REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, LUIS F. RIVILLA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

The Republic of the Philippines appeals from an
order or the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil
Case No. 49019 dismissing its complaint as against Luis
F. Rivilla for lack of sufficient cause of action. Said
complaint was filed to recover from Maria Vda. de Yulo,
appellee Rivilla and Mariano Pacheco the sum of P16,357.03,
with interest at 6% per annum, compounded quarterly, and
attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total indebtedness and costs, alleging that on several occasions in
1943 “Maria P. Vda. de Yulo, for herself and through defendants Luis F. Rivilla end Mariano Pacheco”, obtained several
loans from the former Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. in the total
amount of P7,372.94, all with interests at the rate of 6%
per annum, compounded quarterly, as evidenced by seventeen
promissory notes executed by them in favor of said bank;
that as security therefor, Maria Po Vda, de Yulo executed
in its favor a chattel mortgage on the standing crops
growing on her hacienda “Maruja” located at the Municipality
of Isabela, Negros Occidental.

By virtue of Vesting Order No. P-4, dated January 21,
1946, the Alien Property Custodian vested in the Government
of the United States all the property and assets of the Bank
of Taiwan, Ltd., which, in turn, were transferred to the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines, pursuant to
Transfer Agreement dated July 20, 1954, as supplemented by
Transfer Agreement of June 15, 1957. Among the assets of
the bank were the loans secured by the chattel mortgage
mentioned heretofore.

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground of prescription of the action and insufficiency
of its allegations to constitute a valid cause of action
against him.

After due hearing on the motion, the Court issued
the appealed order.

A perusal of the promissory notes attached to the
complaint shows that appellee signed some of them merely
as agent of Maria P. Vda. de Yulo. In fact, the complaint
itself, (paragraph two thereof) alleges “that on several
occasions in 1943, the defendant Maria P. Vda. de Yulo,
for herself and through defendants Luis F. Rivilla and
Mariano Pacheco, obtained several loans x x x.” That it
was solely Maria P. Vda. de Yulo who owed the loans is
further corroborated by the fact that the chattel mortgage
was signed only by her and was constituted on her exclusive
property.

Premises considered, the order appealed from is
affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Sanchez, JJ., concur.