Case Name: Cochón, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Correa et al., Defendants and Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1924-02-07
Citations: 32 P.R. 674
Docket Number: No. 3055
Parties: Cochón, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Correa et al., Defendants and Appellees.
Judges: Chief Justice Del Toro and Justices Wolf, Hutchison and Franco Soto concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 674–676

Head Matter:
Cochón, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Correa et al., Defendants and Appellees.
Appeal from the District Court of Guay am a in an Action of Debt.
No. 3055.
Decided February 7, 1924.
Debt — Obligation—Payment—Burden of Proof. — Tlie plaintiff having proved t.he obligation declared on by producing a document signed by the defendants, who did not deny its authenticity and execution, the burden of proving its extinguishment by payment fell upon the defendants who set up that plea; therefore, the trial court erred in holding that in view of that plea of the defendants the plaintiff should have proved that payment had not been made.
The facts1 are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. E. Font Suárez and E. Pérez Gasalduc for the appellant.
Mr. B. Fernández García for the' appellees.

Opinion:
Mb. Justice- Aldbey
delivered the opinion of the court.
Manuel Cochón Calvo brought an action against Vale-riano Correa and Fruto Coris to recover the sum of $333.57 and interest due on a matured promissory note drawn by then in solidum and payable to José B. Pórtela. The said note, which after various endorsements had come into the plaintiff's possession, was copied into the complaint. The defendants did not deny the authenticity and making of the note, or that it was in the plaintiff's possession, but merely alleged in their answer that they had paid the amount of the said obligation to the plaintiff, who agreed to return the promissory note to them and had not done so.
At the trial the only evidence offered by the plaintiff was the original promissory note, and as the defendants then pleaded that the plaintiff's evidence was not sufficient to support a judgment in his favor (motion for nonsuit), the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that whereas the defendants had alleged in their answer that they had paid the debt, the plaintiff should have proved that it had not been paid. Prom this judgment the plaintiff took the present appeal. The defendants have not appeared here and the appellant alleges as the sole ground of his appeal that the basis of the judgment appealed from is erroneous.
Section 1182 of the Civil Code prescribes -that proof of obligations devolves upon the persons claiming their fulfilment, and that of their extinction upon those opposing it. Consequently, the plaintiff having proved the obligation sought to be enforced, witnessed by a document signed by the defendants and the authenticity and execution of which they have not denied, the burden of proving its extinction by payment was upon the defendants who opposed it; hence, the trial court erred in holding that because of the allegation of the defendants the plaintiff was bound to prove that payment had not been made.
The judgment appealed from must be reversed and the ease remanded for a new" trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Chief Justice Del Toro and Justices Wolf, Hutchison and Franco Soto concurred.