In the case Mota v. Sorra, purchasers Phil. C.

Whitaker and Venancio Concepcion

executed a mortgage in favor of the plaintiffs on the equal rights and titles they had bought and
on what they had purchased from Mr. Salvador Serra. In other words, Phil. C. Whitaker and
Venancio Concepcion mortgaged what they bought from the plaintiffs and Salvador Serra to the
plaintiffs. If Phil C. Whitaker and Venancio Concepcion purchased something from Salvador
Serra, the defendant, it was his portion of the railroad line. The issue in this case is whether or
not there was confusion of the rights of the creditor and debtor.

In the said facts, it reveals that the plaintiffs transferred Phil. C. Whitaker and Venancio
Concepcion only half of the railroad line. As stated, since there was no novation of the contract
between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the latter's obligation to pay the former one-half of
of the cost of the said railroad line, and since the plaintiffs did not include in the sale, evidenced
by Exhibit 5, the credit they had against the defendant, the allegation that the defendant's
obligation became extinguished by the merger of the rights of creditor and debtor by the
purchase of Messrs. Phil. C. Whitaker and Venancio Concepcion is wholly untenable.