
    Monserrat v. Succession of Perez.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 28.
    Decided June 13, 1903.
    Payment — Obligation—Payment is considered to have been made when the thing or service which is the object of the obligation has been delivered or rendered, and if the documents showing the existence of a debt are in the possession of the creditor and their legitimacy proven, the validity, force and efficacy of the obligation will be presumed until the contrary is proven.
    STATEMENT OF TI-IE CASE.
    This is an appeal in cassation, now appeal, taken by Josefa Perez Rivera, widow of Batlle, through her counsel Juan R. Ramos y Velez, in an action for the recovery of a debt, brought in the District Court of San Juan by Damián Monserrat, on his own behalf and under his direction, against the Succession of Eusebio Perez y Castillo, to which this appellant is a party, for the reversal of the judgment rendered by aforesaid court, which literally reads:
    “In the City of San Juan, Porto Rico, on the twelfth day of the month of February, one thousand nine hundred and three, a hearing was had in the proceedings prosecuted by Damián Monserrat y Simo, Esq., against the Succession of Eusebio Perez y Castillo, for the recovery of a debt.
    On September 11, of- last year, Damián Monserrat, as indorsee of Mendizabal & Co. A. Vicente & Co., Pedro Orcasitas Muñoz, Orcasitas & Soliveras and Julián Matienzo, instituted a declaratory action in the District Court of San Juan, against the Succession of Eusebio Perez y Castillo, consisting of his children Emilia Perez y Rivera, married to Julio Grau, Asunción, Monserrate, married to Pedro Sánchez, Pablo, Eusebio, José Antonio, Josefa and Eduardo Perez y Rivera, the latter deceased, and represented by his legitimate children Rosa, Rafaela Monserrate, Monserrate Rafaela and Soledad Perez Casalduc, and by his natural son Celso Eduardo, for the recovery of three thousand seven hundred and eighty-six pesos, and four centavos, which action was based upon the following alleged facts: First. — That by virtue of promissory notes, Eusebio Perez, now his heirs, was indebted to plaintiff for merchandise purchased on time at the store, of each of the merchants hereinafter mentioned, the following sums: Mendizabal & Co., seven hundred and twenty-four pesos, and twenty-six centavos, provincial money; Vicente & Co., seven hundred and eighty-two pesos, and twelve centavos; Pedro Orcasitas Muñoz, one hundred and forty-five pesos, and ninety 
      centavos; Orcasitas & Soliveras, one hundred and twenty-four pesos, and sixty-three centavos; Julián Matienzo, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine pesos and thirteen, centavos, aggregating three thousand seven hundred and eighty-six pesos and four centavos of the old provincial money, equal to two thousand five hundred and fifty three dollars and sixty-two cents. Second. — That in each of these obligations, the commercial interest of twelve per cent, per annum had been stipulated by the debtor from the time of maturity payment to be made in San Juan. Third. — That said notes were long overdue and had not been taken up, notwithstanding the efforts made' out of court with that end in view. Fourth. — That Mendizabal & Co., A. Vicente & Co., Pedro Orcasitas Muñoz, Orcasitas & Soliveras and Julián Matienzo, had by indorsement transferred to plaintiff their interest in aforesaid notes; and Fifth. — That having unsuccessfully exhausted all efforts for the collection out of court, he was compelled to resort to judicial proceedings. He cited the legal grounds upon which his claim was based, and prayed that after the proper proceedings were had, judgment be rendered condemning the aforesaid Succession to pay the amount claimed, with interest and costs.
    “The complaint was admitted and the defendants summoned to appear within twenty days, and having failed to answer the complaint, on motion of the plaintiff, they were declared in default, notice of the order to that effect being served upon them.”
    “A day having been set for the proposal of evidence, the plaintiff filed the seven promissory notes referred to in the first allegation of the complaint; certificates of' the death of Eusebio Perez y Castillo and of his wife Monse-rrate Rivera, which occurred in 1899 and 1900, respectively, and a letter, signed by Julio Grau and Eusebio Perez Rivera, wherein the amount claimed is acknowledged to be due and owing.”
    “The evidence proposed was admitted, and the following were introduced: The signatures authorizing the seven promissory notes presented, were compared by experts with others as to the authenticity of which there was no doubt, and were pronounced genuine by the three appointed expert witnesses, while at the oral trial Julio Grau testified that the signature to the letter exhibited was his, and the managing partners of Mendizabal & Co., A-Vicente &. Co., Orcasitas & Soliveras, Pedro Orcasitas Muñoz, and the attorney-in-fact of Julián Matienzo testified that the signatures authorizing the indorsements of the notes were genuine.”
    “A day having been set for the voting for judgment the court was unanimous in sustaining the complaint, the defendant Succession being adjudged to pay the amount claimed with interest from the date of maturity of the notes to that of payment, with costs.”
    “Judge José Tous y Soto prepared the opinion of the court.”
    
      “A debt cannot be considered to have been paid until the thing or service, which is the object of the obligation, has been delivered or rendered in full, and inasmuch as the notes mentioned in the first finding of fact signed by Eusebio Perez' in favor of the persons named therein and indorsed by them to the plaintiff, are in the possession of the latter, it must be maintained' that said notes are valid, until the contrary be proven.”
    “Nothing having been established or shown to invalidate said obligations, and the signatures of the respective indorsements having been acknowledged by the indorsers, the plaintiff stands in place of said indorsers and has the same rights which appertained to them.”
    “Finally, the persistent default of the defendants in this proceéding, considering not only what has been set forth, but the inference to be drawn from the foregoing reasonings, furnishes a reasonable presumption of the •certainty, force and effectiveness of the obligations demanded.”
    “For all these reasons the complaint should be sustained and costs imposed upon defendants.”
    “We adjudge that we should sustain and do sustain the complaint herein, and accordingly condemn the Succession of Eusebio Perez y Castillo to pay three thousand seven hundred and fifty six pesos and four centavos, provincial money, which is the aggregate amount of the notes presented,and to which reference is made in the first finding of fact, with interest thereon at the rate of one per cent, per month,’ from the date of maturity of each of said notes to that of full payment thereof, with costs.”'
    “Thus by this our judgment do we pronounce, order and sign. Juan Morera Martinez - Frank H. Richmond-José Tous.”
    From this judgment Josefa Rivera, Avidow of Batlle, took an appeal in cassation for error of laAv and error of procedure, Avhich Avas alloAved. The record was forwarded to this Supreme Court, and the parties were cited and the record was submitted to them; the proper procedure in appeals being followed pursuant to the provisions of an Act of the Legislative Assembly establishing the Supreme Court of Porto Rico as a court of appeals, approved March 12, 1903. A day was set for the hearing which took place on the 10th of this month, counsel for both parties being present and arguing in support of their respective claims.
    
      Mr. Juan R. Ramos, for appellants.
    
      Mr. Monserrat, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Sulzbacher,

after making the aboye statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

"All the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained!, in the judgment hereinbefore quoted, are accepted, and for these reasons said judgment should he affirmed, and the-.costs of the proceedings on appeal taxed against apellant.

Pursuant, then, to articles 661, 1108, 1125, 1170 and 1171 of the old Civil Code, and those of the new Civil Code-which correspond thereto, section 63 of General Orders No. 118, of August 15, 1899, and section 11 of the Act of Congress of the United States, approved April 12, 1900, entitled:: “An Act temporarily to provide revenues and a Civil Government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,” we adjudge-that we should affirm, and do affirm, the judgment rendered. February 12, 1903, by the District Court of San Juan andi tax the costs of these proceedings on appeal against appellant.

Chief Justice Quiñones, and Justices Hernández and Mac Leary concurred.

Mr. Justice Figueras did not sit at the hearing of this case.  