Chunky Monkeys CM Digest

Case Name: Sarmiento v. Javellana

Docket: G.R. No. L-18500
Date: October 2, 1992
Ponente: Avancena, J.

FACTS
 Defendant loaned the plaintiffs the sum of P1,500 with interest at the rate of 25% pa
for the term of one year. To guarantee this loan, the plaintiffs pledged a large medal
with diamonds, a pair of diamond earrings, a small comb with diamonds, and two
diamond rings, which the contracting parties appraised at P4,000.
 The plaintiffs allege that at the maturity of this loan, the plaintiff, being unable to pay
the loan, obtained from the defendant an extension, with the condition that the loan
was to continue, drawing interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum, so long as the
security given was sufficient to cover the capital and the accrued interest.
 Plaintiff later went to the house of the defendant and offered to pay the loan and
redeem the jewels, taking with him, for this purpose, the sum of P11,000, but the
defendant then informed them that the time for the redemption had already elapsed.
The plaintiffs renewed their offer to redeem the jewelry by paying the loan, but met
with the same reply.
 The plaintiffs now bring this action to compel the defendant to return the jewels
pledged, or their value, upon the payment by them of the sum they owe the defendant,
with the interest thereon.
 The defendant alleges, in his defense, that upon the maturity of the loan, he requested
the plaintiff to secure the money, pay the loan and redeem the jewels, as he needed
money to purchase a certain piece of land; that one month thereafter, the plaintiff,
Filomena Sarmiento, went to his house and offered to sell him the jewels pledged for
P3,000; that the defendant then told her to come back on the next day, as he was to
see his brother, Catalino Javellana, and ask him if he wanted to take the jewels for
that sum; that on the next day the plaintiff, Filomena Sarmiento, went back to the
house of the defendant who then paid her the sum of P1,125, which was the balance
remaining of the P3,000 after deducting the plaintiff's loan.

ISSUE and HELD

1. W/N the thing pledge was in fact sold? NO

 The mere testimony of the defendant to the effect that the things pledged were later sold
to him by the plaintiff, against the positive testimony of the latter that she did not make
any such sale, requires a strong corroboration to be accepted.
 We do not find the testimony to be of sufficient value as such corroboration. The witness
testified to having been in the house of the defendant when Filomena went there to offer
to sell the defendant the jewels, as well as on the third day when she returned to receive
the price.
 Up to the trial of this cause the defendant continued in possession of the documents
evidencing the loan and the pledge. If the defendant really bought these jewels, its seems
natural that Filomena would have demanded the surrender of the documents evidencing
the loan and the pledge, and the defendant would have returned them to plaintiff.
 Our conclusion is that the jewels pledged to defendant were not sold to him afterwards.

Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre