Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 187 views

    Notor vs. Martinez Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Conrado Jimenez

    Copyright:

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

    Notor vs. Martinez Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Conrado Jimenez
    187 views1 page

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    187 views1 page

    Notor vs. Martinez Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Conrado Jimenez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JACINTO NOTOR, petitioner, 

    vs. RAMON MARTINEZ, as guardian of the


    incompetent, Pedro Martinez, and THE COURT OP APPEALS, respondents.

    84 Phil 300
    August 16, 1949

    FACTS:
    On February 28, 1943, Pio Martinez, as guardian of Pedro Martinez, executed a
    promissory note for P2,000 in favor of Jacinto Notor, with interest at 10 per cent
    annually, and payable within two years from said date. In a mortgage executed on
    March 28, 1943, covering said note, it was further provided that the contract was
    "renewable at the discretion of the mortgagee," and that the mortgagor promised to pay
    the sum specified in the note "according to the terms thereof". Due to additional sums
    subsequently obtained from Jacinto Notor, plus interest, the total indebtedness
    amounted as of January 29, 1945.

    Some time prior to this date, the guardian of Pedro Martinez offered to pay the debt,
    but the creditor Jacinto Notor refused to accept the payment, as a result of which the
    present action was instituted by the guardian of Pedro Martinez in the Court of First
    Instance of Batangas, wherein, the necessary amount was deposited. After trial, the
    lower court, (already after liberation) rendered judgment declaring that the plaintiff,
    Ramon Martinez, as guardian of Pedro Martinez, had paid in full his indebtedness to
    the defendant, Jacinto Notor, from the tirae he consigned the amount thereof by
    depositing it with the clerk of court of First Instance of Batangas. From this judgment,
    Jacinto Notor appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on November 25, 1947, rendered
    a decision affirming the judgment of the court of origin. From the latter decision, Jacinto
    Notor (the petitioner) has come to this court in an appeal by way of certiorari. He
    alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the courts of the Commonwealth
    and their successors, the courts of the Philippine Republic, have jurisdiction over the
    case.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the court of the Commonwealth and their successors, the courts of the
    Philippine Republic, have jurisdiction over the case.

    RULING:
    Yes. the court of the Commonwealth and their successors, the courts of the Philippine
    Republic, have jurisdiction over the case. The judicial acts and proceedings of the courts
    of justice during the Japanese military occupation as well as payments of obligations
    during such period which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid and,
    by virtue of the principle of postliminy in international law, remained good and valid
    after the liberation of the Philippines.

    You might also like