Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18411)
Facts:
Magdalena Estates, Inc. v. Antonio A. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-18411. December 17, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Regala, J., writing for the Court. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila that ordered the defendants-appellants to pay jointly and severally P655.89, plus legal interest from the date of judicial demand, P100 attorney’s fees, and costs.The dispute began when the appellants, spouses Antonio A. Rodriguez and Herminia C. Rodriguez, purchased Lot 7‑K‑2‑G (Psd‑26193) in Quezon City and executed on January 4, 1957 a promissory note for the unpaid balance of P5,000.00, payable with 9% interest within sixty days from January 7, 1957. On the same date the appellants and Luzon Surety Co., Inc. executed a surety bond in favor of Magdalena Estates, Inc. in which the surety undertook to “comply with the obligation to pay the amount of P5,000.00 representing balance of the purchase price … within a period of sixty (60) days from January 7, 1957,” and provided that the surety must be notified within ten days from default or the undertaking would be null and void.
When the obligation became due, on June 20, 1958 the Luzon Surety Co., Inc. paid the appellee P5,000.00. The appellee later demanded payment of P655.89 as accrued interest; the appellants refused to pay the interest. Magdalena Estates, Inc. sued in the Municipal Court of Manila to collect the interest; that court rendered judgment for the appellee on February 5, 1959, awarding P655.89 with legal interest from November 10, 1958 (the filing date). The appellants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which, after submission on the pleadings, rendered the judgment now on appeal ordering payment of P655.89 with interest from date of judicial demand, P100 attorney’s fees, and costs.
The appellants brought the case to this Court (appeal directly to the Supreme Court), assigning errors that the pleadings did not show a demand for inte...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the appellee waive or condone the accrued interest by accepting the P5,000.00 from the surety so as to extinguish the appellants’ obligation to pay the interest?
- Did the appellee’s unqualified acceptance of the surety bond (and the surety’s payment of P5,000.00) operate as a novation or modification of the appellants’ obligation so as to elimi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)