MANUEL URQUICO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO B. PUNO ET AT., DEFENDANTS. MIGUELA ANTONIO, APPELLANT.

This is an appeal taken by the defendant Miguela Antonio from the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, the dispositive part of which is as
follows:

“Wherefore the court orders the defendants to pay the plaintiff jointly and
severally the sum of P8,300 with interest at the rate of twelve per cent (12%)
per annum from February 14, 1921 until fully paid, besides the costs of this
instance. Provided, that if within ninety days from notice hereof they shall
have failed to make such payment, the property described in paragraph II of the
complaint shall be sold at public auction and the proceeds applied to the
present judgment.”

In support of her appeal> the appellant contends that the trial court
committed an error:

“1. In overruling the demurrer to this complaint.

“2. In designating Exhibit C of the plaintiff as a ‘mortgage deed’, instead
of rejecting it on the ground that it does not constitute evidence against the
appellant.

“3. In ordering the appellant to pay interest solely upon the strength of the
aforementioned Exhibit C, and without taking into account Exhibit A, as evidence
for the appellant.”

The complaint in this case was filed by plaintiff Manuel Urquico to collect a
mortgage credit of P8,300 with interest stipulated at 12 per cent per annum from
February 4, 1921 until fully paid, or else to foreclose the mortgage given by
the debtors, defendants herein, as security for the payment of said credit.

After her demurrer had been overruled, defendant Miguela Antonio filed an
answer denying each and every one of the allegations of the complaint, and by
way of special defense alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest
of any kind from her, and that the presentation of said
complaint has damaged
her in the amount of f^OO, which she seeks to recover of the plaintiff.

The relevant facts necessary for a solution of the questions raised in the
present appeal are the following:

On February 14, 1921 Francisco B. Puno and his brother Rustico B. Puno and
his sister Rita B. Puno, obtained from the plaintiff a loan of P8,300 payable in
the month of March, 1921, mortgaging the personal property described in the
complaint. The mortgage debtors not having paid their debt upon the date
stipulated, on February 25, 1925 they obtained an extension of time for making
payment until the month of March, 1925, with interest at 12 per cent per annum
from February 4, 1921 until fully paid, and to that’end executed the proper deed
wherein they ratified the first, mortgage deed.

About the beginning of 1923, Miguela Antonio filed a complaint against her
husband Rustico B. Puno, one of the mortgagors, to compel him to comply with the
obligation he had incurred in a contract of separation to pay her alimony for
her support and that of her daughter. Judgment was rendered against the husband,
Rustico B. Puno, and as he was unable to satisfy it, his property, consisting of
one-half of that described in the complaint was levied upon, sold at public
auction, and adjudicated to the herein defendant-appellant Miguela Antonio,
subject to the mortgage lien mentioned above. As she was already the owner of an
undivided half of the mortgaged property, Miguela Antonio required her husband
and her brother-in-law Francisco B. Puno to deliver the aforesaid other half.
The latter refused to do so, and she brought the proper action in the Court of
First Instance of Tarlac, wherein the plaintiff herein filed a third-party claim
for his mortgage credit of P8,300 at the same time claiming interest at 12 per
cent per annum, so that the total credit amounted to P12,815. The case was
decided in favor of Miguela Antonio and upon appeal this court affirmed the
judgment,^[1] holding:

“The lien in favor of Manuel Urquico affects all the property described in
the complaint. The plaintiff having been substituted as the owner of said
property in place of Rustico B. Puno, the same continues subject to that lien as
well as the property corresponding to the other defendant, Francisco B.
Puno.”

In that judgment, although the credit of the herein plaintiff-appellee was
recognized, no pronouncement was made with reference to the interest.

There can be no doubt that as half of the property in question, that
belonging to Rustico B. Puno, was mortgaged to secure the payment of the
mortgage debt obtained by him and his brothers from the herein
plaintiff-appellee Manuel Urquico, when the herein defendant-appellant Miguela
Antonio acquired the rights and interests of said Rustico B. Puno in said
property, she also acquired the obligations of the same, the fulfillment of
which had been secured with said property, as stated in the decision of this
court in adjudicating to her the half of the mortgaged property belonging to her
husband.

The fact that in the case filed by the herein defendant-appellant Miguela
Antonio against her husband Rustico B. Puno and her brother-in-law Francisco B.
Puno, wherein the plaintiff-appellee herein, Manuel Urquico filed a third-party
claim alleging a preferential right to the property which was the subject of the
action in that case, no pronouncement was made with reference to interest, is no
bar to a claim of such interest in the present foreclosure proceedings, inasmuch
as the third-party claim of said plaintiff-appellee was not for the purpose of
collecting the mortgage credit against the defendants in that case, but simply
to protect the lien he had on the property affected by the action.

In view of the foregoing considerations, and finding no error in the judgment
appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in its entirety with costs against
the appellant. So ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Abad Santos, Vickers, and Imperial,
JJ., concur.

---

^[1] G. R. No. 31885. Antonio
vs. Puno, promulgated February 20, 1930, not reported.