Martin Gorme, the defendant  and appellant in this case, was convicted of the crime of estafa and sentenced to four months and  one day of arresto mayor,  together  with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, upon an  information filed by the fiscal of the Province of Leyte, which charged the commission  of the offense in the following language:

"That the said  accused, within the jurisdiction of the municipality of Cabalian of this province,  on  the  19th of September, 1908, by means of deceit and fraud and for his personal use and benefit and pretending to be the agent of Maximo Palabio, succeeded in redeeming and possessing himself of a carabao belonging to the aforesaid Maximo Palabio that was worth P200, and was then pledged for the sum of P20  and in the hands  of Eliseo Saludo,  the said accused making the carabao his own.  With infraction of the law."

Counsel for appellant contends that the court  below  erred in overruling a demurrer to this information, and bases his contention on the  provisions of article 1158 of the  Civil Code, which is as follows:

"Any person, whether he has an interest or not in the fulfillment of the obligation, and whether the debtor knows and approves it or is  not aware  thereof,  can make the payment.

"The person paying for the account of another may recover from  the  debtor what he may have paid,  unless he has done it against his express will.

"In such case he can only recover from the debtor  in so far as the payment has been useful to him."

Counsel insists that under the provisions of this article the payment by  the defendant of the amount for which the carabao was pledged, entitled him  to be subrogated to all the rights of the pledgee,  so that he was wholly within his rights in taking possession of the animal, his right to subrogation being in no wise  affected by the consent or failure of consent of the  owner of the  animal to the payment by defendant to the pledgee  of the amount for which it was pledged.  It will readily be seen, however, that the gravamen of the  charge set out in the information  is not  that the defendant by paying the amount of the debt for which the animal was pledged secured his subrogation to the rights of the pledgee, but that by deceit and fraud  he induced the pledgee to enter  upon the transaction and deliver possession of the animal, and that having thus with deceit and fraud secured possession, he assumed a right of ownership in the animal to which he was not entitled.  The demurrer  was, therefore, properly overruled.  The testimony of the  witnesses  for the prosecution and for the defense is  contradictory  to a degree,  but on a careful review of the whole record we think  that the findings of fact by the trial judge, in whose presence the witnesses testified, must be sustained. These findings sustain the judgment of  conviction by the trial court, and  we find no error in the  proceedings  prejudicial to  the substantial  rights of  the accused.   The  sentence imposed  upon the  defendant and appellant should therefore be affirmed with the costs  of this instance against the appellant.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, and Trent, JJ., concur.