Case Digest (G.R. No. 2028)
Facts:
The case involves C. Heinszen & Co. as the plaintiffs and Henry M. Jones as the defendant. The events leading to the case unfolded in Manila, Philippines, with the initial proceedings taking place in January 1902. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against Jones, alleging that he executed a promissory note, which he subsequently failed to pay. In his answer, Jones denied all allegations, claiming he could not recall the matter and did not believe he had executed the promissory note in question. He further asserted that if he had indeed executed the note, he had already paid it in full and owed nothing to the plaintiffs. Additionally, he contended that if the note was his, it was executed merely to accommodate the payee, and he had not received any value in return for it. The lower court, upon a motion from the plaintiffs, struck out Jones's answer as sham under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure and entered a judgment in favor ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 2028)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Plaintiffs and Appellees: C. Heinszen & Co.
- Defendant and Appellant: Henry M. Jones
Nature of the Case:
- The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendant, alleging the execution of a promissory note, its endorsement to the plaintiffs, and the nonpayment of the note.
Defendant’s Answer:
- The defendant filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint. Specifically:
- He denied executing the promissory note or authorizing anyone to do so on his behalf.
- He claimed that if he had executed the note, it had already been paid in full.
- He further alleged that if the note was executed, it was done as an accommodation to the payee, and no value was received by him.
- The defendant filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint. Specifically:
Procedural History:
- The lower court struck out the defendant’s answer as a "sham" under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendant appealed the decision, challenging both the judgment and the order striking out his answer.
Key Allegations:
- The plaintiffs’ complaint relied on three material allegations:
- The due execution of the promissory note.
- The endorsement of the note to the plaintiffs.
- The nonpayment of the note.
- The plaintiffs’ complaint relied on three material allegations:
Defendant’s Defense:
- The defendant’s answer included a general denial of the allegations but did not specifically deny the execution of the note under oath.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Striking Out an Answer as a Sham:
- A court may strike out an answer as a "sham" only if it is clearly shown to be false or frivolous. In this case, the lower court erred in striking out the defendant’s answer without sufficient evidence to support such a finding.
Denial of Execution Under Oath:
- Under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant must deny the execution of a written instrument under oath. Failure to do so constitutes an admission of the instrument’s genuineness. The defendant’s answer in this case did not meet this requirement.
Endorsement of the Note:
- The defendant was not required to deny the endorsement of the note under oath because the action was based on the promissory note itself, not the endorsement. The endorsement imposed no liability on the defendant, and he could not be expected to know whether the payee had endorsed the note to a third party.
Remand for Further Proceedings:
- The case was remanded to the lower court to allow the defendant to properly address the allegations and for the court to proceed in accordance with the law.