By an order of March 1. interest. the value of the our furnished to Camilio C.

Williams. Exhibit E.15 (pp. In view of the fact that the defendant succeeded in withdrawing our to the value of P5. in this city. and following. In the account. on which date all the orders or duebills issued against the said credit should be deemed to have matured. there appears a statement of the sacks of our which were taken on account of the said credit by means of the nine duebills. of the Code of Civil Procedure. he asserted that the latter.703. and 1875 of the Civil Code. has not resulted in defeating the validity. personally appeared before them and rati ed in its totality the contents of the aforementioned document. and force of the said powers of attorney. or that he had authorized the said Concepcion to mortgage the realties described in the said complaint. attached to the aforementioned account. whatever the defendant might owe. it not having been proven at trial that they contained any aw or defect which might operate to annul them. and the mortgages constituted in the two instruments aforementioned ful ll the conditions and requirements prescribed in articles 1857. by the debtor before the same notary. respectively. whom they attested under oath that they knew. Tayabas. Williams. before the notaries Eugenio de Lara and Daniel R. wherefore judgment should be rendered favorable to the mortgage creditor. Inc. 1906. The defendant debtor denied the existence of the obligations contained in the said instruments. 453963. in which it also appears that the value of the said sacks of flour was P4. the rst of them rati ed in the notarial record. he was in Lucena. that the defendant Marcelino Villafuerte y Rañola executed. and the powers of attorney executed in favor of Vicente Marcelo Concepcion were false. Exhibits C and D. the powers of attorney. must be accepted as valid and in force. and likewise denied that he owed the plaintiff any of the amounts claimed in the complaint. in the instruments designated under letter A and B.15. except P375. Exhibit F. it can not be denied that there still remains a balance to be paid of P4. The evidence adduced by the defendant in his attempt to prove that. the mortgages upon the real properties. inasmuch as the said mortgage deeds appear to have been rati ed in due form by contracting or interested parties before the said notary in Manila. when the said two powers of attorney appear to have been executed.com . in favor of Vicente Marcelo Concepcion. on July 11 and October 29. 1874. on the two dates before mentioned. by reason of the credit mentioned together with the interest thereon. © 2016 cdasiaonline. even though the thirty days' delay stipulated should not have expired. authenticity. 1907. it not having been proved at trial that the said powers of attorney were false or null and void. in accordance with section 256. he prayed that the aforementioned mortgages and the inscriptions of the same in the property registry be declared null and void. for the truth of their contents as well as their rati cation by the person executing them was certi ed to by notaries before whom they were exhibited respectively in the presence of two witnesses.15. and not in this city of Manila. after the deduction of P375. without his having paid the amount due therefor. as it appears to be.078. letter G. The complaint which gave rise to the present suit is in accordance with the provisions of section 255 of the Code of Civil Procedure. declaring that he had executed it freely and voluntarily and exhibited for the purpose his cedula. should be settled and entirely paid on May 20. 5 and 88 of the record). executed by the attorney in fact. No. and in asking for his release.703. the oral testimony presented by the defendant was insuf cient to prove that the notaries Lara and Williams untruthfully certi ed that Marcelino Villafuerte. CD Technologies Asia. If it is true. duly authorized for the purpose.

com . who averred that he was in Lucena on July 11. that the said two notaries. by the simple coincidence of some depositions. with the formalities required by law. 1248. nor rational. or registration certi cate. that they heard him ratify the contents of the respective documents. acceptable explanation. and not in Manila. on the respective dates aforementioned. came to remain for so long a time in the possession of the Chinaman Sy Chuy Chim or of Vicente Marcelo. as averred by the defendant or his counsel. the said defendant appeared in person before them. that on the dates of the execution of the powers of attorney the persons executing them was not here in Manila. and entirely irrespective of the truth. nor executed in favor of Vicente Marcelo the powers of attorney lettered C and D. Tayabas. but in Lucena. issued the certi cates which appear under their respective signatures and seals at the foot of the powers of attorney. the defendant Villafuerte was in Lucena. were it true that he had not contracted the obligations contained in the instruments lettered A and B. falsely. Tayabas. (Arts. or any basis of written evidence are usually made use of. and we do not nd any just reason nor any legal ground whatever to warrant a discussion of the conclusion arrived at by the evidence presented in this suit. Civil Code. it is not understood how two notaries who attested that they personally knew him could have certi ed that. without having ostensibly perverted the truth. to identify his personality. and out of the ordinary rule that every citizen should necessarily keep his certi cate of identi cation in his possession. are evidence. said that he was not sure whether on October 29 of the same year. so strange. the date of the second. 1906. no CD Technologies Asia. to pay his debt. clear. letters C and D. by means of the testimony of witnesses. where the instruments were certi ed to. 1906. unless their truthfulness be evident. rati ed the instrument of power of attorney which he had executed. the only one and the same one which he presented at each of his appearances on the said dates. as the logical result of the evidence. strong. would have at that time made the proper investigations and taken the necessary steps for the annulment or invalidation of the said instruments. Public instruments authenticated by a notary or by a competent public of cial. The defendant did not even attempt to do anything of the kind. on January 15. even against a third person. in the beginning of the year 1907. They shall also be evidence against the contracting parties and their legal representatives with regard to the declarations the former may have therein. anomalous. issued in Lucena. and irrefutable proof must be adduced to prove that the said notaries could not have averred that the said person was actually in their presence. which identi es a citizen.) "The force of proof of depositions of witnesses shall be weighed by the courts in accordance with the provisions of the law of civil procedure. the date of the rst power of attorney. 1216 and 1218. the affairs may be nally decided in which instruments. Without proof. and. the only one exhibited to both notaries.) The defendant debtor having been requested by letter. private documents. Were it true that on the dates of the 11th of July and the 29th of October. was for some four months in the possession of another person residing in a distant place. Tayabas. it is impossible to believe that the personal certi cate of registration. he was in the said pueblo or in this city of Manila. and could have certi ed to the number of his cedula. © 2016 cdasiaonline. taking care to avoid that. It was not proved in a satisfactory manner at the trial how or why the said cedula. exhibited to the said notaries his certi cate of registration. Civil Code. 1906. and under this supposition. Inc. it is not suf cient to prove. In order to establish the conclusion. of the fact which gives rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. The defendant himself." (Art. (mostly relatives) and by unauthenticated documents.

Although the documents exhibited by the defendant's counsel could not. made in the proper place. and therefore. for the reason that the said Lacalle did not have the capacity and quali cations of a lawyer admitted under oath to practice his profession before the courts of these Islands. and the note of page 162. for a notarial document. The Chinaman was not examined in this litigation and the attorney in fact. to be noted that Pedro Cantero. are false. of the record. and which also was unauthenticated. explanation whatever was given by the defendant's counsel as to the purpose for which the defendant parted with his cedula and sent it to either the said Chinaman or Marcelo. wherefore. of the gures 11 and 6 of the first date. denied that he had received the said cedula sent by his constituent. it is unquestionable that the intervention of the said law clerk and employee of Messrs. notwithstanding the presence of Attorney Agustin Alvarez. and that of letter M is also an original rati ed before a notary. and it is not permissible to conclude that the instruments of power of attorney executed by the defendant. that the aforementioned dates of the 11th of July. the judge should have sustained such objection and should have excluded Lacalle and not permitted him to address CD Technologies Asia. appear therein with a correction. because that of letter L is an original and one of the triplicates drawn up for a single purpose. was not examined either. Cohn & Williams. for lack of proof of their authenticity. on account of these circumstances. So that for the reasons hereinbefore stated. must be sustained in full force and affect so long as he who impugns it shall not have presented strong.com . whose signature appears attached to the papers found on pages 159. and 170. guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with the law. of the record. 162. it was not authorized by any law. was improperly admitted. because of the absolute absence of proof as a foundation for such a charge. Inc. and seventh errors attributed to the judgment are devoid of reason and legal foundation. It is also to be observed. With respect to the third error alleged we hold that the admission of the documents designated by the letters L and M was proper for the purpose for which they were presented. and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaw or detect provided against by law. sixth. on objection being made to his present at the hearing of the case. in the certi cate of which. in the document or letter found on page 136 of the record. there certainly appears an annotation of the dame number 453963 of the cedula of the defendant Villafuerte which he exhibited to the notaries who authenticated the powers of attorney Exhibits C and D. By the foregoing it has been duly shown that the fourth. were not authentic. on his rati cation of the respective instrument of power of attorney before each one of them. fth. 1906. 1906. a repetition and details which induce the presumption that the said letter was written on a different date. © 2016 cdasiaonline. who represented the plaintiff. it is reasonable to presume that the documents of pages 159 and 170. it is. as well as the certi cations subscribed by the notaries Lara and Williams. however. as stated therein. the plaintiff's attorneys in this suit. With regard to the rst two alleged errors. relative to Jose Moreno Lacalle being permitted to address questions to some of the witnesses during the hearing of the case. Marcelo. complete. he being a Spaniard and an attorney it is not possible to believe that he wrote the aforementioned documents in the form and style in which they appear to have been drawn up. even for the purpose of identifying his signature. destroy or impair the value and force of the notarial documents or instruments on which the plaintiff's claim is based. it is evident that the defendant Villafuerte personally exhibited the said cedula to the two aforementioned notaries. Haussermann. dated July 13.

to authorize the striking out to the answers given by the witnesses interrogated by Lacalle. even though the questions addressed by Lacalle to the plaintiff's witnesses and the presentation of documents of various kinds exhibited at the trial be stricken out for the reason that they were made by a person who was neither a party to the suit nor counsel for the plaintiff. yet we do not nd any reason. based upon any positive prohibition of the law. and there is much less reason for rejecting the cross-questions addressed to the same witnesses by the defendant's attorney. as we hereby do. as requested by the defendant. on account of their having been made by a person who had not the quali cations of a practicing attorney it is nevertheless true that their presentation was authorized by the attorney Alvarez and the documents exhibited continued to be united to the record and were not stricken out therefrom on motion by the other side. For the foregoing reasons. be declared null and void. made allegations against the same and concluded by asking that these documents.J. and the answers thereto. in our opinion. C. concur. Although the presentation of the documents which support the claims of the plaintiff party be deemed to be improper. was present. and in consequence thereof we acquit the plaintiff from the cross complaint relative to the declaration of nullity of the mortgages and inscriptions. Cohn & Williams as the plaintiff's representative in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. Moreland and Trent. if judgment was rendered against him and in favor of the plaintiff. it was in consequence of the merits of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and of the inefficacy and worthlessness of the testimony given by the defendant. Inc. notwithstanding the fact that Attorney Agustin Alvares. Notwithstanding this. The rst day of the term of court immediately following the date on which the ful llment of this judgment is ordered shall be set for the payment of the amounts due and the foreclosure of the said mortgages. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com . on the contrary. even though the said answers may have been evoked by questions addressed by a person not authorized by law.. strong and convincing evidence of the falsity of the two powers of attorney executed in favor of Vicente Marcelo Concepcion. designated in substitution of the said Haussermann. CD Technologies Asia. although such intervention is in no manner permitted by the law of procedure. Arellano. the attorney for the defendant or his counsel discussed the authenticity and validity of the said documents. From the preceding statements it is concluded that the intervention of Jose Moreno Lacalle in the present suit has in no manner prejudiced the rights and interests of the defendant and that. to af rm the judgment appealed from. and this suit would have had a different ending. it is proper. the plaintiff's documentary evidence would have been totally invalidated and annulled. but. with the costs against the appellant. However. questions to the plaintiff's witnesses. as no positive detriment was caused to the defendant. and also the inscription of those designated under letters A and B. the acts performed in the course of some of the proceedings under the direction of Jose Moreno Lacalle are not subject to annulment. If the defendant Marcelino Villafuerte had presented substantial.. JJ. Johnson. So ordered.