8. Velasco Vs. Masa.docx

  • Uploaded by: Ericka Caballes
  • 0
  • 0
  • May 2020
  • PDF

This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA


Overview

Download & View 8. Velasco Vs. Masa.docx as PDF for free.

More details

  • Words: 361
  • Pages: 1
8. FELIX VELASCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARTIN MASA, Defendant-Appellee. G.R. No. L-3717. March 5, 1908. Topic: Condonation or Remission of Debt FACTS:  Masa obtained a loan from Velasco (P2804) payable a year later (July 1, 1898)  The debt was set forth in a private document signed by Masa  Velasco alleged that Masa, taking advantage of the conditions on account of the late revolution, and through coercion and trickeries exercised with respect to Velasco’s wife, managed to obtain possession of the document while Velasco was detained as prisoner  Masa denied, contending that o the document was voluntarily handed over to him through Luis Ocsena o the said document did not call for P2804 but for P1000 with 20% interest o it was not signed in 1898 but in 1889 o he was acquitted of the charge of robbery after it was proven that the document was delivered to him for reasons of gratitude as stated in the judgment, a copy of which is attached ISSUE: W/N there was condonation or remission of debt Ruling and Application: Yes. The fact that the aforesaid document was spontaneously returned was considered by the judge as duly substantiated by the preponderance of the evidence offered by Masa, inasmuch as no satisfactory proof had been submitted by Velasco to show that defendant had obtained the document by means of coercion and trickery exercised with respect to his wife at a time when he was confined in jail. It is presumed that the voluntary delivery of the instrument implies a renunciation of the creditor’s right to recover. Therefore, considering that there was no proof appearing in the record that the delivery of the document was not voluntarily made, it appears from the whole of the foregoing that the debt now claimed was remitted for reasons of gratitude and in acknowledgment of the services rendered by the debtor to the plaintiff creditor, and that the latter has implicitly waived its recovery, and if thereafter he filed a complaint against the defendant it was evidently due to some trouble which subsequently arose between them, thus putting an end to a long friendship which existed between them. 

Related Documents

Velasco
October 2019 13
1 Velasco
November 2019 13
8) Obillos Vs. Cir.docx
November 2019 20

More Documents from "Jilliane Oria"