G.R. No. L-5534. December 21, 1953
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. HERMENEGILDO B. REYES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
Decisions / Signed Resolutions December 21, 1953 REYES, J.:
REYES, J.:
This is an action to compel defendant to accept certain mining
shares bought for him by plaintiff in 1937 and to pay for the price of
the same after deduction of the sum advanced by him on account of the
said price. Defendant denied his liability and, when the case was
called for trial, asked for the dismissal of the case on the ground of
moratorium. The motion was granted but, upon appeal to this Court, the
order of dismissal was set aside and the case remanded to the court of
origin so that defendant could produce proof that he had presented a war
damage claim since the debts sued upon came within the purview of
sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 342, without prejudice to
plaintiff’s raising the question of the constitutionality of said Act in
the court below. This the plaintiff did in a pleading subsequently
filed in the trial court. But that court, after trial, found that
defendant had filed his war damage claim, and being of the opinion that
the Act in question was constitutional, rendered a decision dismissing
the action. From this decision plaintiff appealed to this Court, and
the only issue is the constitutionality of the Act. As this Court has
already declared the said Act unconstitutional in the case of Rutter vs.
Esteban, G. R. No. L-3708, promulgated May 18, 1953 (49 Off. Gaz.,
1807), the defense of moratorium set up by defendant can no longer be
upheld.
shares bought for him by plaintiff in 1937 and to pay for the price of
the same after deduction of the sum advanced by him on account of the
said price. Defendant denied his liability and, when the case was
called for trial, asked for the dismissal of the case on the ground of
moratorium. The motion was granted but, upon appeal to this Court, the
order of dismissal was set aside and the case remanded to the court of
origin so that defendant could produce proof that he had presented a war
damage claim since the debts sued upon came within the purview of
sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 342, without prejudice to
plaintiff’s raising the question of the constitutionality of said Act in
the court below. This the plaintiff did in a pleading subsequently
filed in the trial court. But that court, after trial, found that
defendant had filed his war damage claim, and being of the opinion that
the Act in question was constitutional, rendered a decision dismissing
the action. From this decision plaintiff appealed to this Court, and
the only issue is the constitutionality of the Act. As this Court has
already declared the said Act unconstitutional in the case of Rutter vs.
Esteban, G. R. No. L-3708, promulgated May 18, 1953 (49 Off. Gaz.,
1807), the defense of moratorium set up by defendant can no longer be
upheld.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is ordered set aside and
the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings. Without
costs.
Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor,
Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.