Facts:

The case involves Manuel Riobo as the plaintiff and appellant against Ramon Hontiveros and others as defendants and appellants. The events leading to the case began with a public notarial document executed on March 18, 1897, in Capiz, Province of Capiz. In this document, Agustina Consolacion and Norberta Consolacion, two sisters, acknowledged their indebtedness to Riobo in the amount of P9,190, agreeing to repay this sum in two equal installments due on July 1, 1898, and July 1, 1899. To secure this debt, the sisters mortgaged several parcels of land, which were described in detail in the document and the complaint. Riobo sought judgment for P14,519.58, which included the original debt plus interest, and requested the court to order the public auction of the mortgaged properties if the defendants failed to pay.

The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the document was null and void due to lack of consideration and that their signatures were obtained through f...

Facts:

1. Execution of the Public Document:
   The plaintiff, Manuel Riobo, based his cause of action on a public notarial document (Exhibit A) executed by the defendants, Agustina Consolacion and Norberta Consolacion, assisted by her husband Ramon Hontiveros, on March 18, 1897. In this document, the defendants acknowledged a debt of P9,190 to the plaintiff and agreed to pay it in two installments, with the first due on July 1, 1898, and the second on July 1, 1899. To secure the debt, the defendants mortgaged several parcels of land.

2. Plaintiff's Claims:
   The plaintiff sought judgment for P14,519.58, which included the original debt plus interest up to the filing of the complaint. He also requested interest at 6% from the commencement of the action until full payment and asked for the sale of the mortgaged property at public auction if the defendants failed to pay.

3. Defendants' Defenses:
   The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the public document was void due to lack of consideration and that their signatures were obtained through force and intimidation. They also alleged that they never received any money from the plaintiff but had paid the first installment of P4,595. Ramon Hontiveros further claimed that the plaintiff owed him P1,324.50 from a prior business partnership.

4. Trial Court's Findings:
   The trial court found that:

   • The defendants acknowledged the debt of P9,190.
   • They had paid P3,995 on the debt.
   • The plaintiff was entitled to interest only from the filing of the complaint, as there was no agreement on interest in the document.
   • The document did not constitute a valid mortgage because it was not inscribed in the property register.
   • The defendants were not entitled to recover on their counterclaims.

5. Appeals:
   Both parties appealed. The plaintiff contested the findings on the payment of P3,995, the denial of interest from the due date, and the failure to recognize the document as a valid mortgage. The defendants challenged the judgment against Agustina Consolacion, arguing that the document was void as to her because she lacked her husband's consent.

6. Evidence on Payment:
   Witnesses testified that P3,995 was paid to the plaintiff, and a receipt was issued, though it was destroyed during an attack by American forces. The trial court found this testimony credible.

7. Interest and Demand:
   The court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest before the filing of the complaint because there was no evidence of a formal demand for payment.

8. Motion for New Trial:
   The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, claiming new evidence showed the mortgage was inscribed. The trial court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court declined to consider the new evidence.

9. Testimony on Mortgage Registration:
   The plaintiff testified that the mortgage was inscribed, but the trial court did not give this testimony due weight. The Supreme Court found that the mortgage was duly registered.

10. Agustina Consolacion's Liability:
    The defendants argued that Agustina Consolacion could not be held liable because her husband did not consent to the contract. The court ruled that Agustina could not raise this defense, as she had received the plaintiff's money and mortgaged her lands.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Payment of P3,995:
   The testimony of witnesses, including Anatalio Hontiveros and Roque Hontiveros, supported the finding that P3,995 was paid to the plaintiff. The trial court's factual findings were upheld as they were supported by the evidence.

2. Interest Before Filing of Complaint:
   The plaintiff could not recover interest before the filing of the complaint because there was no evidence of a formal demand for payment, as required by law.

3. Validity of the Mortgage:
   The plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony that the mortgage was inscribed in the property register was sufficient to establish its validity. The trial court erred in not giving this testimony due weight.

4. Agustina Consolacion's Liability:
   Under Article 55 of the Law of Civil Marriage of 1870, only the husband or his heirs could enforce the nullity of a contract executed by a married woman without proper authorization. Agustina, having received the plaintiff's money and mortgaged her lands, could not raise this defense.