You are on page 1of 1

Tomas OSMEÑA, plaintiff & appellee, vs.

Cenona RAMA, defendant & appellant
[1909]
 Nov. 15, 1890: Rama executed & delivered a contract to Victoriano Osmeña, w/c
contained the ff: (contract #1)
1. that Rama received P200.00 from the Osmeña
2. said debt will be paid in sugar in Jan/Feb 1891 at the price of sugar upon
delivery in Osmeña’s warehouses + interest of half a cuartillo per month on
each peso beginning on this date until debt has been paid
3. if Rama can’t pay in full, a balance shall be struck, showing the amount
outstanding at the end of each June w/interest & balance as may be
outstanding against Rama shall be considered as capital w/c she’ll pay in sugar
+ interests
4. Rama will sell all the sugar that she may harvest to Osmeña
5. guarantee for the debt: all of Rama’s present & future property (pledge as
security) and house w/tile roof & stone floor where she lives in (special security)
6. Osmeña entitled to make claim against Rama upon the expiration of the term
stated in the contract
 Oct. 27, 1891: Rama asked for an additional loan from Osmeña amounting to P70.00
but she mentioned in the contract (contract #2) that P50.00 of said amount was
loaned to Don Evaristo Peñares and that said debt will be paid in sugar on Jan. 1892
according to the conditions of contract #1.
 Subsequently, Osmeña died and during the partition of his estate, said contracts
became the property of Agustina Rafols, one of his heirs. Rafols then claimed her
right & interest in the contracts.
 March 15, 1902: Tomas Osmeña presented the contracts to Rama who acknowledged
her responsibility by issuing an endorsement w/c provided that if the house that she
lived in is sold, she will pay her indebtedness to Tomas. However, Rama still failed to
pay.
 June 26, 1906: Tomas filed this case w/the CFI of Cebu alleging the aforementioned
incidents w/the prayer for a judgment for the amount due on said contracts.
 Rama’s defense: general denial & prescription
 CFI: decided in favor of Osmeña & ordered Rama to pay:
1. P200 + 18 ¾ percent interest per annum from Nov. 15, 1890 (for contract #1)
2. P20 + 18 ¾ percent interest per annum from Oct. 27, 1891 until sums were
paid (only P20 was demanded despite the P70 loan because it was proven that
P50 was borrowed by Peñares)

Issue: WON the condition imposed by Rama in her March 15, 1902 endorsement is valid.
– NO

Ratio:
1. If this can even be regarded as a condition, it’s a condition that depended upon the
debtor’s exclusive will & was therefore void (CC Art. 1115).
2. This endorsement is tantamount to an acknowledgement of her obligation & thus it
would be sufficient to prevent the statute of limitation from barring the action upon
the original contract. Meaning, action has not yet prescribed.

Holding: CFI affirmed.