G.R. No.

4468 August 21, 1908

RUBERT & GUAMIS, plaintiff-appellees
vs.
C. A. SMITH, defendant-appellant
PONENTE: WILLARD, J.

FACTS: On September 12, 1904, the plaintiffs, defendant Smith, and Miss A. Hunter made a contract in
which it was provided, among other things, that certain rent for July to October due to the plaintiffs from
Miss Hunter for the occupation of a certain building belonging to them, may be paid as follows: P850
within the first three days of October, 1904; P850 within the first three days of November, 1904; and the
balance of P700 to be paid within the first three days of December, 1904. The effect of the agreement was
to extend the time for the payment of these sums, as indicated therein.

The contract also contained a clause that defendant Smith also further agreed that the failure of
said Miss A. Hunter to faithfully execute the contract will render defendant’s liability fixed and absolute,
and that said plaintiffs may immediately proceed against defendant to enforce the same without first
proceeding against said Miss A. Hunter. This action was brought against the allegation of defendant that
Miss Hunter had paid the P850 payable within the first three days of November, 1904, and the P700
payable within the first three days of December. However, appellant has not caused the evidence to be
brought in the Court.

The defendant alleged in the answer that Miss Hunter had paid the P850 due within the first three
days of November, 1904 and that when he signed the contract, she gave him security to protect him
against loss thereon; that on the second day of November, Miss Hunter showed him a receipt signed by
the plaintiffs to the effect that he, believing that all the rent for the property had been paid, surrendered to
her the security which she had given him. The defendant in his answer relied upon Article 1110 of the
Civil Code (now Article 1176 of the New Civil Code), which provides that, the receipt for the last
installment of a debt by the creditor, shall also extinguish the obligation with regard to the previous
installments.

ISSUE: Whether the receipt of payment for November’s rental in this case had already extinguished prior
rents to which defendant is liable?

RULING: No. The Court ruled there was nothing in the case to show that the P850 payable in November
on account of the rent for July to August had been paid, except a receipt, dated November 2, 1904.

The Court cannot see how the article cited by defendant could in any event have any application
to this case, or prove the payment of the rent for the months of July to October, because the time for the
payment of a part of that rent had been extended, and the amount sued for here was not due on the second
day of November, when the receipt in question was signed. The obligation to pay the rent was not based
entirely upon the contract of lease, but was based upon a subsequent agreement, namely, the agreement of
September 12, 1904. Moreover, the provision of law applicable to the case is Section 334, paragraph 9 of
the Code of the Civil Procedure (now Sec 3(i), Rule 131 of the 2019 Amended Revised Rules on
Evidence), which provides one of the disputable presumptions that may be contradicted by other evidence
which is the presumption that when a receipt for the later ones is produced, it is presumed that former rent
or installments had been paid. Against the defendant's theory, the Court also ruled that the case falls
exactly within the provision of the section last cited, by the terms of which the receipt in question was
only prima facie evidence of the payment of the rent and as held in the case of Perez vs. Garcia, such
receipt was not conclusive evidence of payment thereof. Moreover, there is nothing in the decision of the

This study source was downloaded by 100000842702475 from CourseHero.com on 08-30-2022 07:13:29 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/99333719/Sec-3i-Rule-131-CASE-DIGESTSdocx/
 court to show that Miss Hunter ever gave the defendant any security, or that he never surrendered any
security to her relying on the receipt in question, or that the security was of any value. The doctrine of
estoppel invoked by the defendant has, therefore, no application to the case.

G.R. No. L-3078 December 7, 1906

FERNANDO PEREZ, plaintiff-appellant
vs.
JUAN GARCIA BOSQUE, defendant-appellee
PONENTE: J. WILLARD

FACTS: On January 15, 1904, defendant Bosque, sold to the plaintiff the house in question under an
agreement that he should have the right to repurchase it at any time before the March 31, 1905. It was
also stated in the agreement of sale that Bosque should occupy the house as a tenant until said date, or
until he repurchased it before that time, and that he should pay P40 as a rent.

On the August 24, 1904, the parties made another contract, by the terms of which they canceled
the contract first contract and the defendant sold to plaintiff the house absolutely for P4,000. The
instrument in was notarized and it was duly recorded in the Registry of Property. On the same day the
plaintiff signed a paper in which he gave to the defendant the right, until the May 31, 1905, to repurchase
the property. Nothing was said in either of these two agreements of the August 24 as to the further
occupation of the house. The defendant continued his occupation thereafter until May 31, 1905, when he
abandoned it. He never exercised his right to repurchase.

Defendant here offered as evidence to show that between January 15, 1904 and May 31, 1905,
defendant Bosque had paid three months rent. One of the payments was evidenced by a receipt dated the
June 1, 1904, for rent corresponding to that month. He alleged that said receipt is the evidence that prior
rent has been paid. Thus, this action was brought to recover the sum of P580 as rent for the house.

ISSUE: Whether the receipt of June rental renders prior rents already been paid?

RULING: Yes. The Court ruled that by the provisions of Article 1110 of the Civil Code (now Article
1176) and of Section 334, paragraph 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Sec. 3(i), Rule 131) the said
receipt was evidence that the prior rents been paid and that the defendant is liable for the rent from July 1
to August 24, 1904 by the express terms of the contract of January 15. It is also to note that the contract of
lease found in that document expired on August 24, 1904 and nothing having been said in the two
contracts of August 24, 1904 with regard to the occupation of the house, and therefore when the defendant
have occupied it for fifteen days after the termination of the original contract, there was an implied
renewal of that lease in accordance with the provisions of article 1566 of the Civil Code. Thus, the
defendant in addition thereto is liable for the rent from the August 24 1904 to May 31, 1905, at the rate of
40 pesos a month.

This study source was downloaded by 100000842702475 from CourseHero.com on 08-30-2022 07:13:29 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/99333719/Sec-3i-Rule-131-CASE-DIGESTSdocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)