Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Mariano Fuentebella G.R. No. 4761. March 2, 1909 Willard, J.

: Facts: On August 26, 1903, Mariano Fuentebella, defendant-appellant, signed the document which states that all his accounts with the late Don Tomas R. Perez have been settled and he has to pay the remaining balance of P22,509.03 to the latters widow, Dona Concepcion Valero. Moreover, only the business at Goa carried on by Don Simon Perfecto was the only one unsettled by the defendant. Hermanos, the assignee of Dona Valero, brought this action to the court, Fuentebella claimed that there had been 2 mistakes in the document. He contended that he was never credited for 2 deliveries of hemp amounting to P5,424.30 and P1,612.20. Based on the accounts, his original balance was P28,687.65 and a reduction of P6,178 was made and the difference was P22,509.03 which is the amount in the said document. However, it is quite unclear on him on whether the P1,612.20 was included in the reduction. Issues: 1. W/N there was consent through error in settling the account? 2. W/N the defendant is responsible for the transaction in Goa? 3. W/N the delay should be commenced from June 20, 1904? Held: 1. The defendant having signed the document is bound by it unless at least he shows affirmatively that there was some mistake or error in the settlement. The burden of proof was on him to show that such mistake or error was made in the inclusion of P1,612.20. He testified that he kept the books of account but he did not offer them in evidence at the trial. It was impossible to believe that he did not make a claim for an allowance on account of that delivery when he signed the document. 2. It is stated in the document that all accounts have been settled except for the one at Goa where Don Simon Perfecto was in charge. Based on the signed document by Perfecto which states that he represents the business at Goa on account and by order of Don Mariano Fuentebella who denied the responsibility saying that he had nothing to do with the business. However, based on the abovementioned documents by the defendant and Perfecto, there is a strong indication that the business at Goa belonged to the defendant. Moreover, Fuentebella testified that Pefecto was his purchaser at Goa and was in charge there and the latter had been authorized by the former to buy hemp. Also, the creditor knew that Perfecto was the agent or purchaser of the defendant at Goa. 3. The business was entirely closed on June 20, 1904 but the action commenced only on June 22, 1906. According to the law, no action could be maintained upon it until a notarial demand for its payment had been made by the creditor and no such demand having been made, the action was prematurely brought. (Art. 1169 states that delay is incurred from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands the fulfillment of the obligation.) Therefore, the delay started from June 1906 when the action was brought and not June 1904 for the computation of the interest.

Final Judgment: the cost of this instance against the appellant