Sierra vs. Court of Appeals 211 SCRA 785 PDF

Preview

Summary

G. No. 90270 July 24, 1992 ARMANDO V. SIERRA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EPIFANIA EBARLE, SOL AND ELE EBARLE, respondents.**FACTS: Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)** The petitioner filed a complaint before the Dumaguete City Regional Trial Court against the pri...

Description

G.R. No. 90270 July 24, 1992 ARMANDO V. SIERRA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EPIFANIA EBARLE, SOL AND ELE EBARLE, respondents. FACTS: 1. Petitioner's/Plaintiff's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) The petitioner filed a complaint before the Dumaguete City Regional Trial Court against the private respondents on November 2, 1984, seeking restitution for a sum of money purportedly lent to the private respondents under the promissory note. He asserted to have lent ₱85,000 to the private respondents in connection with their application for a ₱400,000 loan from the said bank to finance their logging and cattle business, which they claimed they needed "to pay some cattle for fattening to be inspected by the inspector of the Land Bank that day." The application was denied, so when the note became due, the petitioner made demands for payment which the latter ignored. 2. Respondent's/Defendant's claim/s (no more than 3 sentences) Under oath, the private respondents denied the promissory note's "genuineness, due execution, legality, and validity," claiming that they were coerced into signing the note for ₱85,000, and that the amount owed to the petitioner was only ₱20,000. This was the loan made by the petitioner to the mother of Sol and Ele Ebarle, Epifania Ebarle. On the other hand, they filed a counterclaim for damages. 3. Decisions of the lower courts (e.g. RTC, CA) The trial court ruled on July 21, 1988, that the ₱85,000 promissory note was invalid, and that the private respondents were only liable to the petitioner for the ₱20,000 loan. The decision was upheld on appeal by the respondents' court. The petitioner then asked this Court to overturn the lower courts' decisions on both factual and legal grounds. In light of the established facts, the petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting the promissory note, which is reversible. It also erred by failing to treat the preceding note as a properly executed public document.

Issue/s (one sentence) 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals made reversible error in interpreting the promissory note. 2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in failing to give the note the presumption of validity as a duly executed public document. HELD: 4. Disposition of the case (one sentence) The decision under appeal is reversed and set aside, and a new judgment is issued ordering the private respondents to pay the petitioner ₱85,000, plus 12% interest from September 8, 1984, until full payment, plus ₱15,000 each for moral damages and in attorney's fees; costs are levied against the respondents. 5. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the topic under discussion) According to Article 1337, undue influence occurs when one person improperly uses his authority over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. The confidential, family, spiritual, and other relationships between the parties, as well as the fact that the person alleged to have been unfairly influenced was suffering from mental infirmity, was uninformed, or was in financial trouble, shall be taken into account. Furthermore, there is moral coercion in every such case, which can be effected through threats, either expressed or implied, or through harassing tactics. On the other hand, when one of the contracting parties induces the other to enter into a contract that he would not have agreed to without the other's deceptive words or machinations, there is fraud (Art. 1338). Fraud must be serious and not used by both contracting parties in order to render a contract voidable (Art. 1344)....