The basis of the plaintiff's cause of action in this case is a  public notarial  document executed by the  defendants in Capiz, Province of Capiz, on the 18th day  of March, 1897. In this  document  (Exhibit  A), which was signed by Agustina Consolaci6n and Norberta Consolacion, assisted by her husband Ramon Hontiveros, the two sisters Agustina and  Norberta  acknowledged  themselves  indebted to  the plaintiff,  Manuel Riobo, in the sum of P9,190, and agreed to pay this amount in two  equal installments, the  first  on July  1, 1898, and the second on July 1, 1899.   To guarantee the payment of these  amounts  at the  times specified,  the sisters mortgaged several  parcels  of land.  A complete description of the lands  thus mortgaged is set forth  in Exhibit A and in the complaint.

The plaintiff asked judgment for the sum of P14,519.58, being the amount of the original debt together with interest up to the time of the filing of the complaint, and for interest at the rate of 6 per cent  from the  commencement of this action until said payment  be fully made.  The plaintiff further prayed the court to order the sale at public auction of the mortgaged property to satisfy this debt, with interest and costs, in case the defendants  failed to  pay the same within the time fixed by law.

The defendants, after denying all the allegations in the complaint, alleged as a  special defense  that  the public document  (Exhibit A, upon which the plaintiff relies) is null and void for lack of  consideration; that the plaintiff secured their signatures  to this document  by  means of force and intimidation; and that notwithstanding the fact that they,  the sisters, never at any time received one cent from the plaintiff, they paid the first installment of P4,595. The defendant Ramon Hontiveros  further alleged that he and the plaintiff,  before the execution of Exhibit A, had been  engaged  as  partners in the purchase and sale of palay and other products of the country, and that plaintiff by reason of these transactions was justly indebted to him in the sum of Pl,324.50.  The defendants by way of counter-claim asked  judgment  against  the plaintiff  for  the  sum of P5,919.50 (this sum being the P4,995,  amount claimed to have been paid by the sisters, and the P1,324.50 which Hontiveros alleges is  due him from the plaintiff), together with the interest and  the costs of the cause.

The trial court,  Hon. Jose C. Abreu presiding, after due trial, found; 

"1. That the defendants Agustina and Norberta Consolacion recognized by means of the public document (Exhibit A)  a debt of P9,190 in favor of the plaintiff. 

"2. That the defendants had paid on this debt the sum of P3,995. 

"3. That as there was no agreement in Exhibit A  that the defendants were  to pay  interest and that as plaintiff had not made a demand upon the defendants for the payment of the balance due, he, the plaintiff, was only entitled to interest from the  date  of the filing of this  complaint. 

"4. That the public document does not constitute a mortgage on the real property described therein for  the reason that said document had not been inscribed in the property register. 

"5. That the defendants were not entitled to recover on their counterclaims."

As a consequence, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P5,195, with interest from the commencement of this action and the costs of the cause.

From this judgment both parties appealed and have presented separate bills of exceptions.
Counsel for the plaintiff now insist that the court erred: 

"1. In  finding  that the  defendants  had paid P3,995  on the debt. 

"2. In  finding  that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest from the date the debt fell due.

"3. In  failing  to find that the public  document  signed by the defendants was a duly recorded mortgage."

The only question raised  in this court by  counsel  for defendants relates to the  validity  of the judgment against the defendant Agustina Consolacion.   It  is contended that the public document  (Exhibit A) is  null and  void  as to this  defendant for  the reason that when she  signed said document  she  was neither assisted by her husband nor had his consent.  All other questions raised by the defendants in the court below and  which were decided  against them have been, in effect, abandoned on appeal.

The plaintiff alleged and so testified that the  defendants had  not only failed and refused  to pay any part of  the principal obligation but had also  failed to pay all of  the interest on the same except  the sum  of  P600.   The trial court found that the defendants had  in  fact paid to  the plaintiff the sum of  P3,995.   We can not say that this finding  of fact is against the weight of the testimony, but on the contrary it is supported by the testimony of Anatalio Hontiveros,  brother  of the defendant Ramon Honti- veros, who testified that by order of his brother Ramon he went to Iloilo from Capiz in 1898 and turned over  to the plaintiff P3,995,  and  received  a  receipt therefor.  This witness further testified that he gave  this receipt to  his brother in the presence of one Jorge Pardo.   Jorge Pardo corroborated the testimony  of Anatalio  Hontiveros with reference to the turning over of the receipt to the defendant Ramon.   Roque Hontiveros,  a cousin of  the  defendant Ramon, testified that Ramon borrowed from him  P1,000 to be applied on the debt due the  plaintiff; that he turned over this Pl,000 to Anatalio Hontiveros; that he  accompanied the  latter  to the house of the plaintiff  and witnessed the payment to the plaintiff of P3,995;  and that the plaintiff made and signed a receipt for this amount and turned the same over to Anatalio Hontiveros.  The defend- ant Ramon Hontiveros testified that this amount  was paid to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff receipted for  the same. The receipt mentioned by  these  witnesses was  not presented during the  trial  for the reason,  as  explained  by the defendant  Ramon Hontiveros, that  it had  been destroyed during an attack on  his troops  by the American forces.  In 1901, shortly after that attack, this defendant went before the local authorities in  Capiz and stated that he had lost a number of valuable papers in said  attack. This manifestation appears in a document executed by the said authorities of that date.

It is urged that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the P9,190 from the dates that the two payments of said amount became due.   The trial court found against the plaintiff on  this  point.  We think the court did not err in so finding.  There  was nothing said about interest in the contract (Exhibit A), and before the plaintiff could recover any interest on said amount before the filing of this complaint, it was incumbent upon him to show  that he had made  a demand either judicially  or extra judicially  upon  the  defendants  for  the payment  of this sum.   (Bowler vs. Alcazar, 13 Phil. Rep., 282; Veloso vs. Fontanosa, 13 Phil. Rep.,  79.)   The only thing in the record which tends to show that the plaintiff had made a demand upon the defendants for the payment of this amount is his answer to one question wherein he stated that  he had  written  Ramon  Hontiveros on various occasions  to pay all or part of  the debt, but he does not show when such letters were written.  The dates on which these letters were written are not stated.   Such proof does not show a sufficient compliance with the law as to entitle the plaintiff to a judgment for accrued interest for any period of time prior to the institution of this action.

After judgment  had  been entered in this  case  in the   court below, the plaintiff through his attorney presented a   motion  asking  the  court  to grant a new trial upon the   ground that new and material evidence had been discovered.   This motion was accompanied by an affidavit in which the   deponent stated that the document accompanying the motion for a new trial was the first copy of the original mortgage executed by the defendants in this case and  that said   document shows upon its face that the same had  been   inscribed  in the property register.  The trial court held   that  this  affidavit  was not  sufficient to  show  that  the   plaintiff could not have discovered and presented the said   document during the  trial and the motion  was therefore   denied.  The plaintiff in this instance does not assign as   an error this ruling of the court, neither are we asked to   grant a new trial upon this ground, but counsel ask this   court to examine said document for the  purpose  of determining, whether or  not the same had been duly inscribed.   This document is not  a part of the record and  we are not   at liberty to take it into consideration for the determination   of this question.  This document had never been presented   and admitted in the court below, and the defendants have   never had an opportunity to examine the same and question   its validity.  We cannot  examine documents  unless  they   have been properly presented.   We must confine  ourselves
to the record as made in the court below.

The only testimony presented in reference to the question   whether or not Exhibit A was duly inscribed,  during the   trial in the first instance, is the following question which   was asked the plaintiff and his answer: 

"Q. Was the mortgage  executed by Ramon Hontiveros, Norberta and  Agustina  Consolacion, in  your favor, inscribed in the property register? - A. The mortgage in my  favor was inscribed in the property register."

  This  testimony stands  uncontradicted.   It  is a positive   statement that  the mortgage  was duly  registered.  The   trial court failed to give this testimony due consideration.   It is true that the certified copy  (Exhibit A) does not show   on  its face  that the original had been  registered.   This   copy  (Exhibit A) was taken from the original document,   and the original document would not necessarily show that   it had been  inscribed,  but the first copy would necessarily   show this fact, as the original was not the document taken   to the register of deeds, the first copy issued by the  notary   public being the one presented for registration.  We think  the plaintiff's third assignment of error  is well founded;   that the mortgage was duly registered; and that the  land   described therein must be sold to satisfy  this judgment in   the plaintiff's favor if the defendants do not pay the same   within the time specified by law.

Counsel for the defendants say that the court erred in   rendering judgment against the defendant Agustina  Consolacion for the payment of one-half of the unpaid balance   of the original  debt.   This contention  is based  upon the   proposition  that this defendant's husband did not consent   or assist her in the execution of Exhibit  A and that this   being true,  said  exhibit is absolutely null and void as to   this defendant, as she could not have entered into a contract   without the assistance or consent of her husband.  As to   whether or  not a married woman can enter into any  contracts without her husband's assistance or consent, we find   it unnecessary to decide.  It is sufficient to  say that in   this case the defendant Agustina is not the proper  person   to raise this question.   She received  the  plaintiff's  money   and executed the document mortgaging part  of  her lands   to guarantee the payment and she can not now claim  that   said document  is without effect as to herself. Article 55   of the Law  of Civil Marriage  of June 18, 1870, provides   that "Only the husband and his heirs may enforce the nullity   of the acts executed by his wife without proper permission   or  authorization."  According  to the  plain provisions  of this article,  the wife cannot raise this question.

So much of the judgment appealed from which holds that the  document  executed  by the defendants was  not  duly inscribed in the property registry and has all of the effects of a duly constituted mortgage  is reversed, and  in all  other respects the same is hereby affirmed, without costs.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ.., concur.