G.R. No. 173479 - People vs. Cabbab, Jr.

On December 2, 1902, Felix Velasco, plaintiff and appellant, filed a complaint against Martin Masa, defendant and appellee, seeking recovery of 2,804 pesos with interest at 12% per annum.
The loan was allegedly given on July 1, 1898, in the pueblo of San Remigio, with repayment due on the same day the following year.
The transaction was evidenced by a private document allegedly signed by the defendant, which set forth the principal, interest, losses, and damages.

Plaintiff claimed that, while he was detained in the jail at the capital of Antique, the defendant, in conformity with conditions prevailing due to a recent revolution, acquired possession of the document through coercion and trickery exercised with respect to his wife.
Plaintiff alleged that even though a claim for the robbery of the document was initially filed before the provost court (and subsequently before the Court of First Instance), the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
The complaint further asserted an implied agreement between the parties regarding interest at 12% to be added at the end of the year in case of non-payment.

The defendant, Martin Masa, denied the allegations, asserting that the document had been voluntarily transferred to him through Luis Ocsena.
He contended that the document stipulated a different amount – 1,000 pesos with an interest rate of 20% per annum – and was executed in 1889 rather than 1898.
Defending against the charge of robbery, the defendant produced evidence (including a court judgment from March 7, 1902) to show that the document had been returned as an act of gratitude, not as a result of coercion.
Subsequent to filing his answer, the defendant demurred the complaint, arguing that the attached certified judgment was executory and therefore outside the jurisdiction for further litigation concerning the document.

The defendant’s demurrer was overruled on July 13, 1903, and he subsequently excepted to the ruling.
Evidence and exhibits from both parties were presented, leading to the Court of First Instance entering judgment on November 4, 1905, dismissing the complaint against Martin Masa.
The plaintiff excepted to the judgment and moved for a new trial, claiming that the conclusions were “openly and manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence.”
Additionally, the defendant moved to disallow the plaintiff’s bill of exceptions, which was likewise overruled, with the defendant also excepting thereto.

It was proven that a document was executed by the defendant on July 1, 1898 to evidence the loan.
After the outbreak of the insurrection in Antique, the plaintiff’s wife voluntarily returned the document to the defendant (via Luis Ocsena), effectively renouncing the debt.
No satisfactory proof was produced by the plaintiff to show that the possession of the document was obtained through coercion or trickery.
Under section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court determined that the overall evidence – including witness credibility and the manner of testimony – substantiated the fact that the document was voluntarily delivered.

Whether the voluntary return of the private instrument by the plaintiff’s wife constituted a legal remission of the debt by the creditor.

Did the voluntary surrender of the document imply a tacit waiver of the right to recover the loan?
Was the delivery of the document made for reasons of gratitude to the defendant, thereby extinguishing the creditor’s claim?

Whether the defendant could be held liable for obtaining the document by coercion or trickery, as alleged by the plaintiff.

Did the evidence support the plaintiff’s allegation of coercion and trickery, especially given his detention at the time the document was taken?
Could the defendant be held accountable for an act that the evidence showed was voluntarily executed?

Whether the judgment rendered by the lower court should be affirmed despite the plaintiff’s exceptions and motion for a new trial.