Facts:

The case involves the Philippine Trust Company as the plaintiff and appellant against several defendants, including Antigua Botica Ramirez, Daniel Boquer, J. J. Dunbar, Eduardo Gutierrez Repide, and Manuela Reyes y Almeida. The events leading to the case unfolded in Manila, where the plaintiff sought to collect debts from the defendants through three separate but related cases, all decided together. In G.R. No. 34686, the plaintiff aimed to recover P7,531.28, representing the balance of an overdraft account of Antigua Botica Ramirez as of December 17, 1928, with Boquer and Dunbar acting as guarantors. In G.R. No. 34687, the plaintiff sought P5,837.07, the balance of a promissory note for P6,000 executed on June 7, 1927, with the same defendants. Lastly, in G.R. No. 34688, the plaintiff claimed P17,702.52, the balance of a P30,000 promissory note executed by Dunbar, Boquer, and Gutierrez Repide, with a portion guaranteed by Reyes y Almeida through a mortgage on a parcel of lan...

Facts:

1. Case Background:

   • The case involves three consolidated appeals (G.R. Nos. 34686, 34687, and 34688) filed by the Philippine Trust Company (plaintiff-appellant) against Antigua Botica Ramirez, Daniel Boquer, J. J. Dunbar, Eduardo Gutierrez Repide, and Manuela Reyes y Almeida (defendants-appellees).
   • The plaintiff sought to recover amounts owed under overdraft accounts and promissory notes executed by the defendants.

2. Specific Claims:

   • G.R. No. 34686: Plaintiff sought to recover P7,531.28 from Antigua Botica Ramirez, Daniel Boquer, and J. J. Dunbar for an overdraft account balance as of December 17, 1928.
   • G.R. No. 34687: Plaintiff sought to recover P5,837.07 from Antigua Botica Ramirez, Daniel Boquer, J. J. Dunbar, and Eduardo Gutierrez Repide for a promissory note executed on June 7, 1927.
   • G.R. No. 34688: Plaintiff sought to recover P17,702.52 from J. J. Dunbar, Daniel Boquer, Eduardo Gutierrez Repide, and Manuela Reyes y Almeida for a promissory note executed on December 10, 1927, with Manuela Reyes y Almeida guaranteeing P10,000 through a mortgage.

3. Management and Receivership:

   • The plaintiff had taken control of Antigua Botica Ramirez before filing the complaints.
   • A receiver was appointed to manage the properties of Antigua Botica Ramirez upon the plaintiff's request.

4. Trial Court Decision:

   • The trial court dismissed all three complaints, canceled Manuela Reyes y Almeida’s mortgage, discharged the receiver, and ordered the return of Antigua Botica Ramirez’s properties to the plaintiff.
   • The plaintiff appealed, raising ten assignments of error.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Surety’s Liability:

   • A surety is liable for the debt regardless of whether they received consideration for signing the promissory note. The surety’s obligation is independent of the principal debtor’s obligations.

2. Hearsay Evidence:

   • Hearsay testimony, such as statements about extensions of payment, is inadmissible unless corroborated by direct evidence.

3. Assignment of Shares:

   • Claims of assignment of shares must be supported by documentary evidence. Absent such evidence, the claim cannot be sustained.

4. Management of Assets:

   • A creditor who takes control of a debtor’s business must act reasonably in managing and selling assets. The plaintiff’s actions were deemed reasonable under the circumstances.

5. Admissions Against Interest:

   • Admissions made by parties in prior proceedings are admissible as evidence without the need for laying a foundation.