Jimenez v. Bucoy 1.

Whether or not Pacifica may collect from the promissory notes

103 SCRA 41| Feb. 28, 1958 | Bengzon, J. even though there is not express promise to pay a specified
Petition: for certiorari amount – YES.
Petitioners: Intestate of Luther Young and Pacita Young, spouses.
Pacifica Jimenez, petitioner and appellee RULING & RATIO
Respondents: Dr. Jose Bucoy, administrator and appellant 1. An acknowledgement may become a promise by the
Nego. Section 10. addition of words by which a promise of payment is naturally
implied, such as “payable,” “payable on a given day,”
DOCTRINE “payable on demand,” or “paid when called for.”
An acknowledgement of a debt becomes a promise to pay by the a. To constitute a good promissory note, no precise
addition of words implying a promise of payment, such as “payable, words of contract are necessary, provided they
“payable on a given day,” “payable on demand.” amount, in legal effect, to a promise to pay. If over
and aboe the mere acknowledgement of the debt
FACTS there may be collected from the words used a
promise to pay it, the instrument may be regarded
as a promissory note.
• In this intestate of Luther Young and Pacita Young, who died in b. In the instant case, the note stated “received from
1954 and 1952, respectively, Pacifica Jimenez present for Miss Pacifica Jimenez the total amount of P21k,
payment 4 promissory notes signed by Pacita for different payable 6 months after the war, without interest.”
amounts totaling P21k. This amounted to a promise to pay, hence a valid
• The administrator was willing to pay provided adjustment of the promissory note.
sums be may in line with the Ballantyne schedule. DISPOSITION
o The Balantyme Conversion Table does not apply where • Petition denied.
the monetary obligation was not payable during the
Japanese occupation. Here, since the promissory notes
expressly stated the the debt would be due 6 months
after the war, the Conversion Table should not apply to
the promissory notes, hence Pacifica is entitled to the full
P21k.
• Pacifica objected to this and insisted on full payment.
• The lower court ruled that Pacifica should be awarded the full
amount, hence this petition by the administrator.
• The Supreme Ruled that indeed Pacifica was entitled to the full
P21k, pursuant to the promissory notes, so the administrator put
up the defense that the promissory notes contained no express
promise to pay a specified amount (This is the main argument in
this case).

ISSUES

Kool Kids 2016 | ALS 2D N-10-01 Jimenez v. Bucoy.pdf

AURELIO | BALLESTEROS | BATUNGBACAL | BILIRAN | CADIENTE | DONES | GALLARDO | GESTA | GUBATAN | PINTOR | SY | TOLEDO Page 1 of 1