7 Joaquin v. Mitsumine

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10
 
1.2.3.4.
[No. 10868. August 28, 1916.]LEOCADIO JOAQUIN, plaintiff and appellant,
vs.
 O.MITSUMINE, defendant and appellee.
CONTRACTS; ACTION TO ANNUL; VALIDITY OF ASSENT.—In order that an action brought to annul acontract by reason of a mistake alleged to haveoccurred in its execution may prosper. it isindispensable that the case fall within the provisionsof section 1266 of the Civil Code.ID.; ID.; ID.—It is a general principle of law that noone may be permitted to disavow and go back uponhis own acts, or to proceed contrary thereto.ID.; ID.; ID.—Against the validity and efficacy of obligations set forth in authentic documents, whetherof a public or private nature, neither allegations notduly substantiated nor the testimony of the partiesbound under such documents can prevail against thecontents of the same, because it is not lawful topermit anyone to contradict his own acts in order todeceive himself or to deceive others in whose favorthe obligations were created. (Sec. 333, No. 1, Code of Civ. Proc.; and Hijos de I. de la Rama
vs.
 Robles, 8Phil. Rep., 712.)SALES; PAYMENT OF PRICE.—It is brazenaudacity for anyone to endeavor, without lawf ulreasons, to elude the obligation to pay the price of athing bought by him, and to require that its vendorshould be obliged to collect the balance of the pricethereof from a third person with whom such vendor
 
had not contracted, and when moreover the said thirdperson has not received the thing purchased.
 APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of FirstInstance of Manila. Del Rosario, J.The f acts are stated in the opinion of the court.
L. Joaquin
 in his own behalf.
S. Gatchalian
 for appellee.TORRES,
J.:
 Appeal filed by the plaintiff, by bill of exceptions, fromthe judgment of the Court of First. Instance of Manila,November 24, 1914, absolving the defendant O.Mitsumine f rom the complaint, decreeing that themortgage executed by the plaintiff Leocadio Joaquin tothe defendant was valid, and ordering the plaintiff topay to the defendant
859
 VOL. 34, AUGUST 28, 1916.859
Joaquin vs. Mitsumine.
the sum of P525, plus P105 for the expenses of collection. It was further ordered that the preliminaryinjunction issued against the defendant on July 31,1914, be dissolved, with the costs against the plaintiff.On July 30, 1914, Attorney Leocadio Joaquin, in hisown behalf, filed a written complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant, O.Mitsumine, alleging that on July 3, 1914, the plaintiff executed an instrument whereby he gave a chattelmortgage on certain apparatus for the manufacture of aerated water as security for the payment in twoinstallments of the sum of P525; that the saidmortgage deed was entirely null and void for thereason that it had been executed by the plaintiff bymistake, inasmuch as in May, 1914, he had instructedthe defendant to acquire the said machine at the
5
 
request of the plaintiff's client, Macario Vito, and thatthe latter was responsible f or the payment of the saidP525; that in spite of the various demands the plaintiff had made upon the defendant to cancel the saidmortgage deed, the latter had refused so to do; that asthe period for compliance with the mortgage obligationwould expire on July 30, 1914, and thatnotwithstanding it was null and void, the defendantwould foreclose the mortgage and damage andprejudice the plaintiff's rights, wherefore he prayed thecourt to declare the said mortgage deed of July 3, 1914,to be null and void with the costs against thedefendant. He further prayed that, in consideration of the bond for
 P800 
 furnished for the purpose, a writ of preliminary injunction issue against the defendant, hisattorney, agents or mandataries, and to the sheriff of Manila, enjoining them from taking any steps towardthe foreclosure of the said mortgage, until thetermination of these proceedings.On August 20, 1914, the defendant answered theabove complaint, denying all the allegations thereincontained except those that were expressly admitted inhis answer and in special defense alleged that on orabout April 15, 1914, the plaintiff, in his own name,asked the defendant to import f rom Japan a machinefor the manufacture of aerated
860
860PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Joaquin vs. Mitsumine.
waters, the value of which, P725, the plaintiff agreedto pay on the delivery of the machine; that after thedefendant had ordered the machine from Japan anddelivered it to the plaintiff to his entire satisfaction,plaintiff paid defendant P200 on account and agreed topay the balance of P525 in two installments; that forthis purpose he signed two -promissory notes andexecuted -the -mortgage deed of July 3, 1914, attached
5
 
to the complaint as security for the said balance owing;but that the plaintiff f ailed to comply with theagreement, thereby damaging the defendant in thesum of P200. Defendant therefore prayed the court toabsolve him from the complaint and to order theplaintiff to pay him the sum of P525, besides P150, ortwenty per cent of the debt, the amount agreed uponfor attorney's fees should an attorney's services berequired for the collection of the said promissory notes,the sum of P200 for the losses and damages caused tothe defendant, and the legal interest on all theaforementioned amounts, as well as the costs. After trial and the introduction of evidence by bothparties, the court rendered the judgmentaforementioned to which the plaintiff excepted and inwriting asked for a reopening of the case and a newtrial. This motion was denied, whereupon plaintiff excepted and filed the proper bill of exceptions whichwas approved and sent up to the clerk of this court.The question submitted to this court for decisionconsists of whether attorney Leocadio Joaquin, forhimself and for his own account, requested and left anorder with the defendant to secure and import fromJapan a
Suchiro
 aerated-water machine, and whetheror not we should declare null-and void the chattelmortgage deed, Exhibit 2, executed by the plaintiff onJuly 3, 1914, in behalf of the defendant as security f orthe payment of the amount of the two promissory notesgiven by the plaintiff on the 2d of July, the first of which, for P275, fell due 13 days after that date, andthe second, for P200, 28 days thereafter.The mortgage deed here claimed to be null and void,
861
 VOL. 34, AUGUST 28, 1916.861
Joaquin vs. Mitsumine.
which was presented by the defendant as Exhibit 2 andmade a part of his answer, was executed on July 3,
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505