Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Rodriguez vs. Martinez, 5 Phil. 67, No. 1913 September 29, 1905 (Alvarez)

    Uploaded by

    Koolen Alvarez
    Rodriguez vs. Martinez involved a promissory note that was transferred to the plaintiff before maturity but lacked the required stamp. The defendant assured the plaintiff that the note was valid when asked. The court held that the lack of a stamp did not invalidate the note, as the plaintiff acquired it without notice of any defects and the defendant should not be allowed to deny the validity after inducing the plaintiff's purchase. While the note was originally issued to settle a gambling debt, the defendant was not relieved from paying the plaintiff, who acquired the note in good faith. The judgment in favor of the defendant was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rodriguez vs. Martinez, 5 Phil. 67, No. 1913 September 29, 1905 (Alvarez)

    Uploaded by

    Koolen Alvarez
    60 views2 pages
    Rodriguez vs. Martinez involved a promissory note that was transferred to the plaintiff before maturity but lacked the required stamp. The defendant assured the plaintiff that the note was valid when asked. The court held that the lack of a stamp did not invalidate the note, as the plaintiff acquired it without notice of any defects and the defendant should not be allowed to deny the validity after inducing the plaintiff's purchase. While the note was originally issued to settle a gambling debt, the defendant was not relieved from paying the plaintiff, who acquired the note in good faith. The judgment in favor of the defendant was reversed.

    Original Title

    Rodriguez vs. Martinez, 5 Phil. 67, No. 1913 September 29, 1905 (Alvarez).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rodriguez vs. Martinez involved a promissory note that was transferred to the plaintiff before maturity but lacked the required stamp. The defendant assured the plaintiff that the note was valid when asked. The court held that the lack of a stamp did not invalidate the note, as the plaintiff acquired it without notice of any defects and the defendant should not be allowed to deny the validity after inducing the plaintiff's purchase. While the note was originally issued to settle a gambling debt, the defendant was not relieved from paying the plaintiff, who acquired the note in good faith. The judgment in favor of the defendant was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views2 pages

    Rodriguez vs. Martinez, 5 Phil. 67, No. 1913 September 29, 1905 (Alvarez)

    Uploaded by

    Koolen Alvarez
    Rodriguez vs. Martinez involved a promissory note that was transferred to the plaintiff before maturity but lacked the required stamp. The defendant assured the plaintiff that the note was valid when asked. The court held that the lack of a stamp did not invalidate the note, as the plaintiff acquired it without notice of any defects and the defendant should not be allowed to deny the validity after inducing the plaintiff's purchase. While the note was originally issued to settle a gambling debt, the defendant was not relieved from paying the plaintiff, who acquired the note in good faith. The judgment in favor of the defendant was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Rodriguez vs. Martinez, 5 Phil. 67, No.

    1913 September 29, 1905


    Facts: The defendant executed his promissory note on 1902 (17th of October) for the sum of 4,000
    Mexican pesos payable to Felipe C. Montalvo which for the value received, sold and transferred the
    said promissory note to the plaintiff before maturity and received without notice of any conditions
    existing against the note.

    The defendant informed plaintiff that the note was good (and that he would pay the
    same at a discount) when asked about the note and delivered by the defendant in payment of a
    gambling debt which the defendant owed Montalvo.

    The note was presented to the court as evidence of that debt without the
    stamp required by law. After the trial, the plaintiff offered to put the necessary stamp on the note,
    and tendered such stamp. Neither party moved for a new trial.

    Issue: Whether the omission of the stamp on the promissory note would invalidate said note

    Held: No. The omission of the stamp required by law upon such documents is not sufficient
    to invalidate the note sued upon

    Section 11 of the royal decree of the 29th of May, 1894: "Every note not stamped in
    accordance with the provisions of the foregoing sections shall be null and void and will not be
    admitted in any court or any Government office whatsoever, and will not have the efficacy inherent
    to commercial instruments; this, however, will not bar a purely civil action which may be brought in
    the manner provided by law for the enforcement of civil obligations”

    Such documents would be null and void unless they were duly stamped, but this does not
    mean that such documents would be absolutely null and void, but that no executive action could be
    brought upon them in accordance with the laws then in force regarding mercantile documents.

    No law provides that the lack of a stamp on an instrument of this kind cannot be supplied
    and the court should have allowed the plaintiff to supply this deficiency when he tendered the
    stamp for that purpose.

    The plaintiff acquired the ownership of the note in question by virtue of its
    indorsement and he did so without being fully aware of its unlawful origin since he was not given
    notice, as the court found, of any conditions existing against the note. The plaintiff bought the
    note upon the assurance of the defendant that it had no legal defect and was induced to buy
    the same by the personal act of said defendant.

    The defendant was not relieved from the obligation of paying the plaintiff the amount of the
    note alleged to have been executed for an unlawful consideration. If such unlawful consideration
    did in fact exist, the defendant deliberately and maliciously concealed it from the plaintiff.

    Paragraph 1, section 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is applicable to this case,
    provides as follows: "Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission intentionally
    and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he can
    not, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it."

    The recovery of a gambling debt to which the defendant cannot renounce any right because
    the law does not give him any. This is not altogether true. Article 1798 of the Civil Code provides
    that "the person who loses at a game of chance, luck, or hazard cannot recover what he has
    voluntarily paid." This shows that the law at least permits a person to pay what he has actually lost,
    considering such payment absolutely valid and irrevocable; this aside from the fact, as we have
    stated before, that it does not appear whether the debt in question, as evidenced by this note, was
    incurred at a game of the class prohibited by law.

    Judgment reversed. Martinez was ordered to pay plaintiff.

    You might also like