G.R. No. 35263 ; July 20, 1932
Manuel Urquico, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Francisco B. Puno, et al., defendants. Miguela Antonio, appellant.

FACTS

On February 14, 1921, Francisco B. Puno, Rustico B. Puno, and Rita B. Puno obtained a loan of P8,300 from Manuel Urquico, secured by a mortgage on personal property. The debt was not paid, and on February 25, 1925, the debtors executed a deed extending the payment period and stipulating 12% annual interest from February 4, 1921. Subsequently, Miguela Antonio (wife of Rustico) acquired, through a levy and execution sale due to an alimony case, Rustico’s one-half interest in the mortgaged property, subject to the existing mortgage lien. When Urquico filed an action to foreclose the mortgage and collect the debt with interest, Miguela Antonio appealed, contending she was not liable for the stipulated interest.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant, Miguela Antonio, as the successor-in-interest to a mortgagor’s property, is liable for the payment of the stipulated mortgage interest on the debt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering the defendants, including Miguela Antonio, to pay the debt with stipulated interest. The Court held that when Miguela Antonio acquired her husband Rustico’s rights and interests in the mortgaged property through execution sale, she also assumed the obligations secured by that property, including the payment of the stipulated interest. The fact that a prior third-party claim filed by Urquico in a different case involving the same property did not include a pronouncement on interest was not a bar to claiming it in the foreclosure suit, as the purpose of the prior claim was merely to protect the mortgage lien, not to collect the debt.

AI Generated by Armztrong.