PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO NOMBRE DE JESUS DE FILIPINAS DE LA ORDEN DE ERMITAÑOS DE NUESTRO PADRE SAN AGUSTIN, COMUNMENTE CONOCIDA CON EL NOMBRE DE “CORPORACION DE PP. AGUSTINOS,” …

This is a case involving a mortgage credit. The plaintiff corporation prays
that judgment be rendered against the defendants to pay jointly and severally
the sum of P41,670.87 with interest at 9 per cent per annum computed from June
15, 1928, until it is paid, plus the legal rate of interest from the filing of
the complaint, and P4,807.90 with the legal interest thereon-from the date on
which this action was instituted, with costs.

The plaintiff further prays that if the defendants fail to make such payments
within three months from the date of judgment, the P75,000 mortgage credit of
defendant Jose Marin against his co-defendant Felipa P. Alberto, secured by the
property described in the complaint, be sold at public auction, and the proceeds
applied to the judgment.

The defendants Leon del Rey and Jose Marin contend that the document sought
to be enforced is null and void, and that the plaintiff owes them P6,997.89;
wherefore they pray that said document be declared null and void, the
corresponding entry in the proper certificate of title be ordered cancelled, and
the plaintiff be sentenced to pay them the amount last mentioned and the costs.
After the defendants had filed a specification of the amounts mentioned in their
answer, to which the plaintiff replied in writing, and after the trial, the
Court of First Instance having cognizance of the case rendered the following
judgment:

“Held, that the defendants Del Rey and Marin are jointly and severally liable
for the payment of the following sums to the plaintiff: P41,670.87 with interest
at 9 per cent per annum from June 15, 1928, until the sum is fully paid;
P4,807.90, with interest at 6 per cent per annum from January 12, 1929, until it
is fully paid. They are ordered to deposit these sums, together with the
interest, in the office of the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila
within three months of the date of this judgment, under penalty of having the
mortgage credit of P75,000 sold at public auction. They shall each pay half of
the costs of the trial. The plaintiff is hereby absolved from the defendants’
counterclaim.” (Pp. 35 and 36, Bill of Exceptions.)

The defendants impugn this judgment and assign the following alleged errors
as committed by the trial court:

“(1) In not holding that the document executed on June 15, 1928 (Exhibit C),
is null and void for having been obtained through coercion, threat, and
intimidation practised on one of the subscribers, to wit, Leon del Rey.

“(2) In not holding that accountant Francisco Santiago’s report (Exhibit 4)
has been found to contain some errors in accounting inasmuch as Leon del Rey is
charged with certain sums which he is not bound to pay the plaintiff, included
in the specification filed by the defendants with their amended answer.

“(3) In rejecting the defendants’ claim for Leon del Rey’s expenses for
repairing and painting the facade of the Church of St. Augustine at the request
and approval of the plaintiff.

“(4) In denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial on the ground that the
evidence does not sustain the judgment, which, is contrary to the law.

“(5) In rendering judgment for the plaintiff corporation and against the
defendants, with one-half of the costs against each of the latter, instead of
absolving them with costs against the plaintiff.”

The defendants, Leon del Rey and Jose Marin, executed Exhibit C on June 15,
1928, undertaking to pay the Compania Agricola de Ultramar jointly and severally
the sum of P41,670.87 with interest at 9 per cent per annum, and the interest
earned during the year 1927 on the company’s funds deposited by Leon del Rey in
his own name in certain banks. The payment of these sums was secured by a
mortgage of the P75,000 mortgage credit held by Jose Marin against the property
covered by transfer certificate No. 26823 of Manila, belonging to the defendant
Felipa P. Alberto; and it was stipulated that in default of payment of the
interest due upon the principal of P41,670.87 for six months, the credit would
become due and the mortgage liable to foreclosure.

The debtors having failed to pay the stipulated interest for more than six
months, the mortgagee instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, with the result indicated above.

Before the case was decided the present plaintiff acquired the rights of the
Compania Agricola de Ultramar, and was substituted in this case.

There is in the record no evidence of coercion, threat, or intimidation
practised upon Leon del Rey to compel him to sign the mortgage deed mentioned
above. Neither the estafa charge against him, nor Father Mariano Rodrigo’s
alleged remarks addressed to Jose Marin, nor Father Castrillo’s alleged
recommendation to Juan Larrazabal to have Leon del Rey, sigh the mortgage
constitutes, either by itself or together, coercion, threat, or intimidation,
vitiating the consent manifested in the execution of that contract. Even
assuming that the defendants entered into this contract reluctantly, it cannot
be annulled upon this ground. This court has so ruled in Martinez vs.
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (15 Phil., 252) in holding that:

“It is necessary to distinguish between real duress and the motive which is
present when one gives his consent reluctantly. A contract is valid even though
one of the parties entered into it against his wishes and desires or even
against his better judgment.”

Furthermore, the evidence shows that the defendants had been leading up to
the contract by a series of offers, and that upon its execution they regarded it
as existing and acted accordingly, thereby confirming it beyond all doubt. In
regard to the defendants’ alleged error at the time or just prior to the
execution of the contract, this has not been proven. They had discussed and gone
over Exhibit 4, containing accountant Santiago’s report.

The defendants are not entitled to a review of their accounts with the
plaintiff’s predecessor, which were liquidated with their consent as shown by
the contract itself; for they cannot now be heard to deny their own acts. Barnes
& Co., 16 Phil., 423; Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Oria Hermanos &
Co., 30 Phil., 491.)

With reference to the expenses incurred in repairing and painting the facade
of the Church of St. Augustine, these have neither been alleged nor claimed in
due time in the first instance, and it does not appear that the plaintiff is
under obligation to pay for them.

The two last assignments of error are mere consequences of the preceding
ones.

There being no merit in this appeal, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand
Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.