Facts:

Luis Palomar Baldovi (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) instituted a case against Manuela Sarte (the Defendant) on June 11, 1915, to recover the amount of P187.50. The background of the case stems from a transaction that occurred on June 8, 1910, in Legaspi, Albay, where Rodolfo G. Tuyet had signed an obligation to pay P187.50 to Bias Ausina Pi. Subsequently, the Defendant Manuela Sarte assumed this debt as per a public instrument executed on June 9, 1910, following an agreement between her and Tuyet. From March 1913, the creditor, Bias Ausina Pi, made multiple attempts to collect the debt but without success. An endorsement on January 17, 1915, transferred ownership of the obligation to the Plaintiff, who claimed that despite several demands, the Defendant had failed to pay the amount owed.

In response, the Defendant filed an answer on August 2, 1915, denying all allegations and asserting that the original creditor had no authority to transfer the claim at the time of

...

Facts:

Background and Contractual Context

• The parties involved are Luis Palomar Baldovi (plaintiff/appellee) and Manuela Sarte (defendant/appellant).
• Prior to the suit, Rodolfo G. Tuyet and Manuela Sarte were married, with Bias Ausina Pi serving as the administrator managing certain properties and interests of the couple.
• A notarial instrument dated June 9, 1910, established a separation of property agreement between the spouses, wherein:
• The husband renounced any claim over his wife’s private and paraphernal property.
• The wife, Manuela Sarte, undertook specific obligations by binding herself to pay certain accounts and debts as detailed in an attached statement (Letter A).
• Several clauses (seventh to tenth) provided that all pending civil suits between the spouses should be terminated and that no part of the contract would produce legal effect until a judicial decree or final judgment established an annulment or separation of property.

Transaction Leading to the Debt Claim

• On June 8, 1910, an obligation to pay the sum of P187.50 was created when Rodolfo G. Tuyet signed a promissory note, later indorsed by the creditor Bias Ausina Pi.
• Luis Palomar Baldovi, by virtue of an endorsement of January 17, 1915, became the absolute owner of the promissory note and thus claimed the right to recover the amount.

Initiation of Legal Proceedings and Evidentiary Matters

• On June 11, 1915, Luis Palomar Baldovi filed a written complaint in the Court of First Instance of Albay seeking recovery of P187.50 plus legal interest from June 8, 1910.
• The cause of action was based on:
• The existence of the promissory note duly signed and indorsed.
• The failure of the defendant to pay the said debt despite multiple demands since March 1913.
• Manuela Sarte, in her answer on August 2, 1915, denied the allegations in toto and raised a special defense.

Special Defense Raised by the Defendant

• The defendant argued that Bias Ausina Pi, who had originally been entitled to collect the P187.50, had filed a separate civil suit (Complaint No. 1264) on June 14, 1910, against both Rodolfo G. Tuyet and Manuela Sarte for a larger debt, namely P1,033.34.
• In that prior suit, although judgment was rendered against Rodolfo G. Tuyet, the proceedings against Manuela Sarte were dismissed, thereby allegedly signifying:
• The waiver and abandonment by Bias Ausina Pi of his right to collect the P187.50 since it was not included in his complaint.
• An estoppel preventing any indorsee, including Palomar Baldovi, from subsequently demanding payment of that particular amount.

Procedural History and Judicial Determinations

• The Court of First Instance of Albay rendered a judgment on September 29, 1915, holding that the plaintiff’s action was not barred by statute and that the defendant’s debt (P187.50) was conclusively proven.
• The judgment ordered the defendant to pay P187.50 with legal interest from June 8, 1910, along with the costs of the suit.
• Manuela Sarte, through counsel, filed exceptions and a bill of exceptions, challenging the judgment on the grounds of prior waiver and claim abandonment.

Contractual Conditions Affecting Liability

• The separation agreement (Exhibit A) contained a tenth clause which stipulated that the obligations of Manuela Sarte would only become enforceable once a final judgment on the annulment of the marriage and separation of property was rendered.
• Article 1432 of the Civil Code was invoked to contest the legality and operative effect of the private contract, emphasizing that separation of property during the marriage requires a judicial decree unless a specific provision is declared in the marriage contract.

Issue:

• Whether the failure by Bias Ausina Pi to include the P187.50 claim in his prior complaint (Complaint No. 1264) constitutes a waiver or abandonment of his right, thereby estopping the plaintiff, as an indorsee, from collecting the amount.
• Whether the defendant Manuela Sarte’s obligation to pay the P187.50 is conditioned by the fulfillment of the requirements specified in the separation agreement, particularly the condition precedent in the tenth clause.
• Whether the non-joinder of multiple causes of action in the original complaint bars the claim for the P187.50 in the subsequent action filed by Palomar Baldovi.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)