jalbuena vs ledesma

8/18/2019 Jalbuena vs Ledesma

1/3

G.R. No. L-3373 September 26, 1907

VICENTA JALBENA,Plaintiff-Appellant , vs. GABRIEL LE!ES"A, ET AL.,Defendants-Appellees.

W. A. Kincaid, for appellant.Salvador Laguda, for appellee.

TRACE#, J.$

The plaintiff, the wife of Ildefonso Doronila, brings this action to annul an undertaking of herself and her husband whereby she bound her separate individual property as security for the performance by him of a certain obligation to the defendant Gabriel Ledesma, as president of the Ledesma family council,claiming that her signature thereto was procured through intimidation. The facts are somewhat fullystated in 3 hilippine !eports, 3"#, in the $udgment in an action in which her husband failed to set asidethis same instrument.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Ildefonso Doronila, having been the tutor of the Ledesma minor children, was cited in %ugust, &'##,before the provost court of Iloilo on the petition of the defendant Lope(, to show cause why he should

not surrender the papers, securities, and money in his charge, and he was in the course of theproceeding ordered to render his accounts as tutor, and it is to inferred from the testimony of thedefendant Ledesma that the accounts were in fact rendered. )n December 3 he came to an agreementwith the defendant Lope(, as representative of the children, whereby his accounts were allowed andaccepted and the value of the missing papers, claimed to have been lost in the bombardment of Iloilo,was fi*ed at &+,###, and a certain obligation of the estate to uan -asells to the amount of ,###was assumed by him. /ubse0uently this agreement was ratified by the family council, which imposed,however, an additional condition that security should be given by Doronila for the payment of &",### incase the missing papers should not be produced within si* months and the novation of the debt of uan-asells accepted by the debtor. Thereafter he was brought before the provost $udge in all the pendingproceeding and was ordered to give additional security, and failing to do so was committed to $ail, wherehe had already been once confined on the institution of the proceeding. %s all of his property wasalready bound to the estate for the performance of his duty as guardian, it became e*pedient to find a

surety for him, and the plaintiff, who had accompanied him to the court, was thereupon induced to $oinwith him in this undertaking. %s to the proceedings in court, the testimony of the plaintiff, reduced tonarrative form, is as follows1

I remember having been in the office of the provost $udge of Iloilo in December, &'##. I went there tovisit my husband, who was in $ail. 2hile there I was summoned before the provost and re0uested him toset my husband free, he not being guilty of anything. I asked him, crying, to put my husband at liberty,but the provost didnt listen to me4 on the contrary, he asked me to file security for what was lost in myhouse during the bombardment, and he told me that he was going to put my husband in $ail if I didntobligate my property as security. 5earing that he was going to be put in $ail again I was compelled tosign, it being a time when we and others were under fear and I was afraid that he would be punishedand that they would deport him. In the fear that I was then under I didnt know any other remedy but to

sign. 6e told me that my husband would be sent again to $ail if I didnt sign.

This communication was carried on through the medium of an interpreter, one edro !egalado, whotestified1

The provost $udge told /ra. 7icenta that she should sign a document guaranteeing with the property theobligation of /r. Doronila. I told that to her as interpreter. I can tell more or less the terms in which theprovost e*pressed himself. 6e told 7icenta in these terms1 89ou sign a document guaranteeing withyour property the obligation contracted by /r. Doronila, your husband.8 Do:a 7icenta answered to thesewords, that her husband was not guilty of the loss of the documents, as when the bombardment camethe documents were in a trunk and were lost during the bombardment. 2hen she said that she couldnot respond, then the provost said1 89ou sign send your husband back to $ail.8 ;ore or less I remember

that he said1 8Interpreter, tell her to either sign this document or I will have her husband sent again to $ail.8

The defendant Lope(, who was present at the scene and took part in the transaction, swore that he didnot hear the provost threaten the plaintiff or oblige her to sign any document, but his evidence is notvery e*plicit on the point, while Ledesma, who also was present, does not profess to be able to repeatwhat was said.


2/3

impossible to say that the threat did not serve as an intimidation to this plaintiff and constrain her to signthe undertaking. Does this intimidation relieve the plaintiff from her obligation= chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

%rticle &+"> of the -ivil -ode provides1

7iolence or intimidation shall annul the obligation even if it should have been employed by a thirdperson who did not take part in the contract.

/ection &+"? reads1

Intimidation e*ists when one of the contracting parties is inspired with a reasonable and well@foundedfear of suffering an imminent and serious in$ury to his person or property, or to the person or property of the spouse descendants, or ascendants.

%nd of like tenor are the authorities of the


3/3

In Fanlo Aznar vs. odriguez A" hil. !ep., "F' it was held that in a civil case the $urisdiction of thisparticular provost court of Iloilo must affirmatively appear. It is unnecessary, however, to determine hereupon whom rested the burden of proof in respect of the matters e*pressly referred to it for ad$udication.The $udge had no power to imprison the defendant under the circumstances disclosed in this case.Imprisonment is not a mere matter of the procedure, which he was by the general order authori(ed toformulate and to make simple and brief. /uch a harsh measure was not authori(ed by the /panish law,but was, on the contrary, 0uite foreign to it. If, under the circumstances surrounding this tribunal, we are

to understand that 8the provisions of /panish law could not be ascertained8 by it, then we feelcompelled to say that the action of the $udge was not consistent with the 8principles of e0uity and

$ustice8 as recogni(ed by the country which he was serving.

jalbuena vs ledesma

Documents