Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > April 1958 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10873 April 16, 1958 - C. N. HODGES v. WILLIAM REPOSPOLO

103 Phil 330:



[G.R. No. L-10873. April 16, 1958.]

C. N. HODGES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM REPOSPOLO, ALEJANDRO REPOSPOLO and ANDRES A. ARENGA, Defendants. ANDRES A. ARENGA, Defendant-Appellant.

Casiano P. Laquihon for Appellant.

Lion P. Gellada for Appellee.


1. COURT; JURISDICTION; SUM TOTAL OF AMOUNT CLAIMED. — A complaint alleging three (3) causes of action; the first, for P1,400 plus P500, as attorney’s fees; the second for P860; and the third for P27.40, is triable in the Court of First Instance because said court has original jurisdiction "in all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest . . . amounts to more than Two Thousand Pesos." (Rep. Act No. 296, section 44[c]). The demand in the case at bar is the sum total of the amount claimed in the three (3) causes of action - which is over P2,000 - not in each cause of action, separated from the others. (Gutiérrez v. Ruiz, 50 Off. Gaz., 2480; Soriano v. Omila, 9, Phil., 62).



This is an appeal, taken by defendant Andres A. Arenga, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The appeal was forwarded to this Court by the Court of Appeals, the jurisdiction of the lower court being questioned by said Appellant.

It appears that on October 29, 1947, William and Alejandro Repospolo purchased from C. N. Hodges, in the City of Iloilo, a Chevrolet truck for P5,000, of which P1,500 was paid on said date. It was stipulated that the balance of P3,500 would be paid on instalments at the rate of P300 a month from November 1947, except the last instalment, which would be P200. The Repospolos executed the deed Exhibit A, which incorporated this agreement and provided, also, that the obligation would draw interest at the rate of 1 per cent a month and that, in case of default, they would pay the additional sum of P500, by way of attorneys’ fees and cost of collection. To guarantee compliance with the obligation, William Repospolo constituted a chattel mortgage on said truck.

By September 7, 1948, the balance outstanding in favor of Hodges, after deducting the payments made by the Repospolos, was P1,810. On said date, William Repospolo sold the truck to Andres A. Arenga, Alfredo Suello and Mauricio La-anan for P1,000. One-half of this sum was then paid in cash. The buyers signed a promissory note for the balance, payable not later than December 31, 1948, and, to guarantee the same, a real estate belonging to Arenga was given "as security." The "Contract of Sale with Guaranty", Exhibit 3, executed for this purpose, in Dueñas, Iloilo, provided

"That the above described CHEVROLET truck has an outstanding obligation with C. N. Hodges, of the City of Iloilo, in the sum of ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TEN PESOS (P1,810), Philippine Currency, plus interest of 1 per centum per month as of 3 August 1948, which is hereby agreed by the parties that the Party of the Second Part shall assume full responsibility to said obligation by paying fully to said Mr. C. N. Hodges the monthly obligations until fully paid plus the interests due;

"That with this sale, the Party of the Second Part shall be the true and lawful owners of said true and shall assume full control of the same subject, of course, to the rights of the said Mr. C. N. Hodges until and after the obligations are fully paid."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thereafter, said buyers and William Repospolo went to the City of Iloilo, and secured the approval of this transaction by Hodges. On this occasion, Andres A. Arenga signed at the foot of Exhibit A, the original contract between Hodges and the Repospolos. Moreover, Arenga’s name was written on Exhibit 2 — which is a page of the book of accounts of Hodges in connection with Exhibit A — in lieu of the name of William Repospolo, which originally appeared thereon and was then crossed out. Subsequently, Hodges received payments made by Arenga aggregating P410, thereby leaving a balance of P1,400 due on the truck in question. In addition thereto, Arenga had, on several occasions, obtained from Hodges goods worth altogether P887.49. Neither sum having paid, on March 8, 1950, Hodges instituted the present action against William and Alejandro Repospolo and Andres A. Arenga to recover said sums of P1,400 and P887.49, plus P500, as attorneys’ fees, and the costs. After due trial, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered judgment sentencing Arenga to pay to Hodges said sums of P1,400, P500, and P887.49, with interest, at the rate of 1 per cent a month, from November 28, 1949 (date of the last payment made on account of the truck), as regards the first two (2) amounts, and from March 8, 1950, as to the last sum, and the costs, and dismissing the complaint insofar as the Repospolos are concerned, upon the ground that they had been substituted by Arenga as debtors to Hodges, with the latter’s consent (expromision), and that the credit of Hodges against the Repospolos had been extinguished thereby. The issues raised by appellant Arenga are: (1) whether the lower court had jurisdiction over this case, and (2), whether he is liable for the amounts above mentioned.

With respect to the first question, Arenga maintains that this case was not within the jurisdiction of the lower court, because plaintiff Hodges alleged, in his complaint, three (3) causes of action: the first, for P1,400, plus P500, as attorneys’ fees; the second, for P860; and the third, for P27.40. There is no merit in this pretense, for a court of first instance has original jurisdiction "in all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest . . . amounts to more than Two Thousand Pesos." (Rep. Act No. 296, section 44[c].) The demand, in the case at bar, is the sum total of the amount claimed in the three (3) causes of action — which is over P2,000 — not in each cause of action, separately from the others. (Gutierrez v. Ruiz, 94 Phil., 1024; 50 Off Gaz., 2480; Soriano v. Omila, 97 Phil., 62; 51 Off. Gaz., [7], 3465.)

As regards the second question, appellant maintains that, under the contract of sale with guaranty, Exhibit 3, he had assumed, not alone, but together with Alfredo Suello and Mauricio La-anan, the obligation to pay to Hodges the sum of P1,810, plus interest, and no more; and that Exhibit 3 contains no stipulation relative to the payment of attorney’s fees. However, Exhibit 3 specifically stipulates, that the buyers under said deed "shall be the true and lawful owners" of the truck in question "and shall assume control of the same, subject of course, to the rights of said Mr. C. N. Hodges," which rights are defined in Exhibit A, pursuant to which Hodges is entitled, in case of default, to attorneys’ fees, with interest thereon. That Arenga had, likewise, agreed to, and did, assume this obligation is clearly evinced by the fact that he affixed his signature at the foot of said Exhibit A. Although Arenga declared that such was not his intention when he signed Exhibit A, the lower court evidently found such testimony unworthy of credence, and we find no reason to hold otherwise. On the contrary, considering that he is an ex-mayor of the municipality of Dueñas, it is inconceivable that he would have acted as he did without full knowledge of its implications.

Likewise, although, insofar as William Repospolo is concerned, the obligations of Arenga under Exhibit 3 were not exclusive, but joint with Alfredo Suello and Mauricio La-anan, the juridical relations between Arenga and Hodges are governed, also, by Exhibit A, not merely by inference from Exhibit 3, but, also, by direct agreement between both, resulting from the fact, among others, that Arenga had signed Exhibit A. Indeed, the property given a security in Exhibit 3 belonged exclusively to Arenga, although the principal obligation under said deed, was joint with Suello and La-anan, insofar as William Repospolo is concerned. At any rate, having signed Exhibit A, without the concurrence of Suello and La-anan, the necessary conclusion is that Arenga had agreed, insofar as Hodges is concerned, to assume the responsibility alone. This, of course, is without prejudice to such action, if any — on which we express no opinion — as Arenga may have against his co-buyers, Alfredo Suello and Mauricio La-anan.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant Andres A. Arenga. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

April-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 April 16, 1958 - IN RE: CELSO T. OLIVA

    103 Phil 312


    103 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-10419 April 16, 1958 - JULIO PAREJA v. PAZ PAREJA

    103 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-10783 April 16, 1958 - ESTRELLA O. ROCHA v. JUAN B. CORDIS

    103 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-10873 April 16, 1958 - C. N. HODGES v. WILLIAM REPOSPOLO

    103 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-11192 April 16, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRlGUEZ

    103 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-11002 April 17, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ISIDORO DE LA CRUZ

    103 Phil 341

  • G.R. Nos. L-6106-07 April 18, 1958 - MADRIGAL v. HANSON, ORTH AND TEVENSON

    103 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-9300 April 18, 1958 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO.

    103 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. L-10200 April 18, 1958 - IN RE: DY TIAN SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-10414 April 18, 1958 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v. TEODULO M. CRUZ

    103 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-10886 April 18, 1958 - LEONCIA E. STO. DOMINGO v. URBANA STO. DOMINGO

    103 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-11365 April 18, 1958 - JOSE MONTEVERDE v. CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA

    103 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-11656 April 18, 1958 - MARIA DAVID v. FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. L-10724 April 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES RABA

    103 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-11323 April 21, 1958 - BENJAMIN GEONANGA v. C. N. HODGES

    103 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-11602 April 21, 1958 - ALFREDO CUADRA v. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA

    103 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-8564 April 23, 1958 - FRANCISCO PELAEZ v. LUZON LUMBER COMPANY

    103 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-11139 April 23, 1958 - SANTOS EVANGELISTA v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 401


    103 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-11755 April 23, 1958 - FLORENCIO SENO v. FAUSTO PESTOLANTE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-9957 April 20, 1958 - BAYANI SUBIDO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    103 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-10548 April 25, 1958 - BALTAZAR RAYMUNDO, ET AL. v. FELISA A. AFABLE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-10564 April 25, 1958 - MANDIAN (MANOBA) v. DIONISIO LEONG

    103 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-10631 April 25, 1958 - JOSE GARRIDO v. JOSE PEREZ CARDENAS

    103 Phil 435


    103 Phil 444


    103 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-10981 April 25, 1958 - ANACLETO LUISON v. FIDEL A. D. GARCIA

    103 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-9791 April 28, 1958 - FERNANDO A. FROILAN v. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO.

    103 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-10067 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG TIN

    103 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-10183 April 28, 1958 - RAQUEL ADORABLE v. IRINEA INACALA

    103 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10214 April 28, 1958 - IN RE: DSNIEL NG TENG LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-10552 April 28, 1958 - ALFREDO ERAUDA, ET AL. v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10799 April 28, 1958 - URSULA JOSE DE VILLABONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-10845 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO LUCERO

    103 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-10875 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN S. LAMBINO

    103 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10935 April 28, 1958 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-11262 April 28, 1958 - CARMEN R. CASTILLO v. JUAN C. PAJO

    103 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-11381 April 28, 1958 - ATKINS KROLL & CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    103 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-11584 April 28, 1958 - MANUEL ARANETA, ET AL. v. COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-12120 April 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO AGITO

    103 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-12202 April 28, 1958 - FILOMENO DIZON v. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. L-9064-67 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SORIANO L. ALCARAZ

    103 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-10215 April 30, 1958 - ANDRES E. VARELA v. CRISTINA MARAJAS

    103 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-10556 April 30, 1958 - RICARDO GURREA v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA

    103 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-10582 April 30, 1958 - CONSTANCIO MANANSALA v. ANTONIO HERAS

    103 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. L-10718 April 30, 1958 - M. M. DE LOS REYES v. CORONET

    103 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-10792 April 30, 1958 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

    103 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-10849 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO BUENO

    103 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-11050 April 30, 1958 - CESAR VARGAS v. VICENTE S. TUASON

    103 Phil 588


    103 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-11068 April 30, 1958 - J. MARIANO DE SANTOS v. CATALINO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    103 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-11135 April 30, 1958 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    103 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. L-11326 April 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENANCIO MANANGCO

    103 Phil 604

  • G.R. Nos. L-11519 & L-11520 April 30, 1958 - INES PORCIUNCULA v. NICOLAS E. ADAMOS

    103 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. L-11617 April 30, 1958 - JOSE M. GARCIA v. MANUEL M. MUÑOZ

    103 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-11782 April 30, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO R. VILLAROSA

    103 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-11868 April 30, 1958 - SERGIO G. MARTINEZ v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF LABASON

    103 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. L-12646 April 30, 1958 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE v. RUFINO P. HALILI

    103 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. L-13066 April 30, 1958 - CONSUELO FA. ALVEAR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    103 Phil 643