1

UNLAD RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, UNLAD RURAL BANK OF NOVELETA, INC., UNLAD COMMODITIES, INC., HELENA Z. BENITEZ, and CONRADO L. BENITEZ II, Petitioners, management of the mango plantation was undertaken by Unlad Commodities, Inc., a subsidiary of Unlad Resources[,] under a Management Contract Agreement. The Management Contract provides that Unlad Commodities, Inc. would receive eighty percent (80%) of the net profits generated by the operation of the mango plantation while the Banks share is twenty percent (20%). It was further agreed that at the end of the lease period, the Rural Bank shall turn over to the lessor all permanent improvements introduced by it on the plantation.

- versus -

xxxx RENATO P. DRAGON, TARCISIUS R. RODRIGUEZ, VICENTE D. CASAS, ROMULO M. VIRATA, FLAVIANO PERDITO, TEOTIMO BENITEZ, ELENA BENITEZ, and ROLANDO SUAREZ, Respondents. On May 20, 1987, [petitioner] Unlad Rural Bank wrote [respondents] regarding *the+ Central Banks approval to retire its *Development Bank of the Philippines] preferred shares in the amount of P219,000.00 and giving notice for subscription to proportionate shares. The [respondents] objected on the grounds that there is already a sinking fund for the retirement of the said DBP-held preferred shares provided for annually and that it could deprive the Rural Bank of a cheap source of fund. (sic)

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the November 29, 2000 Decision[1] and August 2, 2001 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 54226.

The facts, as found by the CA, are as follows:

On December 29, 1981, the Plaintiffs (herein respondents) and defendant (herein petitioner) Unlad Resources, through its Chairman[,] Helena Z. Benitez[,] entered into a Memorandum of Agreement wherein it is provided that [respondents], as controlling stockholders of the Rural Bank [of Noveleta] shall allow Unlad Resources to invest four million eight hundred thousand pesos (P4,800,000.00) in the Rural Bank in the form of additional equity. On the other hand, [petitioner] Unlad Resources bound itself to invest the said amount of 4.8 million pesos in the Rural Bank; upon signing, it was, likewise, agreed that [petitioner] Unlad Resources shall subscribe to a minimum of four hundred eighty thousand pesos (P480,000.00) (sic) common or preferred non-voting shares of stock with a total par value of four million eight hundred thousand pesos (P4,800,000.00) and pay up immediately one million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00) for said subscription; that the [respondents], upon the signing of the said agreement shall transfer control and management over the Rural Bank to Unlad Resources. According to the [respondents], immediately after the signing of the agreement, they complied with their obligation and transferred control of the Rural Bank to Unlad Resources and its nominees and the Bank was renamed the Unlad Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc. However, [respondents] claim that despite repeated demands, Unlad Resources has failed and refused to comply with their obligation under the said Memorandum of Agreement when it did not invest four million eight hundred thousand pesos (P4,800,000.00) in the Rural Bank in the form of additional equity and, likewise, it failed to immediately infuse one million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00) as paid in capital upon signing of the Memorandum of Agreement.

[Respondents] alleged compliance with all of their obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement in that they have transferred control and management over the Rural bank to the [petitioners] and are ready, willing and able to allow [petitioners] to subscribe to a minimum of four hundred eighty thousand (P480,000.00) (sic) common or preferred nonvoting shares of stocks with a total par value of four million eight hundred thousand pesos (P4,800,000.00) in the Rural Bank. However, [petitioners] have failed and refused to subscribe to the said shares of stock and to pay the initial amount of one million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00) for said subscription.[3]

On July 3, 1987, herein respondents filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 61 a Complaint[4] for rescission of the agreement and the return of control and management of the Rural Bank from petitioners to respondents, plus damages. After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision,[5] the dispositive portion of which provides:

WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:

1. The Memorandum of Agreement dated 29 December 1991 (sic) is hereby declared rescinded and:

On August 10, 1984, the Board of Directors of [petitioner] Unlad Resources passed Resolution No. 84-041 authorizing the President and the General Manager to lease a mango plantation situated in Naic, Cavite. Pursuant to this Resolution, the Bank as [lessee] entered into a Contract of Lease with the [petitioner] Helena Z. Benitez as [lessor]. The

(a) Defendant Unlad Resources Development Corporation is hereby ordered to immediately return control and management over the Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc. to Plaintiffs; and

2
(b) Unlad Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc. is hereby ordered to return to Defendants the sum of One Million Three Thousand Seventy Pesos (P1,003,070.00) jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, they posit that the judgment of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, is null and void and may be impugned at any time.

2. The Director for Rural Banks of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is hereby appointed as Receiver of the Rural Bank;

3. Unlad Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc. is hereby enjoined from placing the retired DBP-held preferred shares available for subscription and the same is hereby ordered to be placed under a sinking fund;

Petitioners further argue that the action instituted by respondents had already prescribed, because Article 1389 of the Civil Code provides that an action for rescission must be commenced within four years. They claim that the trial court and the CA mistakenly applied Article 1144 of the Civil Code which treats of prescription of actions in general. They submit that Article 1389, which deals specifically with actions for rescission, is the applicable law.

4. Defendant Unlad Resources Development Corporation is hereby ordered to pay plaintiffs the following:

(a) actual compensatory damages amounting to Four Million Six Hundred One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty- Five and 38/100 Pesos (P4,601,765.38);

Moreover, petitioners assert that they have fully complied with their undertaking under the subject Memorandum of Agreement, but that the undertaking has become a legal and factual impossibility because the authorized capital stock of the Rural Bank was increased from P1.7 million to only P5 million, and could not accommodate the subscription by petitioners of P4.8 million worth of shares. Such deficiency, petitioners contend, is with the knowledge and approval of respondent Renato P. Dragon and his nominees to the Board of Directors.

(b) moral damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);

(c) exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00); and (d) attorneys fees in the sum of (P100,000.00), plus cost of suit.

Petitioners, without conceding the propriety of the judgment of rescission, also argue that the subject Memorandum of Agreement could not just be ordered rescinded without the corresponding order for the restitution of the parties total contributions and/or investments in the Rural Bank. Finally, they assail the award for moral and exemplary damages, as well as the award for attorneys fees, as bereft of factual and legal bases given that, in the body of the Decision, it was merely stated that respondents suffered moral damages without any discussion or explanation of, nor any justification for such award. Likewise, the matter of attorneys fees was not at all discussed in the body of the Decision. Petitioners claim that pursuant to the prevailing rule, attorneys fees cannot be recovered in the absence of stipulation.

SO ORDERED.[6]

Herein petitioners appealed the ruling to the CA. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss and, subsequently, a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, which were both denied. Later, however, the CA, in a Decision dated November 29, 2000, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC Decision in all respects. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied in CA Resolution dated August 2, 2001.

On the other hand, respondents declare that immediately after the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement, they complied with their obligation and transferred control of the Rural Bank to petitioner Unlad Resources and its nominees, but that, despite repeated demands, petitioners have failed and refused to comply with their concomitant obligations under the Agreement.

Petitioners are now before this Court alleging that the CA committed a grave and serious reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision. Petitioners question the jurisdiction of the trial court, something they have done from the beginning of the controversy, contending that the issues that respondents raised before the trial court are intra-corporate in nature and are, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. They point out that respondents complaint charged them with mismanagement and alleged dissipation of the assets of the Rural Bank. Since the complaint challenges corporate actions and decisions of the Board of Directors and prays for the recovery of the control and management of the Rural Bank, these matters fall outside the

Respondents narrate that shortly after taking over the Rural Bank, petitioners Conrado L. Benitez II and Jorge C. Cerbo, as President and General Manager, respectively, entered into a Contract of Lease over the Naic, Cavite mango plantation, and that, as a consequence of this venture, the bank incurred expenses amounting to P475,371.57, equivalent to 25.76% of its capital and surplus. The respondents further assert that the Central Bank found this undertaking not inherently connected with bona fide rural banking operations, nor does it fall within the allied undertakings permitted under Section 26 of Central Bank Circular No. 741 and Section 3379 of the Manual of Regulations of the Central Bank. Thus, respondents contend that this circumstance, coupled with the fact that petitioners Helena Z. Benitez and Conrado L. Benitez II were also stockholders and members of the Board of Directors of Unlad Resources, Unlad Rural Bank, and Unlad Commodities at that

3
time, is adequate proof that the Rural Banks management had every intention of diverting, dissipating, and/or wasting the banks assets for petitioners own gain. They likewise allege that because of the failure of petitioners to comply with their obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement, respondents, with the exception of Tarcisius Rodriguez, lodged a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), seeking rescission of the Agreement, damages, and the appointment of a management committee, but the SEC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Still, the petitioners insist that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the complaint because the issues involved are intra-corporate in nature.

This argument miserably fails to persuade. The law in force at the time of the filing of the case was Presidential Decree (P.D.) 902-A, Section 5(b) of which vested the Securities and Exchange Commission with original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving controversies arising out of intra-corporate relations.[8] Interpreting this statutorily conferred jurisdiction on the SEC, this Court had occasion to state:

Furthermore, when the Rural Bank informed respondents of the Central Banks approval of its plan to retire its DBP-held preferred shares, giving notices for subscription to proportionate shares, respondents objected on the ground that there was already a sinking fund for the retirement of said shares provided for annually, and that the retirement would deprive the petitioner Rural Bank of a cheap source of fund. It was at that point, respondents claim, that they instituted the aforementioned Complaint against petitioners before the RTC of Makati.

The respondents also seek the outright dismissal of this Petition for lack of verification as to petitioners Helena Z. Benitez and Conrado L. Benitez II; lack of proper verification as to petitioners Unlad Resources Development Corporation, Unlad Rural Bank of Noveleta, Inc., and Unlad Commodities, Inc.; lack of proper verified statement of material dates; and lack of proper sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

Nowhere in said decree do we find even so much as an [intimation] that absolute jurisdiction and control is vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission in all matters affecting corporations. To uphold the respondents arguments would remove without legal imprimatur from the regular courts all conflicts over matters involving or affecting corporations, regardless of the nature of the transactions which give rise to such disputes. The courts would then be divested of jurisdiction not by reason of the nature of the dispute submitted to them for adjudication, but solely for the reason that the dispute involves a corporation. This cannot be done.[9]

They support the proposition that Tijam v. Sibonghanoy[7] applies, and that petitioners are indeed estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court. They also share the lower courts view that it is Article 1144 of the Civil Code, and not Article 1389, that is applicable to this case. Finally, respondents allege that the failure of petitioner Unlad Resources to comply with its undertaking under the Agreement, as uniformly found by the trial court and the CA, may no longer be assailed in the instant Petition, and that the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees is justified.

It is well to remember that the respondents had actually filed with the SEC a case against the petitioners which, however, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the pendency of the case before the RTC.[10] The SECs Order dismissing the respondents complaint is instructive:

The Petition is bereft of merit. We uphold the Decision of the CA affirming that of the RTC.

From the foregoing allegations, it is apparent that the present action involves two separate causes of action which are interrelated, and the resolution of which hinges on the very document sought to be rescinded. The assertion that the defendants failed to comply with their contractual undertaking and the claim for rescission of the contract by the plaintiffs has, in effect, put in issue the very status of the herein defendants as stockholders of the Rural Bank. The issue as to whether or not the defendants are stockholders of the Rural Bank is a pivotal issue to be determined on the basis of the Memorandum of Agreement. It is a prejudicial question and a logical antecedent to confer jurisdiction to this Commission.

First, the subject of jurisdiction. The main issue in this case is the rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement. This is to be distinguished from respondents allegation of the alleged mismanagement and dissipation of corporate assets by the petitioners which is based on the prayer for receivership over the bank. The two issues, albeit related, are obviously separate, as they pertain to different acts of the parties involved. The issue of receivership does not arise from the parties obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement, but rather from specific acts attributed to petitioners as members of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Clearly, the rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement is a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the trial courts, notwithstanding the fact that the parties involved are all directors of the same corporation.

It is to be noted, however, that determination of the contractual undertaking of the parties under a contract lies with the Regional Trial Courts and not with this Commission. x x x[11]

Be that as it may, this point has been rendered moot by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8799, also known as the Securities Regulation Code. This law, which took effect in 2000, has transferred jurisdiction over such disputes to the RTC. Specifically, R.A. 8799 provides:

Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission

4
doctrine of estoppel by laches applies, as enunciated by this Court in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, no longer finds relevance. xxxx Second, the issue of prescription. Petitioners further contend that the action for rescission has prescribed under Article 1398 of the Civil Code, which provides:

5.2. The Commissions jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.

Article 1389. The action to claim rescission must be commenced within four years x x x.

This is an erroneous proposition. Article 1389 specifically refers to rescissible contracts as, clearly, this provision is under the chapter entitled Rescissible Contracts.

Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A reads, thus: In a previous case,[12] this Court has held that Article 1389:

Sec. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:

applies to rescissible contracts, as enumerated and defined in Articles 1380 and 1381. We must stress however, that the rescission in Article 1381 is not akin to the term rescission in Article 1191 and Article 1592. In Articles 1191 and 1592, the rescission is a principal action which seeks the resolution or cancellation of the contract while in Article 1381, the action is a subsidiary one limited to cases of rescission for lesion as enumerated in said article.

a) Devices and schemes employed by or any acts of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholder, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission;

The prescriptive period applicable to rescission under Articles 1191 and 1592, is found in Article 1144, which provides that the action upon a written contract should be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues.

b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members, or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity;

Article 1381 sets out what are rescissible contracts, to wit:

Article 1381. The following contracts are rescissible: c) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations.

(1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things which are the object thereof; (2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees, if the latter suffer the lesion stated in the preceding number;

Consequently, whether the cause of action stems from a contractual dispute or one that involves intra-corporate matters, the RTC already has jurisdiction over this case. In this light, the question of whether the

(3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them;

5
(4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority; (5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission. Article 1191. The power to rescind reciprocal obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. pay for. However, respondents failure to fulfill their undertaking in the agreement would have given rise to the scenario contemplated by Article 1191 of the Civil Code, which reads:

The Memorandum of Agreement subject of this controversy does not fall under the above enumeration. Accordingly, the prescriptive period that should apply to this case is that provided for in Article 1144, to wit:

The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.

Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. (1) Upon a written contract; This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with Articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.

xxxx

Based on the records of this case, the action was commenced on July 3, 1987, while the Memorandum of Agreement was entered into on December 29, 1981. Article 1144 specifically provides that the 10-year period is counted from the time the right of action accrues. The right of action accrues from the moment the breach of right or duty occurs.[13] Thus, the original Complaint was filed well within the prescriptive period.

Thus, petitioners should have exacted fulfillment from the respondents or asked for the rescission of the contract instead of simply not performing their part of the Agreement. But in the course of things, it was the respondents who availed of the remedy under Article 1191, opting for the rescission of the Agreement in order to regain control of the Rural Bank.

We now proceed to determine if the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, correctly ruled for the rescission of the subject Agreement.

Having determined that the rescission of the subject Memorandum of Agreement was in order, the trial court ordered petitioner Unlad Resources to return to respondents the management and control of the Rural Bank and for the latter to return the sum of P1,003,070.00 to petitioners.

Petitioners contend that they have fully complied with their obligation under the Memorandum of Agreement. They allege that due to respondents failure to increase the capital stock of the corporation to an amount that will accommodate their undertaking, it had become impossible for them to perform their end of the Agreement.

Mutual restitution is required in cases involving rescission under Article 1191. This means bringing the parties back to their original status prior to the inception of the contract.[14] Article 1385 of the Civil Code provides, thus:

Again, petitioners contention is untenable. There is no question that petitioners herein failed to fulfill their obligation under the Memorandum of Agreement. Even they admit the same, albeit laying the blame on respondents.

ART. 1385. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obligated to restore.

It is true that respondents increased the Rural Banks a uthorized capital stock to only P5 million, which was not enough to accommodate the P4.8 million worth of stocks that petitioners were to subscribe to and

Neither shall rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith.

6
Though not discussed in the body of the Decision, the records show that the amount of P4,601,765.38 pertains to actual losses incurred by respondents as a result of petitioners non-compliance with their undertaking under the Memorandum of Agreement. On this point, respondent Dragon presented testimonial and documentary evidence to prove the actual amount of damages, thus:

In this case, indemnity for damages may be demanded from the person causing the loss.

This Court has consistently ruled that this provision applies to rescission under Article 1191:

Atty. Cruz

[S]ince Article 1385 of the Civil Code expressly and clearly states that rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest, the Court finds no justification to sustain petitioners position that said Article 1385 does not apply to rescission under Article 1191.[15]

Q: Was there any consequence to you Mr. Dragon due to any breach of the agreement marked as Exhibit A?

A: Yes sir I could have earned thru the shares of stock that I have, or we have or we had by this time amounting to several millions pesos (sic). They have only put in the whole amount that we have agreed upon (sic).

Rescission has the effect of unmaking a contract, or its undoing from the beginning, and not merely its termination.*16+ Hence, rescission creates the obligation to return the object of the contract. It can be carried out only when the one who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. To rescind is to declare a contract void at its inception and to put an end to it as though it never was. It is not merely to terminate it and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but to abrogate it from the beginning and restore the parties to their relative positions as if no contract has been made.[17]

Q: In this connection did you cause computation of these losses that you incured (sic)?

A:

Yes sir.

xxxx

Accordingly, when a decree for rescission is handed down, it is the duty of the court to require both parties to surrender that which they have respectively received and to place each other as far as practicable in his original situation. The rescission has the effect of abrogating the contract in all parts.[18]

Clearly, the petitioners failed to fulfill their end of the agreement, and thus, there was just cause for rescission. With the contract thus rescinded, the parties must be restored to the status quo ante, that is, before they entered into the Memorandum of Agreement.

Finally, we must resolve the question of the propriety of the award for damages and attorneys fees.

The trial courts Decision mentioned that the evidence is clear and convincing that Plaintiffs (herein respondents) suffered actual compensatory damages amounting to Four Million Six Hundred One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Five and 38/100 Pesos (P4,601,765.38) moral damages and attorneys fees.

Q: Will you please kindly go through this computation and explain the same to the Honorable Court? A: Number 1 is an Organ (sic) income from the sale of 60% (sic) at only Three Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand Two hundred for Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty shares which should have been sold if it were sold to others for P50.00 each for a total of Nine Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand but sold to them for Three Hundred Ninety nine (sic) Thousand two (sic) Hundred only and of which only Three Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred was paid to me. Therefore, there was a difference of Six Hundred Seven Three (sic) Thousand Four Hundred (P673,400.00). On the basis of the commulative (sic) lost income every year from March 1982 from the amount of Seven Six Hundred (sic) Seventy Three Thousand four (sic) Hundred (P673,400.) (sic) there would be a discommulative (sic) lost (sic) of One Million Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two Pesos and forty two (sic) centavos (P1,093,952.42). Please note that the interest imputed is only at 12% per annum but it should had (sic) been much higher. In 1984 to 1986 (sic) alone rates went as higher (sic) as 40% per annum from the so called (sic) Jobo Bills and yet we only computed the imputed income or lost income at 12% per annum and then there is a 40% participation on the unrealized earnings due to their failure to put in an stabilized (sic) earnings. You will note that if they put in 4.8 million Pesos and it would be earning money, 40% of that will go to us because 40% of the bank would be ours and 60% would be there (sic). But because they did put in the 4.8 million our 40% did not earn up to that extent and computed again on the basis of 12% the amount (sic) on the

7
commulative (sic) basis up to September 1990 is 2 million three hundred fifty two thousand sixty five pesos and four centavos (sic). (P2,352,065.04). You will note again that the average return of investment of any Cavite based (sic) Rural Bank has been no less than 20% or about 30% per annum. And we computed only the earnings at 12%. xxxx There were loans granted fraudulently to members of the board and some borrowers which were not all charged interest for several years and on this basis we computed a 40% shares (sic) on the foregone income interest income (sic) on all these fraudulently granted loans, without interest being collected and none a project (sic) among a plantation project (sic), which was funded by the bank but nothing was given back to the bank for several hundred thousand of pesos (sic). And we arrived an (sic) estimate of the foregone interest income a total of One Million Two Hundred Five Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty None Pesos and eighty one (sic) centavos and 40 percent share of this (sic) would be Four Hundred Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty Seven Pesos and Ninety Two Centavos. All in all our estimate of the damages we have suffered is Four Million Six Hundred one (sic) Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five Pesos and thirty eight (sic) centavos (P4,601,765.38).[19] More importantly, petitioners never raised in issue before the CA this award of actual compensatory damages. They did not raise the matter of damages in their Appellants Brief, while in their Motion for Reconsideration, they questioned only the award of moral and exemplary damages, not the award of actual damages. Even in the present Petition for Review, what petitioners raised was the propriety of the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. On the grant of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees, we note that the trial courts Decision did not discuss the basis for the award. No mention of these damages awarded or their factual basis is made in the body of the Decision, only in the dispositive portion. Be that as it may, we have examined the records of the case and found that the award must be sustained. It should be remembered that there are two separate causes of action in this case: one for rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement and the other for receivership based on alleged mismanagement of the company by the plaintiffs. While the award of actual compensatory damages was based on the breach of duty under the Memorandum of Agreement, the award of moral damages appears to be based on petitioners mismanagement of the company when they became members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank. Thus, the trial court said: Under the Rural Banks management, a systematic diversion of the banks assets was conceived whereby: (a) The Rural Banks funds would be funneled in the development and improvements of the Benitez Mango Plantation in the guise of an investment in said plantation; (b) Of the net profits earned from the plantations operations, the Rural Banks share therein, although it shoulders all of the financial risks, would be a measly twenty percent (20%) thereof while UCI, without investing a single centavo, would earn eighty percent (80%) of the said profits. Thus, the bulk of the profits of the mango plantation was also sought to be diverted to an entity wherein Helena Z. Benitez and Conrado L. Benitez II are not only principal stockholders but also the Chairman of the Board of Directors and President, respectively. Moreover, Defendant Helena Z. Benitez would be entitled to receive, under the lease contract, rentals in the total amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) or ten percent (10%) of gross profits, whichever is higher. (c) Finally, at the end of the lease period, the Rural Bank was obliged to turn over to the lessor (Helena Z. Benitez) all permanent improvements introduced by it on the plantation at no cost to Ms. Benitez. Further, in its report dated March 13, 1985, the [Central Bank] after conducting its general examination upon the Rural Bank ordered the latter to explain satisfactorily why the bank engage (sic) in an undertaking not inherently connected with [bona fide] rural banking operations nor within the allowed allied undertakings, contrary to the provisions of Section 3379 of the CB Manual of Regulations and Section 26 of CB Circular No. 741, otherwise known as the Circular on Rural Banks*.+ The aforestated CB report states that total exposure to this project now amounts to P475,371.57 or 25.76% of its capital and surplus*.+ Notwithstanding a finding by the CB of the undertakings illegality, the defendants nevertheless persisted in pursuing the Mango Plantation Project and never acceded to the call of [the] CB for it to desist from further implementing the said project. It was only after another letter from the CB was received when defendant finally shelved the mango plantation project. The result of the aforestated report, as well as the actuations of the Defendants in not yielding to the order of the CB, adequately establishes not only a violation of CB Rules (specifically Section 26, Circular 741 and Section 3379 of the CB Manual of Regulations, but also, that it has caused undue damage both to the Rural bank as well as its stockholders. The initial CB report should have sufficiently apprised Defendants of the illegality of the undertaking. Defendants, therefore have the duty to terminate the Mango Plantation Project. They, however, [chose] to continue it, apparently to further their [own] interest in the scheme for their own personal benefit and gain, an act which is clearly contrary to the fiduciary nature of their relationship with the corporation in which they are officers. Such persistence proves evident bad faith, or a breach of a known duty through some motive or ill-will, which resulted in the further dissipation and wastage of the Rural Banks assets, unjustly depriving Plaintiffs of their fair share in the assets of the bank. All the foregoing satisfactorily affirms the allegations of Plaintiffs to the effect that these contracts were but part of a device employed by Defendants to siphon [off] the Rural bank for their personal gain.[20] Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of precise pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.*21+ Article 2220 of the Civil Code further provides that moral damages may be recovered in case of a breach of contract where the defendant acted in bad faith.[22] To award moral damages, a court must be satisfied with proof of the following requisites: (1) an injury whether physical, mental, or psychological clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission of the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219.[23] Accordingly, based upon the findings of the trial court, it is clear that respondents are entitled to moral damages. The acts attributed to the petitioners as directors of the Rural Bank manifestly prejudiced the respondents causing detriment to their standing as directors and stockholders of the Rural Bank.

8
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right.[24] While these need not be proved, respondents must show that they are entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of awarding exemplary damages.[25] We find that respondents are indeed entitled to moral damages; thus, the award for exemplary damages is in order. Anent the award for attorneys fees, Article 2208 of the Civil Code states: In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. Hence, the award of exemplary damages is in itself sufficient justification for the award of attorneys fees.*26+ WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 54226 are AFFIRMED

9
G.R. No. L-29155 February 22, 1971 UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MAGDALO V. FRANCISCO, SR., and VICTORIANO V. FRANCISCO, respondents. RESOLUTION language, is not sufficient proof that the respondent Francisco was supposedly obligated to transfer and cede to the petitioner the formula for Mafran sauce and not merely its use. For the said respondent allowed the petitioner to register the trademark for purposes merely of the "marketing of said project." (see pars. 3 respectively of the complaint and answer, cited on page 12 of our decision.) 3. The petitioner likewise, advances the view that the findings of fact made by the trial court which led it to rule against the rescission of the Bill of Assignment, should be respected and upheld by this Court, because to disregard them would constitute an unjustified departure from the well-settled rule in the jurisdiction that appellate courts should not interfere with the findings of fact of the trial court or with its appreciation of the weight and credibility of the testimony of the witnesses. Stated elsewise, the petitioner, in essence and more precisely, wants this Court to overturn the rule that the findings of fact arrived at by the Court of Appeals are not subject to review by the Supreme Court (Uy vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., 31 SCRA 121 [1970]; Roque vs. Buan, 21 SCRA 642 [1967]). It is true that the foregoing rule admits of certain defined exceptions: "the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals may be set aside: 1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; 2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; 4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and 5) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee" (Roque vs. Buan, supra, and cases cited). The petitioner, however, has not demonstrated the applicability of any of the foregoing exceptions to the case at bar. 4. Finally, the petitioner maintains that, assuming that the respondent Francisco is entitled to his back salary, since he has formed another corporation styled "La Mer Industries, Inc." the principal purpose of which is to engage in the manufacture and sale of products similar to if not the same as the Mafran sauce being produced by the petitioner, and, during the period of the pendency of this case, practiced his other profession as chiropractor, the total amount of his earnings from these sources, computed from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, and should he decide not to return to work, computed from the date of dismissal to the date of finality of our judgment, should be deducted from the back salary accruing to him. We find this argument tenable. In his pleading filed on January 29, 1971, the respondent Francisco manifested that he would no longer file a rejoinder to the petitioner's reply and supplementary reply dated December 14, 1970 and December 22, 1970, respectively, and that he was submitting, final resolution by this Court the pleadings already submitted. In effect, the respondent Francisco does not deny the petitioner's aforestated contention. ACCORDINGLY, we hereby modify our decision of May 13, 1970 only to the extent that the total earnings of the respondent Magdalo V. Francisco, Sr. from whatever source during the period from the date of his dismissal up to the date of finality of our decision, shall be deducted from the total back salary that shall have accrued to the said respondent. The trial court shall receive pertinent evidence on the earnings adverted to, then make the necessary determination, and forthwith issue the proper writ of execution to enforce the final judgment in this case. Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

CASTRO, J.: The petitioner Universal Food Corporation moves to reconsider our decision dated May 13, 1970; its motion is based on four grounds which we shall discuss in seriatim. 1. The petitioner contends that (a) under the terms of the Bill of Assignment, exh. A, the respondent Magdalo V. Francisco ceded and transferred to the petitioner not only the right to the use of the formula for Mafran sauce but also the formula itself, because this, allegedly, was the intention of the parties; (b) that on the basis of the entire evidence on record and as found by the trial court, the petitioner did not dismiss the respondent Francisco because he was, and still is, a member of the board of directors, a stockholder, and an officer of the petitioner corporation, and that as such, had actual knowledge of the resumption of production by the petitioner, but that despite such knowledge, he refused to report back for work notwithstanding the petitioner's call for him to do so; (c) that the private respondents are not entitled to rescind the Bill of Assignment; and (d) that the evidence on record shows that the respondent Francisco was the one not ready, willing and able to comply with his obligations under the Bill of Assignment, in the sense that he not only irregularly reported for work but also failed to assign, transfer and convey to the petitioner the formula for Mafran sauce, in violation of the said deed of conveyance. There is no need to further belabor the foregoing matters raised by the petitioner since they have been amply discussed and then resolved on pages 7-13, 13-15, and 15-17 of our decision. 2. The petitioner next points to certain provisions in the Bill of Assignment, which, it asserts, are not sufficient by themselves to prove that the respondent Francisco ceded to the petitioner merely the use of the formula for Mafran sauce and not the formula itself. It specifically cites the paragraphs (a) dealing with the payment of a "royalty of two (2%) per centum of the annual profit" earned by petitioner to the respondent Francisco; (b) stating the appointment of the said respondent as chief chemist of the petitioner as "permanent in character," with absolute control and supervision over laboratory personnel in the preparation of the Mafran sauce; and (c) making the property rights to the said trademark and formula automatically reversible to the respondent Francisco should dissolution of the petitioner corporation take place. Standing by themselves, the foregoing provisions of the Bill of Assignment are perhaps not sufficient to prove that what was ceded by the respondent Francisco to the petitioner was merely the use of the formula for Mafran sauce and not the formula itself. We have, however, made it clear in our decision that it is the cumulative effect of (a) the foregoing circumstances, (b) the admission made by the petitioner of paragraph 3 of the respondents' complaint, (c) the factual milieu of the case, and (d) the application of the first sentence of art. 1378 of the New Civil Code, which led this Court to conclude that what was actually ceded and transferred was only the use of the Mafran Sauce formula. The fact that the trademark "Mafran" was duly registered in the name of the petitioner pursuant to the Bill of Assignment, standing by itself alone, to borrow the petitioner's

10
March 14, 1941 G.R. No. L-47774 MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. LOUIS J. MYRICK, respondent-appellee. Felipe Ysmael and Eusebio C. Encarnacion for petitioner. Andres C. Aguilar for respondent. Laurel, J.: On January 2, 1928, the Magdalena Estate, Inc., sold to Louis J. Myrick lots Nos. 28 and 29 of Block 1, Parcel 9 of the San Juan Subdivision, San Juan Rizal, their contract of sale No. SJ-639 (Exhibits B and 1) providing that the price of P7,953 shall be payable in 120 equal monthly installments of P96.39 each on the second day of every month beginning the date of execution of the agreement. Simultaneously, the vendee executed and delivered to the vendor a promissory note (Exhibits C and 2) for the whole purchase price, wherein it was stipulated that si cualquier pago o pagos de este pagare quedasen en mora por mas de dos meses, entonces todos el saldo no pagado del mismo con cualesquiera intereses que hubiese devengado, vercera y sera exigible inmediatamente y devengara intereses al mismo tipo de 9 por ciento al ao hasta su completo pago, y en tal caso me comprometo, ademas, a pagar al tenedor de este pagare el 10 por ciento de la cantidad en concepto de honorarios de abogado. In pursuance of said agreement, the vendee made several monthly payments amounting to P2,596.08, the last being on October 4, 1930, although the first installment due and unpaid was that of May 2, 1930. By reason of this default, the vendor, through its president, K.H. Hemady, on December 14, 1932, notified the vendee that, in view of his inability to comply with the terms of their contract, said agreement had been cancelled as of that date, thereby relieving him of any further obligation thereunder, and that all amounts paid by him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor, who assumes the absolute right over the lots in question. To this communication, the vendee did not reply, and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not require him to make any further disbursements on account of the purchase price. On July 22, 1936, Louis J. Myrick, respondent herein, commenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of Albay, praying for an entry of judgment against the Magdalena Estate, Inc. for the sum of P2,596.08 with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until its payment, and for costs of the suit. Said defendant, the herein petitioner, on September 7, 1936, filed his answer consisting in a general denial and a cross-complaint and counterclaim, alleging that contract SJ-639 was still in full force and effect and that, therefore, the plaintiff should be condemned to pay the balance plus interest and attorneys fees. After due trial, the Court of First Instance of Albay, on January 31, 1939, rendered its decision ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,596.08 with legal interest from December 14, 1932 until paid and costs, and dismissing defendants counterclaim. From this judgment, the Magdalena Estate, Inc. appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the cause was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 5037, and which, on August 23, 1940, confirmed the decision of the lower court, with the only modification that the payment of interest was to be computed from the date of the filing of the complaint instead of from the date of the cancellation of the contract. A motion for reconsideration was presented, which was denied on September 6, 1940. Hence, the present petition for a writ of certiorari. Petitioner-appellant assigns several errors which we proceed to discuss in the course of this opinion. Petitioner holds that contract SJ-639 has not been rendered inefficacious by its letter to the respondent, dated December 14, 1932, and submits the following propositions: (1) That the intention of the author of a written instrument shall always prevail over the literal sense of its wording; (2) that a bilateral contract may be resolved or canceled only by the prior mutual agreement of the parties, which is approved by the judgment of the proper court; and (3) that the letter of December 14, 1932 was not assented to by the respondent, and therefore, cannot be deemed to have produced a cancellation, even if it ever was intended. Petitioner contends that the letter in dispute is a mere notification and, to this end, introduced in evidence the disposition of Mr. K.H. Hemady, president of the Magdalena Estate, Inc. wherein he stated that the word canceled in the letter of December 14, 1932, es un error de mi interpretacion sin ninguna intencion de cancelar, and the testimony of Sebastian San Andres, one of its employees, that the lots were never offered for sale after the mailing of the letter aforementioned. Upon the other hand, the Court of Appeals, in its decision of August 23, 1940, makes the finding that notwithstanding the deposition of K.H. Hemady, president of the defendant corporation, to the effect that the contract was not cancelled nor was his intention to do so when he wrote the letter of December 14, 1932, marked Exhibit 6 and D (pp. 6-7, deposition Exhibit 1-a), faith and credit cannot be given to such testimony in view of the clear terms of the letter which evince his unequivocal intent to resolve the contract. His testimony is an afterthought. The intent to resolve the contract is expressed unmistakably not only in the letter of December 14, 1932, already referred to (Exhibit 6 and D), but is reiterated in the letters which the president of the defendant corporation states that plaintiff lost his rights for the land for being behind more than two years, and of April 10, 1035 (Exhibit G), where defendants president makes the following statements: Confirming the verbal arrangement had between you and our Mr. K.H. Hemady regarding the account of Mr. Louis J. Myrick under contract No. SJ-639, already cancelled. This conclusion of fact of the Court of Appeals is final and should not be disturbed (Guico vs. Mayuga and Heirs of Mayuga, 63 Phil. 328; Mamuyac vs. Abena, 38 O.G. 84). Where the terms of a writing are clear, positive and unambiguous, the intention of the parties should be gleaned from the language therein employed, which is conclusive in the absence of mistake (13 C.J. 524; City of Manila vs. Rizal Park Co., 52 Phil. 515). The proposition that the intention of the writer, once ascertained, shall prevail over the literal sense of the words employed is not absolute and should be deemed secondary to and limited by the primary rule that, when the text of the instrument is explicit and leaves no doubt as to its intention, the court may not read into it any other which would contradict its plain import. Besides, we have met with some circumstances of record which demonstrate the unequivocal determination of the petitioner to cancel their contract. They are: (1) the act of the petitioner in immediately taking possession of the lots in question and offering to resell them to Judge M.V. del Rosario, as demonstrated by his letter marked Exhibit G, shortly after December 14, 1932; (2) his failure to demand from the respondent the balance of the account after the mailing of the disputed letter; and (3) the letters of January 10, 1933 (Exhibit F-2) and April 10, 1935 (Exhibit G) reiterate, in clear terms, the intention to cancel first announced by petitioner since December 14, 1932. It is next argued that contract SJ-639, being a bilateral agreement, in the absence of a stipulation permitting its cancellation, may not be resolved by the mere act of the petitioner. The fact that the contracting parties herein did not provide for resolution is now of no moment, for the reason that the obligations arising from the contract of sale being reciprocal, such obligations are governed by article 1124 of the Civil Code which declares that the power to resolve, in the event that one of

11
the obligors should not perform his part, is implied (Mateos vs. Lopez, 6 Phil. 206; Cortez vs. Bibao & Beramo, 41 Phil. 298; Cui. vs. Sun Chan, 41 Phil. 523; Po Pauco vs. Siguenza, 49 Phil. 404). Upon the other hand, where, as in this case, the petitioner canceled the contract, advised the respondent that he has been relieved of his obligations thereunder, and led said respondent to believe it so and act upon such belief, the petitioner may not be allowed, in the language of section 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 68 (a) of Rule 123 of the New Rules of Court), in any litigation the course of litigation or in dealings in nais, be permitted to repudiate his representations, or occupy inconsistent positions, or, in the letter of the Scotch law, to approbate and reprobate (Bigelow on Estoppel, page 673; Toppan v. Cleveland, Co. & C.R. Co., Fed. Cas. 14,099.) The contract of sale, contract SJ-639, contains no provision authorizing the vendor, in the event of failure of the vendee to continue in the payment of the stipulated monthly installments, to retain the amounts paid to him on account of the purchase price. The claim, therefore, of the petitioner that it has the right to forfeit said sums in its favor is untenable. Under article 1124 of the Civil Code, however, he may choose between demanding the fulfillment of the contract or its resolution. These remedies are alternative and not cumulative, and the petitioner in this case, having to cancel the contract, cannot avail himself of the other remedy of exacting performance. (Osorio & Tirona vs. Bennet & Provincial Board of Cavite, 41 Phil. 301; Yap Unki vs. Chua Jamco, 14 Phil. 602.) As a consequence of the resolution, the parties should be restored, as far as practicable, to their original situation (Po Pauco vs. Siguenza, supra) which can be approximated only by ordering, as we do now, the return of the things which were the object of the contract, with their fruits and of the price, with its interest (article 1295, Civil Code), computed from the date of the institution of the action. (Verceluz vs. Edao, 46 Phil. 801.) The writ prayed for is hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered. Imperial, Diaz, Moran, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

12
G.R. No. L-28602 September 29, 1970 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, in his capacity as JUDGE of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN QUEZON CITY, et al., respondents. Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Solicitor Augusto M. Amores and Special Counsel Perfecto V. Fernandez for petitioner. Norberto J. Quisumbing for private respondents. 5. In the event that the DEBTOR fails to comply with any of its promises or undertakings in this document, the DEBTOR agrees without reservation that the CREDITOR shall have the right and the power to consider the Logging Agreement dated December 2, 1960 as rescinded without the necessity of any judicial suit, and the CREDITOR shall be entitled as a matter of right to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) by way of and for liquidated damages; ALUMCO continued its logging operations, but again incurred an unpaid account, for the period from 9 December 1964 to 15 July 1965, in the amount of P61,133.74, in addition to the indebtedness that it had previously acknowledged. That on 19 July 1965, petitioner UP informed respondent ALUMCO that it had, as of that date, considered as rescinded and of no further legal effect the logging agreement that they had entered in 1960; and on 7 September 1965, UP filed a complaint against ALUMCO, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 9435 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City), for the collection or payment of the herein before stated sums of money and alleging the facts hereinbefore specified, together with other allegations; it prayed for and obtained an order, dated 30 September 1965, for preliminary attachment and preliminary injunction restraining ALUMCO from continuing its logging operations in the Land Grant. That before the issuance of the aforesaid preliminary injunction UP had taken steps to have another concessionaire take over the logging operation, by advertising an invitation to bid; that bidding was conducted, and the concession was awarded to Sta. Clara Lumber Company, Inc.; the logging contract was signed on 16 February 1966. That, meantime, ALUMCO had filed several motions to discharge the writs of attachment and preliminary injunction but were denied by the court; That on 12 November 1965, ALUMCO filed a petition to enjoin petitioner University from conducting the bidding; on 27 November 1965, it filed a second petition for preliminary injunction; and, on 25 February 1966, respondent judge issued the first of the questioned orders, enjoining UP from awarding logging rights over the concession to any other party. That UP received the order of 25 February 1966 after it had concluded its contract with Sta. Clara Lumber Company, Inc., and said company had started logging operations. That, on motion dated 12 April 1966 by ALUMCO and one Jose Rico, the court, in an order dated 14 January 1967, declared petitioner UP in contempt of court and, in the same order, directed Sta. Clara Lumber Company, Inc., to refrain from exercising logging rights or conducting logging operations in the concession. The UP moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid order, but the motion was denied on 12 December 1967. Except that it denied knowledge of the purpose of the Land Grant, which purpose, anyway, is embodied in Act 3608 and, therefore, conclusively known, respondent ALUMCO did not deny the foregoing allegations in the petition. In its answer, respondent corrected itself by stating that the period of the logging agreement is five (5) years - not seven (7) years, as it had alleged in its second amended answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 9435. It reiterated, however, its defenses in the court below, which maybe boiled down to: blaming its former general manager, Cesar Guy, in not turning over management of ALUMCO, thereby rendering it unable to pay the sum of P219,382.94;

REYES, J.B.L., J.: Three (3) orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City), issued in its Civil Case No. 9435, are sought to be annulled in this petition for certiorari and prohibition, filed by herein petitioner University of the Philippines (or UP) against the above-named respondent judge and the Associated Lumber Manufacturing Company, Inc. (or ALUMCO). The first order, dated 25 February 1966, enjoined UP from awarding logging rights over its timber concession (or Land Grant), situated at the Lubayat areas in the provinces of Laguna and Quezon; the second order, dated 14 January 1967, adjudged UP in contempt of court, and directed Sta. Clara Lumber Company, Inc. to refrain from exercising logging rights or conducting logging operations on the concession; and the third order, dated 12 December 1967, denied reconsideration of the order of contempt. As prayed for in the petition, a writ of preliminary injunction against the enforcement or implementation of the three (3) questioned orders was issued by this Court, per its resolution on 9 February 1968. The petition alleged the following: That the above-mentioned Land Grant was segregated from the public domain and given as an endowment to UP, an institution of higher learning, to be operated and developed for the purpose of raising additional income for its support, pursuant to Act 3608; That on or about 2 November 1960, UP and ALUMCO entered into a logging agreement under which the latter was granted exclusive authority, for a period starting from the date of the agreement to 31 December 1965, extendible for a further period of five (5) years by mutual agreement, to cut, collect and remove timber from the Land Grant, in consideration of payment to UP of royalties, forest fees, etc.; that ALUMCO cut and removed timber therefrom but, as of 8 December 1964, it had incurred an unpaid account of P219,362.94, which, despite repeated demands, it had failed to pay; that after it had received notice that UP would rescind or terminate the logging agreement, ALUMCO executed an instrument, entitled "Acknowledgment of Debt and Proposed Manner of Payments," dated 9 December 1964, which was approved by the president of UP, and which stipulated the following: 3. In the event that the payments called for in Nos. 1 and 2 of this paragraph are not sufficient to liquidate the foregoing indebtedness of the DEBTOR in favor of the CREDITOR, the balance outstanding after the said payments have been applied shall be paid by the DEBTOR in full no later than June 30, 1965; xxx xxx xxx

13
that it failed to pursue the manner of payments, as stipulated in the "Acknowledgment of Debt and Proposed Manner of Payments" because the logs that it had cut turned out to be rotten and could not be sold to Sta. Clara Lumber Company, Inc., under its contract "to buy and sell" with said firm, and which contract was referred and annexed to the "Acknowledgment of Debt and Proposed Manner of Payments"; that UP's unilateral rescission of the logging contract, without a court order, was invalid; that petitioner's supervisor refused to allow respondent to cut new logs unless the logs previously cut during the management of Cesar Guy be first sold; that respondent was permitted to cut logs in the middle of June 1965 but petitioner's supervisor stopped all logging operations on 15 July 1965; that it had made several offers to petitioner for respondent to resume logging operations but respondent received no reply. The basic issue in this case is whether petitioner U.P. can treat its contract with ALUMCO rescinded, and may disregard the same before any judicial pronouncement to that effect. Respondent ALUMCO contended, and the lower court, in issuing the injunction order of 25 February 1966, apparently sustained it (although the order expresses no specific findings in this regard), that it is only after a final court decree declaring the contract rescinded for violation of its terms that U.P. could disregard ALUMCO's rights under the contract and treat the agreement as breached and of no force or effect. We find that position untenable. In the first place, UP and ALUMCO had expressly stipulated in the "Acknowledgment of Debt and Proposed Manner of Payments" that, upon default by the debtor ALUMCO, the creditor (UP) has "the right and the power to consider, the Logging Agreement dated 2 December 1960 as rescinded without the necessity of any judicial suit." As to such special stipulation, and in connection with Article 1191 of the Civil Code, this Court stated in Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., et al., L-11897, 31 October 1964, 12 SCRA 276: there is nothing in the law that prohibits the parties from entering into agreement that violation of the terms of the contract would cause cancellation thereof, even without court intervention. In other words, it is not always necessary for the injured party to resort to court for rescission of the contract. Of course, it must be understood that the act of party in treating a contract as cancelled or resolved on account of infractions by the other contracting party must be made known to the other and is always provisional, being ever subject to scrutiny and review by the proper court. If the other party denies that rescission is justified, it is free to resort to judicial action in its own behalf, and bring the matter to court. Then, should the court, after due hearing, decide that the resolution of the contract was not warranted, the responsible party will be sentenced to damages; in the contrary case, the resolution will be affirmed, and the consequent indemnity awarded to the party prejudiced. In other words, the party who deems the contract violated may consider it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous court action, but it proceeds at its own risk. For it is only the final judgment of the corresponding court that will conclusively and finally settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law. But the law definitely does not require that the contracting party who believes itself injured must first file suit and wait for a judgment before taking extrajudicial steps to protect its interest. Otherwise, the party injured by the other's breach will have to passively sit and watch its damages accumulate during the pendency of the suit until the final judgment of rescission is rendered when the law itself requires that he should exercise due diligence to minimize its own damages (Civil Code, Article 2203). We see no conflict between this ruling and the previous jurisprudence of this Court invoked by respondent declaring that judicial action is necessary for the resolution of a reciprocal obligation, 1 since in every case where the extrajudicial resolution is contested only the final award of the court of competent jurisdiction can conclusively settle whether the resolution was proper or not. It is in this sense that judicial action will be necessary, as without it, the extrajudicial resolution will remain contestable and subject to judicial invalidation, unless attack thereon should become barred by acquiescence, estoppel or prescription. Fears have been expressed that a stipulation providing for a unilateral rescission in case of breach of contract may render nugatory the general rule requiring judicial action (v. Footnote, Padilla, Civil Law, Civil Code Anno., 1967 ed. Vol. IV, page 140) but, as already observed, in case of abuse or error by the rescinder the other party is not barred from questioning in court such abuse or error, the practical effect of the stipulation being merely to transfer to the defaulter the initiative of instituting suit, instead of the rescinder. In fact, even without express provision conferring the power of cancellation upon one contracting party, the Supreme Court of Spain, in construing the effect of Article 1124 of the Spanish Civil Code (of which Article 1191 of our own Civil; Code is practically a reproduction), has repeatedly held that, a resolution of reciprocal or synallagmatic contracts may be made extrajudicially unless successfully impugned in court. El articulo 1124 del Codigo Civil establece la facultad de resolver las obligaciones reciprocas para el caso de que uno de los obligados no cumpliese lo que le incumbe, facultad que, segun jurisprudencia de este Tribunal, surge immediatamente despuesque la otra parte incumplio su deber, sin necesidad de una declaracion previa de los Tribunales. (Sent. of the Tr. Sup. of Spain, of 10 April 1929; 106 Jur. Civ. 897). Segun reiterada doctrina de esta Sala, el Art. 1124 regula la resolucioncomo una "facultad" atribuida a la parte perjudicada por el incumplimiento del contrato, la cual tiene derecho do opcion entre exigir el cumplimientoo la resolucion de lo convenido, que puede ejercitarse, ya en la via judicial, ya fuera de ella, por declaracion del acreedor, a reserva, claro es, que si la declaracion de resolucion hecha por una de las partes se impugna por la otra, queda aquella sometida el examen y sancion de los Tribunale, que habran de declarar, en definitiva, bien hecha la resolucion o por el contrario, no ajustada a Derecho. (Sent. TS of Spain, 16 November 1956; Jurisp. Aranzadi, 3, 447). La resolucion de los contratos sinalagmaticos, fundada en el incumplimiento por una de las partes de su respectiva prestacion, puedetener lugar con eficacia" 1. o Por la declaracion de voluntad de la otra hecha extraprocesalmente, si no es impugnada en juicio luego con exito. y 2. 0 Por la demanda de la perjudicada, cuando no opta por el cumplimientocon la indemnizacion de danos y perjuicios realmente causados, siempre quese acredite, ademas, una actitud o conducta persistente y rebelde de laadversa o la satisfaccion de lo pactado, a un hecho obstativo que de un modoabsoluto, definitivo o irreformable lo impida, segun el art. 1.124, interpretado por la jurisprudencia de esta Sala, contenida en las Ss. de 12 mayo 1955 y 16 Nov. 1956, entre otras, inspiradas por el principio del Derecho intermedio, recogido del Canonico, por el cual fragenti fidem, fides non est servanda. (Ss. de 4 Nov. 1958 y 22 Jun. 1959.) (Emphasis supplied). In the light of the foregoing principles, and considering that the complaint of petitioner University made out a prima facie case of breach of contract and defaults in payment by respondent ALUMCO, to the

14
extent that the court below issued a writ of preliminary injunction stopping ALUMCO's logging operations, and repeatedly denied its motions to lift the injunction; that it is not denied that the respondent company had profited from its operations previous to the agreement of 5 December 1964 ("Acknowledgment of Debt and Proposed Manner of Payment"); that the excuses offered in the second amended answer, such as the misconduct of its former manager Cesar Guy, and the rotten condition of the logs in private respondent's pond, which said respondent was in a better position to know when it executed the acknowledgment of indebtedness, do not constitute on their face sufficient excuse for non-payment; and considering that whatever prejudice may be suffered by respondent ALUMCO is susceptibility of compensation in damages, it becomes plain that the acts of the court a quo in enjoining petitioner's measures to protect its interest without first receiving evidence on the issues tendered by the parties, and in subsequently refusing to dissolve the injunction, were in grave abuse of discretion, correctible by certiorari, since appeal was not available or adequate. Such injunction, therefore, must be set aside. For the reason that the order finding the petitioner UP in contempt of court has open appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the case is pending therein, this Court abstains from making any pronouncement thereon. WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari applied for is granted, and the order of the respondent court of 25 February 1966, granting the Associated Lumber Company's petition for injunction, is hereby set aside. Let the records be remanded for further proceedings conformably to this opinion.

15
G.R. No. L-29360 January 30, 1982 JOSE C. ZULUETA, petitioner, vs. HON. HERMINIO MARIANO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch X of the Court of First Instance of Rizal; and LAMBERTO AVELLANA, respondents. respondent 1) to vacate the premises; 2) to pay petitioner the sum of P11,751.30 representing respondent's balance owing as of May, 1966; 3) to pay petitioner the sum of P 630.00 every month after May, 1966, and costs. Respondent controverted by contending that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the nature of the action as it involved the interpretation and/or rescission of the contract; that prior to the execution of the contract to sell, petitioner was already indebted to him in the sum of P31,269.00 representing the cost of two movies respondent made for petitioner and used by the latter in his political campaign in 1964 when petitioner ran for Congressman, as well as the cost of one 16 millimeter projector petitioner borrowed from respondent and which had never been returned, which amounts, according to their understanding, would be applied as down payment for the property and to whatever obligations respondent had with petitioner. The latter strongly denied such an understanding. Respondent's total counterclaim against petitioner was in the amount of P42,629.99 representing petitioner's pleaded indebtedness to private respondent, claim for moral damages, and attorney's fees. The counterclaim was dismissed by the Municipal Court for being in an amount beyond its jurisdiction. However, as a special defense, private respondent sought to offset the sum of P31,269.00 against his obligations to petitioner. Deciding the case on May 10, 1967, the Municipal Court found that respondent Avellana had failed to comply with his financial obligations under the contract and ordered him to vacate the premises and deliver possession thereof to petitioner; to pay petitioner the sum of P21,093.88 representing arrearages as of April, 1967, and P630.00 as monthly rental from and after May, 1967 until delivery of possession of that premises to petitioner. That conclusion was premised on title finding that breach of any of the conditions by private respondent converted the agreement into a lease contractual and upon the following considerations: The question involved herein is that of possession, that who of the contending parties has the better right to possession of the properly in question. The issue in this case being that of possession, the claim of defendant against plaintiff or P 31,269.00 indebtedness, has no place as a defense here. It should be the subject- matter of a separate action against, plaintiff Jose C. Zulueta. As it is, said indebtedness is only a claim still debatable and controversial and not a final judgment. 'It is our considered opinion that to admit and to allow such a defense would be tantamount to prejuding the claim on its merits prematurely in favor of defendant. This court can not do without violating some rules of law. This is not the proper court and this is not the proper case in which to ventilate the claim. Respondent Avellana appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal presided by respondent Judge. Thereat, petitioner summoned for execution alleging private respondent's failure to deposit in accordance the monthly rentals, which the latter denied. Respondent Judge held resolution thereof in abeyance. On February 19, 1968, respondent Avellana filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal alleging that, inasmuch as the defense set up in his Answer was that he had not breached his contract with petitioner, the case necessarily involved the interpretation and/or rescission of the contract and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. Petitioner opposed claiming that the Complaint had set out a clear case of unlawful detainer considering that judicial action for the rescission of the contract was unnecessary due to the automatic rescission clause

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: In this action for mandamus and Prohibition, petitioner seeks to compel respondent Judge to assume appellate, not original jurisdiction over an Ejectment case appealed from the Municipal Court of Pasig (CC No. 1190 entitled Jose C. Zulueta vs. Lamberto Avellana), and to issue a Writ of Execution in said case. The antecedental facts follow: Petitioner Jose C. Zulueta is the registered owner of a residential house and lot situated within the Antonio Subdivision, Pasig, Rizal. On November 6, 1964, petitioner Zulueta and private respondent Lamberto Avellana, a movie director, entered into a "Contract to Sell" the aforementioned property for P75,000.00 payable in twenty years with respondent buyer assuming to pay a down payment of P5,000.00 and a monthly installment of P630.00 payable in advance before the 5th day of the corresponding month, starting with December, 1964. It was further stipulated: 12) That upon failure of the BUYER to fulfill any of the conditions herein stipulated, BUYER automatically and irrevocably authorizes OWNER to recover extra-judicially, physical possession of the land, building and other improvements which are the subject of this contract, and to take possession also extra-judicially whatever personal properties may be found within the aforesaid premises from the date of said failure to answer for whatever unfulfilled monetary obligations BUYER may have with OWNER; and this contract shall be considered as without force and effect also from said date; all payments made by the BUYER to OWNER shall be deemed as rental payments without prejudice to OWNER's right to collect from BUYER whatever other monthly installments and other money obligations which may have been paid until BUYER vacates the aforesaid premises; upon his failure to comply with any of the herein conditions BUYER forfeits all money claims against OWNER and shall pay a monthly rental equivalent to his monthly installment under Condition 1 of this Contract from the date of the said failure to the date of recovery of physical possession by OWNER of the land, building and other improvements which are the subject of this Contract; BUYER shall not remove his personal properties without the previous written consent of OWNER, who, should he take possession of such properties following the aforesaid failure of BUYER, shall return the same to BUYER only after the latter shall have fulfilled all money claims against him by OWNER; in all cases herein, demand is waived; Respondent Avellana occupied the property from December, 1964, but title remained with petitioner Zulueta. Upon the allegation that respondent Avellana had failed to comply with the monthly amortizations stipulated in the contract, despite demands to pay and to vacate the premises, and that thereby the contract was converted into one of lease, petitioner, on June 22, 1966, commenced an Ejectment suit against respondent before the Municipal Court of Pasig (CC No. 1190), praying that judgment be rendered ordering

16
therein and the fact that petitioner had cancelled said contract so that respondent's right to remain in the premises had ceased. On March 21, 1968, respondent Judge dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, explaining: The decision of the lower court declared said Contract to Sell to have been converted into a contract of lease. It is the contention of the defendant that the lower court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case as the same involves the interpretation of contract as to whether or not the same has been converted to lease contract. Although the contract to sell object of this case states that the same may be converted into a lease contract upon the failure of the defendant to pay the amortization of the property in question, there is no showing that before filing this case in the lower court, the plaintiff has exercised or has pursued his right pursuant to the contract which should be the basis of the action in the lower court. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by respondent Judge as follows: The plaintiff having filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order dismissing the appeal, the Court, while standing pat on its Order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction of the lower court over the subject matter, hereby takes cognizance of the case and will try the case as if it has been filed originally in this Court. WHEREFORE, let this case be set for pre-trial on July 12, 1968 at 8:30 a.m. with notice to an parties. Petitioner then availed of the instant recourse. Was the action before the Municipal Court of Pasig essentially for detainer and, therefore, within its exclusive original jurisdiction, or one for rescission or annulment of a contract, which should be litigated before a Court of First Instance? Upon a review of the attendant circumstances, we uphold the ruling of respondent Judge that the Municipal Court of Pasig was bereft of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case filed before it. In his Complaint, petitioner had alleged violation by respondent Avellana of the stipulations of their agreement to sell and thus unilaterally considered the contract rescinded. Respondent Avellana denied any breach on his part and argued that the principal issue was one of interpretation and/or rescission of the contract as well as of set-off. Under those circumstances, proof of violation is a condition precedent to resolution or rescission. It is only when the violation has been established that the contract can be declared resolved or rescinded. Upon such rescission, in turn, hinges a pronouncement that possession of the realty has become unlawful. Thus, the basic issue is not possession but one of rescission or annulment of a contract. which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court to hear and determine. A violation by a party of any of the stipulations of a contract on agreement to sell real property would entitle the other party to resolved or rescind it. An allegation of such violation in a detainer suit may be proved by competent evidence. And if proved a justice of the peace court might make a finding to that effect, but it certainly cannot declare and hold that the contract is resolved or rescinded. It is beyond its power so to do. And as the illegality of the possession of realty by a party to a contract to sell is premised upon the resolution of the contract, it follows that an allegation and proof of such violation, a condition precedent to such resolution or rescission, to render unlawful the possession of the land or building erected thereon by the party who has violated the contract, cannot be taken cognizance of by a justice of the peace court. ... 1 True, the contract between the parties provided for extrajudicial rescission. This has legal effect, however, where the other party does not oppose it. 2 Where it is objected to, a judicial determination of the issue is still necessary. A stipulation entitling one party to take possession of the land and building if the other party violates the contract does not ex proprio vigore confer upon the former the right to take possession thereof if objected to without judicial intervention and' determination. 3 But while respondent Judge correctly ruled that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the case and correctly dismissed the appeal, he erred in assuming original jurisdiction, in the face of the objection interposed by petitioner. Section 11, Rule 40, leaves no room for doubt on this point: Section 11. Lack of jurisdiction A case tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismiss on appeal by the Court of First Instance. But instead of dismissing the case, the Court of First Instance may try the case on the merits, if the parties therein file their pleadings and go to trial without any objection to such jurisdiction. There was no other recourse left for respondent Judge, therefore, except to dismiss the appeal. If an inferior court tries a case without jurisdiction over the subjectmatter on appeal, the only authority of the CFI is to declare the inferior court to have acted without jurisdiction and dismiss the case, unless the parties agree to the exercise by the CFI of its original jurisdiction to try the case on the merits. 4 The foregoing premises considered, petitioner's prayer for a Writ of Execution of the judgment of the Municipal Court of Pasig must perforce be denied. WHEREFORE, the Writ of mandamus is denied, but the Writ of Prohibition is granted and respondent Court hereby permanently enjoined from taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 10595 in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. No costs. SO ORDERED.

17
G.R. No. L-56076 September 21, 1983 PALAY, INC. and ALBERT ONSTOTT, petitioner, vs. JACOBO C. CLAVE, Presidential Executive Assistant NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY and NAZARIO DUMPIT respondents. Santos, Calcetas-Santos & Geronimo Law Office for petitioner. Wilfredo E. Dizon for private respondent. denied for lack of merit. Thus, the present petition wherein the following issues are raised: I Whether notice or demand is not mandatory under the circumstances and, therefore, may be dispensed with by stipulation in a contract to sell. II Whether petitioners may be held liable for the refund of the installment payments made by respondent Nazario M. Dumpit. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: III The Resolution, dated May 2, 1980, issued by Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo Clave in O.P. Case No. 1459, directing petitioners Palay, Inc. and Alberto Onstott jointly and severally, to refund to private respondent, Nazario Dumpit, the amount of P13,722.50 with 12% interest per annum, as resolved by the National Housing Authority in its Resolution of July 10, 1979 in Case No. 2167, as well as the Resolution of October 28, 1980 denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of said Resolution of May 2, 1980, are being assailed in this petition. On March 28, 1965, petitioner Palay, Inc., through its President, Albert Onstott executed in favor of private respondent, Nazario Dumpit, a Contract to Sell a parcel of Land (Lot No. 8, Block IV) of the Crestview Heights Subdivision in Antipolo, Rizal, with an area of 1,165 square meters, - covered by TCT No. 90454, and owned by said corporation. The sale price was P23,300.00 with 9% interest per annum, payable with a downpayment of P4,660.00 and monthly installments of P246.42 until fully paid. Paragraph 6 of the contract provided for automatic extrajudicial rescission upon default in payment of any monthly installment after the lapse of 90 days from the expiration of the grace period of one month, without need of notice and with forfeiture of all installments paid. Respondent Dumpit paid the downpayment and several installments amounting to P13,722.50. The last payment was made on December 5, 1967 for installments up to September 1967. On May 10, 1973, or almost six (6) years later, private respondent wrote petitioner offering to update all his overdue accounts with interest, and seeking its written consent to the assignment of his rights to a certain Lourdes Dizon. He followed this up with another letter dated June 20, 1973 reiterating the same request. Replying petitioners informed respondent that his Contract to Sell had long been rescinded pursuant to paragraph 6 of the contract, and that the lot had already been resold. Questioning the validity of the rescission of the contract, respondent filed a letter complaint with the National Housing Authority (NHA) for reconveyance with an altenative prayer for refund (Case No. 2167). In a Resolution, dated July 10, 1979, the NHA, finding the rescission void in the absence of either judicial or notarial demand, ordered Palay, Inc. and Alberto Onstott in his capacity as President of the corporation, jointly and severally, to refund immediately to Nazario Dumpit the amount of P13,722.50 with 12% interest from the filing of the complaint on November 8, 1974. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of said Resolution was denied by the NHA in its Order dated October 23, 1979. 1 On appeal to the Office of the President, upon the allegation that the NHA Resolution was contrary to law (O.P. Case No. 1459), respondent Presidential Executive Assistant, on May 2, 1980, affirmed the Resolution of the NHA. Reconsideration sought by petitioners was Whether the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction has application to the case at bar. IV Whether respondent Presidential Executive Assistant committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the decision of respondent NHA holding petitioners solidarily liable for the refund of the installment payments made by respondent Nazario M. Dumpit thereby denying substantial justice to the petitioners, particularly petitioner Onstott We issued a Temporary Restraining Order on Feb 11, 1981 enjoining the enforcement of the questioned Resolutions and of the Writ of Execution that had been issued on December 2, 1980. On October 28, 1981, we dismissed the petition but upon petitioners' motion, reconsidered the dismissal and gave due course to the petition on March 15, 1982. On the first issue, petitioners maintain that it was justified in cancelling the contract to sell without prior notice or demand upon respondent in view of paragraph 6 thereof which provides6. That in case the BUYER falls to satisfy any monthly installment or any other payments herein agreed upon, the BUYER shall be granted a month of grace within which to make the payment of the t in arrears together with the one corresponding to the said month of grace. -It shall be understood, however, that should the month of grace herein granted to the BUYER expire, without the payment & corresponding to both months having been satisfied, an interest of ten (10%) per cent per annum shall be charged on the amounts the BUYER should have paid; it is understood further, that should a period of NINETY (90) DAYS elapse to begin from the expiration of the month of grace hereinbefore mentioned, and the BUYER shall not have paid all the amounts that the BUYER should have paid with the corresponding interest up to the date, the SELLER shall have the right to declare this contract cancelled and of no effect without notice, and as a consequence thereof, the SELLER may dispose of the lot/lots covered by this Contract in favor of other persons, as if this contract had never been entered into. In case of such cancellation of this Contract, all the amounts which may have been paid by the BUYER in accordance with the agreement, together with all the improvements made on the premises, shall be considered as rents paid for the use and occupation of the above mentioned premises and for liquidated damages suffered by virtue of the failure of the BUYER to fulfill his part of this agreement : and the BUYER hereby renounces his right to demand or reclaim the return of the same and further obligates peacefully to vacate the premises and deliver the same to the SELLER. Well settled is the rule, as held in previous jurisprudence, 2 that judicial action for the rescission of a contract is not necessary where the contract provides that it may be revoked and cancelled for violation of

18
any of its terms and conditions. However, even in the cited cases, there was at least a written notice sent to the defaulter informing him of the rescission. As stressed in University of the Philippines vs. Walfrido de los Angeles 3 the act of a party in treating a contract as cancelled should be made known to the other. We quote the pertinent excerpt: Of course, it must be understood that the act of a party in treating a contract as cancelled or resolved in account of infractions by the other contracting party must be made known to the other and is always provisional being ever subject to scrutiny and review by the proper court. If the other party denies that rescission is justified it is free to resort to judicial action in its own behalf, and bring the matter to court. Then, should the court, after due hearing, decide that the resolution of the contract was not warranted, the responsible party will be sentenced to damages; in the contrary case, the resolution will be affirmed, and the consequent indemnity awarded to the party prejudiced. In other words, the party who deems the contract violated may consider it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous court action, but it proceeds at its own risk. For it is only the final judgment of the corresponding court that will conclusively and finally settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law. But the law definitely does not require that the contracting party who believes itself injured must first file suit and wait for a judgment before taking extrajudicial steps to protect its interest. Otherwise, the party injured by the other's breach will have to passively sit and watch its damages accumulate during the pendency of the suit until the final judgment of rescission is rendered when the law itself requires that he should exercise due diligence to minimize its own damages (Civil Code, Article 2203). We see no conflict between this ruling and the previous jurisprudence of this Court invoked by respondent declaring that judicial action is necessary for the resolution of a reciprocal obligation (Ocejo Perez & Co., vs. International Banking Corp., 37 Phil. 631; Republic vs. Hospital de San Juan De Dios, et al., 84 Phil 820) since in every case where the extrajudicial resolution is contested only the final award of the court of competent jurisdiction can conclusively settle whether the resolution was proper or not. It is in this sense that judicial action win be necessary, as without it, the extrajudicial resolution will remain contestable and subject to judicial invalidation unless attack thereon should become barred by acquiescense, estoppel or prescription. Fears have been expressed that a stipulation providing for a unilateral rescission in case of breach of contract may render nugatory the general rule requiring judicial action (v. Footnote, Padilla Civil Law, Civil Code Anno., 1967 ed. Vol. IV, page 140) but, as already observed, in case of abuse or error by the rescinder the other party is not barred from questioning in court such abuse or error, the practical effect of the stipulation being merely to transfer to the defaulter the initiative of instituting suit, instead of the rescinder (Emphasis supplied). Of similar import is the ruling in Nera vs. Vacante 4, reading: A stipulation entitling one party to take possession of the land and building if the other party violates the contract does not ex propio vigore confer upon the former the right to take possession thereof if objected to without judicial intervention and determination. This was reiterated in Zulueta vs. Mariano 5 where we held that extrajudicial rescission has legal effect where the other party does not oppose it. 6 Where it is objected to, a judicial determination of the issue is still necessary. In other words, resolution of reciprocal contracts may be made extrajudicially unless successfully impugned in Court. If the debtor impugns the declaration, it shall be subject to judicial determination. 7 In this case, private respondent has denied that rescission is justified and has resorted to judicial action. It is now for the Court to determine whether resolution of the contract by petitioners was warranted. We hold that resolution by petitioners of the contract was ineffective and inoperative against private respondent for lack of notice of resolution, as held in the U.P. vs. Angeles case, supra Petitioner relies on Torralba vs. De los Angeles 8 where it was held that "there was no contract to rescind in court because from the moment the petitioner defaulted in the timely payment of the installments, the contract between the parties was deemed ipso facto rescinded." However, it should be noted that even in that case notice in writing was made to the vendee of the cancellation and annulment of the contract although the contract entitled the seller to immediate repossessing of the land upon default by the buyer. The indispensability of notice of cancellation to the buyer was to be later underscored in Republic Act No. 6551 entitled "An Act to Provide Protection to Buyers of Real Estate on Installment Payments." which took effect on September 14, 1972, when it specifically provided: Sec. 3(b) ... the actual cancellation of the contract shall take place after thirty days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the contract by a notarial act and upon full payment of the cash surrender value to the buyer. (Emphasis supplied). The contention that private respondent had waived his right to be notified under paragraph 6 of the contract is neither meritorious because it was a contract of adhesion, a standard form of petitioner corporation, and private respondent had no freedom to stipulate. A waiver must be certain and unequivocal, and intelligently made; such waiver follows only where liberty of choice has been fully accorded. 9 Moreover, it is a matter of public policy to protect buyers of real estate on installment payments against onerous and oppressive conditions. Waiver of notice is one such onerous and oppressive condition to buyers of real estate on installment payments. Regarding the second issue on refund of the installment payments made by private respondent. Article 1385 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1385. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. Neither sham rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith. In this case, indemnity for damages may be demanded from the person causing the loss. As a consequence of the resolution by petitioners, rights to the lot should be restored to private respondent or the same should be replaced by another acceptable lot. However, considering that the property had already been sold to a third person and there is no evidence on record that other lots are still available, private respondent is entitled to the refund of installments paid plus interest at the legal rate of 12% computed from the date of the institution of the action. 10 It would be most inequitable if petitioners were to be allowed to retain

19
private respondent's payments and at the same time appropriate the proceeds of the second sale to another. We come now to the third and fourth issues regarding the personal liability of petitioner Onstott who was made jointly and severally liable with petitioner corporation for refund to private respondent of the total amount the latter had paid to petitioner company. It is basic that a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it as wen as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related. 11 As a general rule, a corporation may not be made to answer for acts or liabilities of its stockholders or those of the legal entities to which it may be connected and vice versa. However, the veil of corporate fiction may be pierced when it is used as a shield to further an end subversive of justice 12 ; or for purposes that could not have been intended by the law that created it 13 ; or to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. 14 ; or to perpetuate fraud or confuse legitimate issues 15 ; or to circumvent the law or perpetuate deception 16 ; or as an alter ego, adjunct or business conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders. 17 We find no badges of fraud on petitioners' part. They had literally relied, albeit mistakenly, on paragraph 6 (supra) of its contract with private respondent when it rescinded the contract to sell extrajudicially and had sold it to a third person. In this case, petitioner Onstott was made liable because he was then the President of the corporation and he a to be the controlling stockholder. No sufficient proof exists on record that said petitioner used the corporation to defraud private respondent. He cannot, therefore, be made personally liable just because he "appears to be the controlling stockholder". Mere ownership by a single stockholder or by another corporation is not of itself sufficient ground for disregarding the separate corporate personality. 18 In this respect then, a modification of the Resolution under review is called for. WHEREFORE, the questioned Resolution of respondent public official, dated May 2, 1980, is hereby modified. Petitioner Palay, Inc. is directed to refund to respondent Nazario M. Dumpit the amount of P13,722.50, with interest at twelve (12%) percent per annum from November 8, 1974, the date of the filing of the Complaint. The temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby lifted. No costs.

20
G.R. No. L-42283 March 18, 1985 BUENAVENTURA ANGELES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. URSULA TORRES CALASANZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants. pay the sum of P500.00 by way of attorney's fees. Costs against the defendants. A motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants-appellants was denied. As earlier stated, the then Court of Appeals certified the case to us considering that the appeal involves pure questions of law. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Seventh Judicial District, Branch X, declaring the contract to sell as not having been validly cancelled and ordering the defendants-appellants to execute a final deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees, to pay P500.00 attorney's fees and costs. The facts being undisputed, the Court of Appeals certified the case to us since only pure questions of law have been raised for appellate review. On December 19, 1957, defendants-appellants Ursula Torres Calasanz and Tomas Calasanz and plaintiffs-appellees Buenaventura Angeles and Teofila Juani entered into a contract to sell a piece of land located in Cainta, Rizal for the amount of P3,920.00 plus 7% interest per annum. The plaintiffs-appellees made a downpayment of P392.00 upon the execution of the contract. They promised to pay the balance in monthly installments of P 41.20 until fully paid, the installments being due and payable on the 19th day of each month. The plaintiffs-appellees paid the monthly installments until July 1966, when their aggregate payment already amounted to P4,533.38. On numerous occasions, the defendants-appellants accepted and received delayed installment payments from the plaintiffs-appellees. On December 7, 1966, the defendants-appellants wrote the plaintiffsappellees a letter requesting the remittance of past due accounts. On January 28, 1967, the defendants-appellants cancelled the said contract because the plaintiffs-appellees failed to meet subsequent payments. The plaintiffs' letter with their plea for reconsideration of the said cancellation was denied by the defendants-appellants. The plaintiffs-appellees filed Civil Case No. 8943 with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Seventh Judicial District, Branch X to compel the defendants-appellants to execute in their favor the final deed of sale alleging inter alia that after computing all subsequent payments for the land in question, they found out that they have already paid the total amount of P4,533.38 including interests, realty taxes and incidental expenses for the registration and transfer of the land. The defendants-appellants alleged in their answer that the complaint states no cause of action and that the plaintiffs-appellees violated paragraph six (6) of the contract to sell when they failed and refused to pay and/or offer to pay the monthly installments corresponding to the month of August, 1966 for more than five (5) months, thereby constraining the defendants-appellants to cancel the said contract. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring that the contract subject matter of the instant case was NOT VALIDLY cancelled by the defendants. Consequently, the defendants are ordered to execute a final Deed of Sale in favor of the plaintiffs and to The defendants-appellants assigned the following alleged errors of the lower court: First Assignment of Error THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE CONTRACT TO SELL (ANNEX "A" OF COMPLIANCE) AS HAVING BEEN LEGALLY AND VALIDLY CANCELLED. Second Assignment of Error EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE SAID CONTRACT TO SELL HAS NOT BEEN LEGALLY AND VALIDLY CANCELLED, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO EXECUTE A FINAL DEED OF SALE IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF. Third Assignment of Error THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO PAY PLAINTIFFS THE SUM OF P500.00 AS ATTORNEY'S FEES. The main issue to be resolved is whether or not the contract to sell has been automatically and validly cancelled by the defendants-appellants. The defendants-appellants submit that the contract was validly cancelled pursuant to paragraph six of the contract which provides: xxx xxx xxx SIXTH.In case the party of the SECOND PART fails to satisfy any monthly installments, or any other payments herein agreed upon, he is granted a month of grace within which to make the retarded payment, together with the one corresponding to the said month of grace; it is understood, however, that should the month of grace herein granted to the party of the SECOND PART expired; without the payments corresponding to both months having been satisfied, an interest of 10% per annum will be charged on the amounts he should have paid; it is understood further, that should a period of 90 days elapse, to begin from the expiration of the month of grace herein mentioned, and the party of SECOND PART has not paid all the amounts he should have paid with the corresponding interest up to that date, the party of the FIRST PART has the right to declare this contract cancelled and of no effect, and as consequence thereof, the party of the FIRST PART may dispose of the parcel of land covered by this contract in favor of other persons, as if this contract had never been entered into. In case of such cancellation of the contract, all the amounts paid in accordance with this agreement together with all the improvements made on the premises, shall be considered as rents paid for the use and occupation of the above mentioned premises, and as payment for the damages suffered by failure of the party of the SECOND PART to fulfill his part of the agreement; and the party of the SECOND PART hereby renounces all his right to demand or reclaim the return of the same and obliges himself to peacefully vacate the premises and deliver the same to the party of the FIRST PART. (Emphasis supplied by appellant) xxx xxx xxx

21
The defendants-appellants argue that the plaintiffs-appellees failed to pay the August, 1966 installment despite demands for more than four (4) months. The defendants-appellants point to Jocson v. Capitol Subdivision (G.R. No. L-6573, February 28, 1955) where this Court upheld the right of the subdivision owner to automatically cancel a contract to sell on the strength of a provision or stipulation similar to paragraph 6 of the contract in this case. The defendants-appellants also argue that even in the absence of the aforequoted provision, they had the right to cancel the contract to sell under Article 1191 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The plaintiffs-appellees on the other hand contend that the Jocson ruling does not apply. They state that paragraph 6 of the contract to sell is contrary to law insofar as it provides that in case of specified breaches of its terms, the sellers have the right to declare the contract cancelled and of no effect, because it granted the sellers an absolute and automatic right of rescission. Article 1191 of the Civil Code on the rescission of reciprocal obligations provides: The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. xxx xxx xxx Article 1191 is explicit. In reciprocal obligations, either party the right to rescind the contract upon the failure of the other to perform the obligation assumed thereunder. Moreover, there is nothing in the law that prohibits the parties from entering into an agreement that violation of the terms of the contract would cause its cancellation even without court intervention (Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, Co., et al., 12 SCRA 276) Well settled is, however, the rule that a judicial action for the rescission of a contract is not necessary where the contract provides that it may be revoked and cancelled for violation of any of its terms and conditions' (Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 37 SCRA 327, and cases cited therein) Resort to judicial action for rescission is obviously not contemplated . . . The validity of the stipulation can not be seriously disputed. It is in the nature of a facultative resolutory condition which in many cases has been upheld by this Court. (Ponce Enrile v. Court of Appeals, 29 SCRA 504). The rule that it is not always necessary for the injured party to resort to court for rescission of the contract when the contract itself provides that it may be rescinded for violation of its terms and conditions, was qualified by this Court in University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles, (35 SCRA 102) where we explained that: Of course, it must be understood that the act of a party in treating a contract as cancelled or resolved on account of infractions by the other contracting party must be made known to the other and is always provisional, being ever subject to scrutiny and review by the proper court. If the other party denies that rescission is justified, it is free to resort to judicial action in its own behalf, and bring the matter to court. Then, should the court, after due hearing, decide that the resolution of the contract was not warranted, the responsible party will be sentenced to damages; in the contrary case, the resolution will be affirmed, and the consequent indemnity awarded to the party prejudiced. In other words, the party who deems the contract violated many consider it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous court action, but it proceeds at its own risk. For it is only the final judgment of the corresponding court that will conclusively and finally settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law. ... . We see no conflict between this ruling and the previous jurisprudence of this Court invoked by respondent declaring that judicial action is necessary for the resolution of a reciprocal obligation; (Ocejo, Perez & Co. v. International Banking Corp., 37 Phil. 631; Republic v. Hospital de San Juan de Dios, et al., 84 Phil. 820) since in every case where the extrajudicial resolution is contested only the final award of the court of competent jurisdiction can conclusively settle whether the resolution was proper or not. It is in this sense that judicial action will be necessary, as without it, the extrajudicial resolution will remain contestable and subject to judicial invalidation, unless attack thereon should become barred by acquiescence, estoppel or prescription. The right to rescind the contract for non-performance of one of its stipulations, therefore, is not absolute. In Universal Food Corp. v. Court of Appeals (33 SCRA 1) the Court stated that The general rule is that rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement. (Song Fo & Co. v. Hawaiian-Philippine Co., 47 Phil. 821, 827) The question of whether a breach of a contract is substantial depends upon the attendant circumstances. (Corpus v. Hon. Alikpala, et al., L23707 & L-23720, Jan. 17, 1968). ... . The defendants-appellants state that the plaintiffs-appellees violated Section two of the contract to sell which provides: SECOND.That in consideration of the agreement of sale of the above described property, the party of the SECOND PART obligates himself to pay to the party of the FIRST PART the Sum of THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWENTY ONLY (P3,920.00), Philippine Currency, plus interest at the rate of 7% per annum, as follows: (a) The amount of THREE HUNDRED NINETY TWO only (P392.00) when this contract is signed; and (b) The sum of FORTY ONE AND 20/100 ONLY (P4l.20) on or before the 19th day of each month, from this date until the total payment of the price above stipulated, including interest. because they failed to pay the August installment, despite demand, for more than four (4) months. The breach of the contract adverted to by the defendants-appellants is so slight and casual when we consider that apart from the initial downpayment of P392.00 the plaintiffs-appellees had already paid the monthly installments for a period of almost nine (9) years. In other words, in only a short time, the entire obligation would have been paid. Furthermore, although the principal obligation was only P 3,920.00 excluding the 7 percent interests, the plaintiffs- appellees had already paid an aggregate amount of P 4,533.38. To sanction the rescission made by the defendants-appellants will work injustice to the plaintiffsappellees. (See J.M. Tuazon and Co., Inc. v. Javier, 31 SCRA 829) It would unjustly enrich the defendants-appellants.

22
Article 1234 of the Civil Code which provides that: If the obligation has been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may recover as though there had been a strict and complete fulfillment, less damages suffered by the obligee. also militates against the unilateral act of the defendants-appellants in cancelling the contract. We agree with the observation of the lower court to the effect that: Although the primary object of selling subdivided lots is business, yet, it cannot be denied that this subdivision is likewise purposely done to afford those landless, low income group people of realizing their dream of a little parcel of land which they can really call their own. The defendants-appellants cannot rely on paragraph 9 of the contract which provides: NINTH.-That whatever consideration of the party of the FIRST PART may concede to the party of the SECOND PART, as not exacting a strict compliance with the conditions of paragraph 6 of this contract, as well as any other condonation that the party of the FIRST PART may give to the party of the SECOND PART with regards to the obligations of the latter, should not be interpreted as a renunciation on the part of the party of the FIRST PART of any right granted it by this contract, in case of default or non-compliance by the party of the SECOND PART. The defendants-appellants argue that paragraph nine clearly allows the seller to waive the observance of paragraph 6 not merely once, but for as many times as he wishes. The defendants-appellants' contention is without merit. We agree with the plaintiffs-appellees that when the defendants-appellants, instead of availing of their alleged right to rescind, have accepted and received delayed payments of installments, though the plaintiffs-appellees have been in arrears beyond the grace period mentioned in paragraph 6 of the contract, the defendants-appellants have waived and are now estopped from exercising their alleged right of rescission. In De Guzman v. Guieb (48 SCRA 68), we held that: xxx xxx xxx But defendants do not deny that in spite of the long arrearages, neither they nor their predecessor, Teodoro de Guzman, even took steps to cancel the option or to eject the appellees from the home-lot in question. On the contrary, it is admitted that the delayed payments were received without protest or qualification. ... Under these circumstances, We cannot but agree with the lower court that at the time appellees exercised their option, appellants had already forfeited their right to invoke the above-quoted provision regarding the nullifying effect of the non-payment of six months rentals by appellees by their having accepted without qualification on July 21, 1964 the full payment by appellees of all their arrearages. The defendants-appellants contend in the second assignment of error that the ledger of payments show a balance of P671,67 due from the plaintiffs-appellees. They submit that while it is true that the total monthly installments paid by the plaintiffs-appellees may have exceeded P3,920.00, a substantial portion of the said payments were applied to the interests since the contract specifically provides for a 7% interest per annum on the remaining balance. The defendantsappellants rely on paragraph 2 of the contract which provides: SECOND.That in consideration of the agreement of sale of the above described property, the party of the SECOND PART obligates himself to pay to the party of the FIRST PART the Sum of THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWENTY ONLY (P 3,920.00), Philippine Currency, plus interest at the rate of 7% per annum ... . (Emphasis supplied) The plaintiffs-appellees on the other hand are firm in their submission that since they have already paid the defendants-appellants a total sum of P4,533.38, the defendants-appellants must now be compelled to execute the final deed of sale pursuant to paragraph 12 of the contract which provides: TWELFTH.That once the payment of the sum of P3,920.00, the total price of the sale is completed, the party to the FIRST PART will execute in favor of the party of the SECOND PART, the necessary deed or deeds to transfer to the latter the title of the parcel of land sold, free from all hens and encumbrances other than those expressly provided in this contract; it is understood, however, that au the expenses which may be incurred in the said transfer of title shall be paid by the party of the SECOND PART, as above stated. Closely related to the second assignment of error is the submission of the plaintiffs-appellees that the contract herein is a contract of adhesion. We agree with the plaintiffs-appellees. The contract to sell entered into by the parties has some characteristics of a contract of adhesion. The defendants-appellants drafted and prepared the contract. The plaintiffsappellees, eager to acquire a lot upon which they could build a home, affixed their signatures and assented to the terms and conditions of the contract. They had no opportunity to question nor change any of the terms of the agreement. It was offered to them on a "take it or leave it" basis. In Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves (83 SCRA 36 1), we held that: xxx xxx xxx ... (W)hile generally, stipulations in a contract come about after deliberate drafting by the parties thereto. . . . there are certain contracts almost all the provisions of which have been drafted only by one party, usually a corporation. Such contracts are called contracts of adhesion, because the only participation of the party is the signing of his signature or his "adhesion" thereto. Insurance contracts, bills of lading, contracts of sale of lots on the installment plan fall into this category. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Seventh ed., Vol. 1, p. 80.) (Emphasis supplied) While it is true that paragraph 2 of the contract obligated the plaintiffsappellees to pay the defendants-appellants the sum of P3,920.00 plus 7% interest per annum, it is likewise true that under paragraph 12 the seller is obligated to transfer the title to the buyer upon payment of the P3,920.00 price sale. The contract to sell, being a contract of adhesion, must be construed against the party causing it. We agree with the observation of the plaintiffs-appellees to the effect that "the terms of a contract must be interpreted against the party who drafted the same, especially where such interpretation will help effect justice to buyers who, after having invested a big amount of money, are now sought to be deprived of the same thru the prayed application of a contract clever in its phraseology, condemnable in its lopsidedness and injurious in its effect which, in essence, and in its entirety is most unfair to the buyers." Thus, since the principal obligation under the contract is only P3,920.00 and the plaintiffs-appellees have already paid an aggregate amount of P4,533.38, the courts should only order the payment of the few remaining installments but not uphold the cancellation of the contract.

23
Upon payment of the balance of P671.67 without any interest thereon, the defendants-appellants must immediately execute the final deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees and execute the necessary transfer documents as provided in paragraph 12 of the contract. The attorney's fees are justified. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that the plaintiffs-appellees should pay the balance of SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE PESOS AND SIXTY-SEVEN CENTAVOS (P671.67) without any interests. Costs against the defendants-appellants.

24
G.R. No. L-22590 March 20, 1987 SOLOMON BOYSAW and ALFREDO M. YULO, JR., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. INTERPHIL PROMOTIONS, INC., LOPE SARREAL, SR., and MANUEL NIETO, JR., defendants-appellees. Felipe Torres and Associates for plaintiffs-appellants. V.E. Del Rosario & Associates for defendant-appellee M. Nieto, Jr. A.R. Naravasa & Pol Tiglao, Jr. for defendant-appellee Interphil Promotions, Inc. RESOLUTION The GAB called a series of conferences of the parties concerned culminating in the issuance of its decision to schedule the ElordeBoysaw fight for November 4, 1961. The USA National Boxing Association which has supervisory control of all world title fights approved the date set by the GAB Yulo, Jr. refused to accept the change in the fight date, maintaining his refusal even after Sarreal on September 26, 1961, offered to advance the fight date to October 28, 1961 which was within the 30-day period of allowable postponements provided in the principal boxing contract of May 1, 1961. Early in October 1961, Yulo, Jr. exchanged communications with one Mamerto Besa, a local boxing promoter, for a possible promotion of the projected Elorde-Boysaw title bout. In one of such communications dated October 6, 1961, Yulo informed Besa that he was willing to approve the fight date of November 4,1961 provided the same was promoted by Besa. While an Elorde-Boysaw fight was eventually staged, the fight contemplated in the May 1, 1961 boxing contract never materialized. As a result of the foregoing occurrences, on October 12, 1961, Boysaw and Yulo, Jr. sued Interphil, Sarreal, Sr. and Manuel Nieto, Jr. in the CFI of Rizal [Quezon City Branch] for damages allegedly occasioned by the refusal of Interphil and Sarreal, aided and abetted by Nieto, Jr., then GAB Chairman, to honor their commitments under the boxing contract of May 1,1961. On the first scheduled date of trial, plaintiff moved to disqualify Solicitor Jorge Coquia of the Solicitor General's Office and Atty. Romeo Edu of the GAB Legal Department from appearing for defendant Nieto, Jr. on the ground that the latter had been sued in his personal capacity and, therefore, was not entitled to be represented by government counsel. The motion was denied insofar as Solicitor General Coquia was concerned, but was granted as regards the disqualification of Atty. Edu. The case dragged into 1963 when sometime in the early part of said year, plaintiff Boysaw left the country without informing the court and, as alleged, his counsel. He was still abroad when, on May 13, 1963, he was scheduled to take the witness stand. Thus, the lower court reset the trial for June 20, 1963. Since Boysaw was still abroad on the later date, another postponement was granted by the lower court for July 23, 1963 upon assurance of Boysaw's counsel that should Boysaw fail to appear on said date, plaintiff's case would be deemed submitted on the evidence thus far presented. On or about July 16, 1963, plaintiffs represented by a new counsel, filed an urgent motion for postponement of the July 23, 1963 trial, pleading anew Boysaw's inability to return to the country on time. The motion On September 1, 1961, J. Amado Araneta assigned to Alfredo J. Yulo, Jr. the managerial rights over Boysaw that he earlier acquired from Ketchum and Ruskay. The next day, September 2, 1961, Boysaw wrote Lope Sarreal, Sr. informing him of his arrival and presence in the Philippines. On September 5, 1961, Alfredo Yulo, Jr. wrote to Sarreal informing him of his acquisition of the managerial rights over Boysaw and indicating his and Boysaw's readiness to comply with the boxing contract of May 1, 1961. On the same date, on behalf of Interphil Sarreal wrote a letter to the Games and Amusement Board [GAB] expressing concern over reports that there had been a switch of managers in the case of Boysaw, of which he had not been formally notified, and requesting that Boysaw be called to an inquiry to clarify the situation.

FERNAN, J.: This is an appeal interposed by Solomon Boysaw and Alfredo Yulo, Jr., from the decision dated July 25, 1963 and other rulings and orders of the then Court of First Instance [CFI] of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch V in Civil Case No. Q-5063, entitled "Solomon Boysaw and Alfredo M. Yulo, Jr., Plaintiffs versus Interphil Promotions, Inc., Lope Sarreal, Sr. and Manuel Nieto, Jr., Defendants," which, among others, ordered them to jointly and severally pay defendant-appellee Manuel Nieto, Jr., the total sum of P25,000.00, broken down into P20,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; the defendants-appellees Interphil Promotions, Inc. and Lope Sarreal, Sr., P250,000.00 as unrealized profits, P33,369.72 as actual damages and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; and defendant-appellee Lope Sarreal, Sr., the additional amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages aside from costs. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: On May 1, 1961, Solomon Boysaw and his then Manager, Willie Ketchum, signed with Interphil Promotions, Inc. represented by Lope Sarreal, Sr., a contract to engage Gabriel "Flash" Elorde in a boxing contest for the junior lightweight championship of the world. It was stipulated that the bout would be held at the Rizal Memorial Stadium in Manila on September 30, 1961 or not later than thirty [30] days thereafter should a postponement be mutually agreed upon, and that Boysaw would not, prior to the date of the boxing contest, engage in any other such contest without the written consent of Interphil Promotions, Inc. On May 3, 1961, a supplemental agreement on certain details not covered by the principal contract was entered into by Ketchum and Interphil. Thereafter, Interphil signed Gabriel "Flash" Elorde to a similar agreement, that is, to engage Boysaw in a title fight at the Rizal Memorial Stadium on September 30, 1961. On June 19, 1961, Boysaw fought and defeated Louis Avila in a tenround non-title bout held in Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A. [pp. 26-27, t.s.n., session of March 14, 1963]. On July 2, 1961, Ketchum on his own behalf and on behalf of his associate Frank Ruskay, assigned to J. Amado Araneta the managerial rights over Solomon Boysaw. Presumably in preparation for his engagement with Interphil, Solomon Boysaw arrived in the Philippines on July 31, 1961.

25
was denied; so was the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs on July 22, 1963. The trial proceeded as scheduled on July 23, 1963 with plaintiff's case being deemed submitted after the plaintiffs declined to submit documentary evidence when they had no other witnesses to present. When defendant's counsel was about to present their case, plaintiff's counsel after asking the court's permission, took no further part in the proceedings. After the lower court rendered its judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial. The motion was denied, hence, this appeal taken directly to this Court by reason of the amount involved. From the errors assigned by the plaintiffs, as having been committed by the lower court, the following principal issues can be deduced: 1. Whether or not there was a violation of the fight contract of May 1, 1961; and if there was, who was guilty of such violation. 2. Whether or not there was legal ground for the postponement of the fight date from September 1, 1961, as stipulated in the May 1, 1961 boxing contract, to November 4,1961, 3. Whether or not the lower court erred in the refusing a postponement of the July 23, 1963 trial. 4. Whether or not the lower court erred in denying the appellant's motion for a new trial. 5. Whether or not the lower court, on the basis of the evidence adduced, erred in awarding the appellees damages of the character and amount stated in the decision. On the issue pertaining to the violation of the May 1, 1961 fight contract, the evidence established that the contract was violated by appellant Boysaw himself when, without the approval or consent of Interphil, he fought Louis Avila on June 19, 1961 in Las Vegas Nevada. Appellant Yulo admitted this fact during the trial. [pp. 26-27, t.s.n., March 14, 1963]. While the contract imposed no penalty for such violation, this does not grant any of the parties the unbridled liberty to breach it with impunity. Our law on contracts recognizes the principle that actionable injury inheres in every contractual breach. Thus: Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the terms thereof, are liable for damages. [Art. 1170, Civil Code]. Also: The power to rescind obligations is implied, in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. [Part 1, Art. 1191, Civil Code]. There is no doubt that the contract in question gave rise to reciprocal obligations. "Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same cause, and in which each party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is dependent upon the obligation of the other. They are to be performed simultaneously, so that the performance of one is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other" [Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, p. 175.1 The power to rescind is given to the injured party. "Where the plaintiff is the party who did not perform the undertaking which he was bound by the terms of the agreement to perform 4 he is not entitled to insist upon the performance of the contract by the defendant, or recover damages by reason of his own breach " [Seva vs. Alfredo Berwin 48 Phil. 581, Emphasis supplied]. Another violation of the contract in question was the assignment and transfer, first to J. Amado Araneta, and subsequently, to appellant Yulo, Jr., of the managerial rights over Boysaw without the knowledge or consent of Interphil. The assignments, from Ketchum to Araneta, and from Araneta to Yulo, were in fact novations of the original contract which, to be valid, should have been consented to by Interphil. Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. [Art. 1293, Civil Code, emphasis supplied]. That appellant Yulo, Jr., through a letter, advised Interphil on September 5, 1961 of his acquisition of the managerial rights over Boysaw cannot change the fact that such acquisition, and the prior acquisition of such rights by Araneta were done without the consent of Interphil. There is no showing that Interphil, upon receipt of Yulo's letter, acceded to the "substitution" by Yulo of the original principal obligor, who is Ketchum. The logical presumption can only be that, with Interphil's letter to the GAB expressing concern over reported managerial changes and requesting for clarification on the matter, the appellees were not reliably informed of the changes of managers. Not being reliably informed, appellees cannot be deemed to have consented to such changes. Under the law when a contract is unlawfully novated by an applicable and unilateral substitution of the obligor by another, the aggrieved creditor is not bound to deal with the substitute. The consent of the creditor to the change of debtors, whether in expromision or delegacion is an, indispensable requirement . . . Substitution of one debtor for another may delay or prevent the fulfillment of the obligation by reason of the inability or insolvency of the new debtor, hence, the creditor should agree to accept the substitution in order that it may be binding on him. Thus, in a contract where x is the creditor and y is the debtor, if y enters into a contract with z, under which he transfers to z all his rights under the first contract, together with the obligations thereunder, but such transfer is not consented to or approved by x, there is no novation. X can still bring his action against y for performance of their contract or damages in case of breach. [Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, p. 3611. From the evidence, it is clear that the appellees, instead of availing themselves of the options given to them by law of rescission or refusal to recognize the substitute obligor Yulo, really wanted to postpone the fight date owing to an injury that Elorde sustained in a recent bout. That the appellees had the justification to renegotiate the original contract, particularly the fight date is undeniable from the facts aforestated. Under the circumstances, the appellees' desire to postpone the fight date could neither be unlawful nor unreasonable. We uphold the appellees' contention that since all the rights on the matter rested with the appellees, and appellants' claims, if any, to the enforcement of the contract hung entirely upon the former's pleasure

26
and sufferance, the GAB did not act arbitrarily in acceding to the appellee's request to reset the fight date to November 4, 1961. It must be noted that appellant Yulo had earlier agreed to abide by the GAB ruling. In a show of accommodation, the appellees offered to advance the November 4, 1961 fight to October 28, 1961 just to place it within the 30- day limit of allowable postponements stipulated in the original boxing contract. The refusal of appellants to accept a postponement without any other reason but the implementation of the terms of the original boxing contract entirely overlooks the fact that by virtue of the violations they have committed of the terms thereof, they have forfeited any right to its enforcement. On the validity of the fight postponement, the violations of the terms of the original contract by appellants vested the appellees with the right to rescind and repudiate such contract altogether. That they sought to seek an adjustment of one particular covenant of the contract, is under the circumstances, within the appellee's rights. While the appellants concede to the GAB's authority to regulate boxing contests, including the setting of dates thereof, [pp. 44-49, t.s.n., Jan. 17, 1963], it is their contention that only Manuel Nieto, Jr. made the decision for postponement, thereby arrogating to himself the prerogatives of the whole GAB Board. The records do not support appellants' contention. Appellant Yulo himself admitted that it was the GAB Board that set the questioned fight date. [pp. 32-42, t.s.n., Jan. 17, 1963]. Also, it must be stated that one of the strongest presumptions of law is that official duty has been regularly performed. In this case, the absence of evidence to the contrary, warrants the full application of said presumption that the decision to set the Elorde-Boysaw fight on November 4, 1961 was a GAB Board decision and not of Manuel Nieto, Jr. alone. Anent the lower court's refusal to postpone the July 23, 1963 trial, suffice it to say that the same issue had been raised before Us by appellants in a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as G.R. No. L-21506. The dismissal by the Court of said petition had laid this issue to rest, and appellants cannot now hope to resurrect the said issue in this appeal. On the denial of appellant's motion for a new trial, we find that the lower court did not commit any reversible error. The alleged newly discovered evidence, upon which the motion for new trial was made to rest, consists merely of clearances which Boysaw secured from the clerk of court prior to his departure for abroad. Such evidence cannot alter the result of the case even if admitted for they can only prove that Boysaw did not leave the country without notice to the court or his counsel. The argument of appellants is that if the clearances were admitted to support the motion for a new trial, the lower court would have allowed the postponement of the trial, it being convinced that Boysaw did not leave without notice to the court or to his counsel. Boysaw's testimony upon his return would, then, have altered the results of the case. We find the argument without merit because it confuses the evidence of the clearances and the testimony of Boysaw. We uphold the lower court's ruling that: The said documents [clearances] are not evidence to offset the evidence adduced during the hearing of the defendants. In fact, the clearances are not even material to the issues raised. It is the opinion of the Court that the 'newly discovered evidence' contemplated in Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, is such kind of evidence which has reference to the merits of the case, of such a nature and kind, that if it were presented, it would alter the result of the judgment. As admitted by the counsel in their pleadings, such clearances might have impelled the Court to grant the postponement prayed for by them had they been presented on time. The question of the denial of the postponement sought for by counsel for plaintiffs is a moot issue . . . The denial of the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by them, had he effect of sustaining such ruling of the court . . . [pp. 296-297, Record on Appeal]. The testimony of Boysaw cannot be considered newly discovered evidence for as appellees rightly contend, such evidence has been in existence waiting only to be elicited from him by questioning. We cite with approval appellee's contention that "the two qualities that ought to concur or dwell on each and every of evidence that is invoked as a ground for new trial in order to warrant the reopening . . . inhered separately on two unrelated species of proof" which "creates a legal monstrosity that deserves no recognition." On the issue pertaining to the award of excessive damages, it must be noted that because the appellants wilfully refused to participate in the final hearing and refused to present documentary evidence after they no longer had witnesses to present, they, by their own acts prevented themselves from objecting to or presenting proof contrary to those adduced for the appellees. On the actual damages awarded to appellees, the appellants contend that a conclusion or finding based upon the uncorroborated testimony of a lone witness cannot be sufficient. We hold that in civil cases, there is no rule requiring more than one witness or declaring that the testimony of a single witness will not suffice to establish facts, especially where such testimony has not been contradicted or rebutted. Thus, we find no reason to disturb the award of P250,000.00 as and for unrealized profits to the appellees. On the award of actual damages to Interphil and Sarreal, the records bear sufficient evidence presented by appellees of actual damages which were neither objected to nor rebutted by appellants, again because they adamantly refused to participate in the court proceedings. The award of attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00 in favor of defendant-appellee Manuel Nieto, Jr. and another P5,000.00 in favor of defendants-appellees Interphil Promotions, Inc. and Lope Sarreal, Sr., jointly, cannot also be regarded as excessive considering the extent and nature of defensecounsels' services which involved legal work for sixteen [16] months. However, in the matter of moral damages, we are inclined to uphold the appellant's contention that the award is not sanctioned by law and wellsettled authorities. Art. 2219 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following analogous cases: 1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; 2) Quasi-delict causing physical injuries; 3) Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts;

27
4) Adultery or concubinage; 5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; 6) Illegal search; 7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; 8) Malicious prosecution; 9) Acts mentioned in Art. 309. 10) Acts and actions referred to in Arts., 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35. The award of moral damages in the instant case is not based on any of the cases enumerated in Art. 2219 of the Civil Code. The action herein brought by plaintiffs-appellants is based on a perceived breach committed by the defendants-appellees of the contract of May 1, 1961, and cannot, as such, be arbitrarily considered as a case of malicious prosecution. Moral damages cannot be imposed on a party litigant although such litigant exercises it erroneously because if the action has been erroneously filed, such litigant may be penalized for costs. The grant of moral damages is not subject to the whims and caprices of judges or courts. The court's discretion in granting or refusing it is governed by reason and justice. In order that a person may be made liable to the payment of moral damages, the law requires that his act be wrongful. The adverse result of an action does not per se make the act wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of moral damages. The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate; such right is so precious that moral damages may not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously. For these the law taxes costs. [Barreto vs. Arevalo, et. al. No. L-7748, Aug. 27, 1956, 52 O.G., No. 13, p. 5818.] WHEREFORE, except for the award of moral damages which is herein deleted, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

28
G.R. No. L-67881 June 30, 1987 PILIPINAS BANK as Successor-In-Interest Of And/Or In substitution to, The MANUFACTURERS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitionerappellant vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (Fourth Civil Cases Division), and JOSE W. DIOKNO and CARMEN I. DIOKNO, respondents-appellees. (d) Upon complete payment by the vendee of the total price of the lot the vendor shall execute a deed of sale in favor of the vendee; (e) The contract shall be considered automatically rescinded and cancelled and of no further force and effect upon failure of the vendee to pay when due, three or more consecutive installments as stipulated therein or to comply with any of the terms and conditions thereof, in which case the vendor shall have right to resell the said parcel of land to any person interested, forfeiting payments made by the vendee as liquidated damages. 2. On July 27, 1965, petitioner sent to private respondents a Statement of Account (Exh. F-1) requesting remittance of installment arrears showing partial payments for the month of April 1965 and May 1965 and complete default for June, July and August, 1965; 3. Likewise, on August 31, 1965, petitioner sent to private respondents another Statement of Account with the additional entries of interests and the incoming installment for September, 1965; 4. In partial compliance with the aforesaid Statements of Account, private respondents paid on September 3, 1965 the sum of Pl,397.00 which answers for the installments for the months of June 1965 to August 1965; 5. On March 17, 1967, petitioner sent private respondents a simple demand letter showing a delinquency in their monthly amortizations for 19 months (Exh. 9); 6. On April 17, 1967, petitioner again sent private respondents a demand letter showing total arrearages of 20 months as of April 1965, but this time advising that unless they up-date their installment payments, petitioner shall be constrained to avail of the automatic rescission clause (Exh. 10); 7. On May 17, 1967, private respondents made a partial payment of P2,000.00 with the request for an extension of 60 days from May 17, 1967 within which to up-date their account (Exh. 10-a); 8. On July 17, 1967, private respondents wrote a letter to petitioner asking another extension of sixty (60) days to pay all their arrearages and update their payments under Contract No. VV-18 (a); 9. On September 18, 1967, private respondents paid P5,000.00 as partial payment and requested an extension of another 30 days from September 18, 1967 within which to update their account (Exh. 10-c); 10. On October 19, 1967, however, private respondents failed to update their arrearages and did not request for any further extension of time within which to update their account; 11. After almost three (3) years, or on July 16, 1970, private respondents wrote a letter to petitioner requesting for a Statement of Account as of date in arrears and interests(Exh. 10-d), to which petitioner made a reply on July 22, 1970 (Exh. 11); 12. On May 19, 1971, petitioner wrote a letter to private respondents, reminding them of their balance which will be due on the 31st instant (Exh. J); 13. More than two (2) years from May 19, 1971 or on July 5, 1973, private respondents wrote a letter to petitioner expressing their desire to fully settle their obligation, requesting for a complete statement of all the balance due including interests;

PARAS, J.: This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision 1 of the respondent court dated May 31, 1984 in CA-G.R. CV No. 67205 entitled "Jose W. Diokno and Carmen I. Diokno, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. The Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company, defendant-appellant" which affirmed the decision 2 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig Branch XXI) in Civil Case No. 19660, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, ordering the defendant Manufacturers Bank & Trust Company: 1. To deliver to the plaintiffs the parcel of land described in Contract to Sell No. VV-18-(a) in the total area of 5,936 square meters and to execute in their favor the necessary deed of absolute sale therefor; 2. To pay the sum of P556,160.00 less the amount due on the contract (i.e., the unpaid installments from December, 1966 until the contract would have been fully paid together with interest thereon up to March 25, 1974) with legal interest on said balance from April 22, 1974 until the same is fully paid; 3. P50,000.00 by way of moral damages; 4. P50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; 5. Ten per cent (10%) of the judgment by way of attorney's fees; and 6. Costs of suit. SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 14-15) The following are the undisputed facts of the case: 1. On April 18, 1961, Hacienda Benito, Inc. (petitioner's predecessor-ininterest) as vendor, and private respondents, as vendees executed Contract to Sell No. VV-18 (a) (Exh. A) over a parcel of land with an area of 5,936 square meters of the Victoria Valley Subdivision in Antipolo, Rizal, subject to the following terms and conditions, among others, relevant to this petition: (a) The total contract price for the entire 5,936 square-meter-lot was P47,488.00; (b) Of the total sum, an amount of Pl2,182.00 was applied thereto so as to reduce the balance on the principal to P35,306.00; (c) The aforesaid balance, together with the stipulated interest of 6% per annum, was to be paid over a period of 8-1/2 years starting on May 1, 1961 at a monthly installment of P446.10 until fully paid-although this monthly installment was later adjusted to the higher amount of P797.86, starting on April 1, 1965;

29
14. On March 14, 1974, private respondents wrote a letter reiterating their request in their letter dated July 5, 1973, which has not been complied with despite several follow-ups (Exh. O); 15. On March 25, 1974, private respondent Carmen I. Diokno went to see the Chairman of petitioner's Board of Directors on the matter informing him that she had a buyer who was ready to purchase the property, 16. On March 27, 1974, petitioner wrote a letter to private respondents, informing them that the contract to sell had been rescinded/cancelled by a notarial act, to which letter was annexed a "Demand for Rescission of Contract", notarized on March 25, 1974 (Exh. 12); 17. In view of the foregoing, private respondents filed Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages to compel petitioner to execute a deed of sale in their favor, and to deliver to them the title of the lot in question. 18. Petitioner filed an Answer with counterclaim for damages in the form of attorney's fees, claiming that Contract to Sell No. VV-18(a) has been automatically rescinded or cancelled by virtue of private respondents' failure to pay the installments due in the contract under the automatic rescission clause. 19. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision in private respondents' favor, holding that petitioner could not rescind the contract to sell, because: (a) petitioner waived the automatic rescission clause by accepting payment on September 1967, and by sending letters advising private respondents of the balances due, thus, looking forward to receiving payments thereon; (b) in any event, until May 18, 1977 (when petitioner made arrangements for the acquisition of additional 870 square meters) petitioner could not have delivered the entire area contracted for, so, neither could private respondents be liable in default, citing Art. 1 189 of the New Civil Code. (Decision, pp. 141-148, Amended Record on Appeal). Said decision was affirmed on appeal. Hence, this Petition For Review on Certiorari, raising the main issue of whether or not the Contract to Sell No. VV-18(a) was rescinded or cancelled, under the automatic rescission clause contained therein. We find the petition meritless. While it is true that in the leading case of Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Maritime Building Co., Inc. and Myers Building Co., 43 SCRA 93 the Supreme Court reiterated among other things that a contractual provision allowing "automatic rescission" (without prior need of judicial rescission, resolution or cancellation) is VALID, the remedy of one who feels aggrieved being to go to Court for the cancellation of the rescission itself, in case the rescission is found unjustified under the circumstances, still in the instant case there is a clear WAIVER of the stipulated right of "automatic rescission," as evidenced by the many extensions granted private respondents by the petitioner. In all these extensions, the petitioner never called attention to the proviso on "automatic rescission." WHEREFORE the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED but the actual damages are hereby reduced to P250,000.00 (the profit private respondents could have earned had the land been delivered to them at the time they were ready to pay all their arrearages) minus whatever private respondents still owe the petitioner (with the stipulated 6% annual interest up to March 25, 1974) as a result of the contract. SO ORDERED.

30
G.R. No. L-24968 April 27, 1972 SAURA IMPORT and EXPORT CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendant-appellant. Mabanag, Eliger and Associates and Saura, Magno and Associates for plaintiff-appellee. Jesus A. Avancea and Hilario G. Orsolino for defendant-appellant. Saura, Inc. was officially notified of the resolution on January 9, 1954. The day before, however, evidently having otherwise been informed of its approval, Saura, Inc. wrote a letter to RFC, requesting a modification of the terms laid down by it, namely: that in lieu of having China Engineers, Ltd. (which was willing to assume liability only to the extent of its stock subscription with Saura, Inc.) sign as co-maker on the corresponding promissory notes, Saura, Inc. would put up a bond for P123,500.00, an amount equivalent to such subscription; and that Maria S. Roca would be substituted for Inocencia Arellano as one of the other co-makers, having acquired the latter's shares in Saura, Inc. In view of such request RFC approved Resolution No. 736 on February 4, 1954, designating of the members of its Board of Governors, for certain reasons stated in the resolution, "to reexamine all the aspects of this approved loan ... with special reference as to the advisability of financing this particular project based on present conditions obtaining in the operations of jute mills, and to submit his findings thereon at the next meeting of the Board." On March 24, 1954 Saura, Inc. wrote RFC that China Engineers, Ltd. had again agreed to act as co-signer for the loan, and asked that the necessary documents be prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in Resolution No. 145. In connection with the reexamination of the project to be financed with the loan applied for, as stated in Resolution No. 736, the parties named their respective committees of engineers and technical men to meet with each other and undertake the necessary studies, although in appointing its own committee Saura, Inc. made the observation that the same "should not be taken as an acquiescence on (its) part to novate, or accept new conditions to, the agreement already) entered into," referring to its acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned in Resolution No. 145. On April 13, 1954 the loan documents were executed: the promissory note, with F.R. Halling, representing China Engineers, Ltd., as one of the co-signers; and the corresponding deed of mortgage, which was duly registered on the following April 17. It appears, however, that despite the formal execution of the loan agreement the reexamination contemplated in Resolution No. 736 proceeded. In a meeting of the RFC Board of Governors on June 10, 1954, at which Ramon Saura, President of Saura, Inc., was present, it was decided to reduce the loan from P500,000.00 to P300,000.00. Resolution No. 3989 was approved as follows: RESOLUTION No. 3989. Reducing the Loan Granted Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. under Resolution No. 145, C.S., from P500,000.00 to P300,000.00. Pursuant to Bd. Res. No. 736, c.s., authorizing the reexamination of all the various aspects of the loan granted the Saura Import & Export Co. under Resolution No. 145, c.s., for the purpose of financing the manufacture of jute sacks in Davao, with special reference as to the advisability of financing this particular project based on present conditions obtaining in the operation of jute mills, and after having heard Ramon E. Saura and after extensive discussion on the subject the Board, upon recommendation of the Chairman, RESOLVED that the loan granted the Saura Import & Export Co. be REDUCED from P500,000 to P300,000 and that releases up to P100,000 may be authorized as may be necessary from time to time to place the factory in actual operation: PROVIDED that all terms and conditions of Resolution No. 145, c.s., not inconsistent herewith, shall remain in full force and effect." On June 19, 1954 another hitch developed. F.R. Halling, who had signed the promissory note for China Engineers Ltd. jointly and severally with the other RFC that his company no longer to of the loan and therefore

MAKALINTAL, J.:p In Civil Case No. 55908 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, judgment was rendered on June 28, 1965 sentencing defendant Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to pay actual and consequential damages to plaintiff Saura Import and Export Co., Inc. in the amount of P383,343.68, plus interest at the legal rate from the date the complaint was filed and attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00. The present appeal is from that judgment. In July 1953 the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as Saura, Inc.) applied to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC), before its conversion into DBP, for an industrial loan of P500,000.00, to be used as follows: P250,000.00 for the construction of a factory building (for the manufacture of jute sacks); P240,900.00 to pay the balance of the purchase price of the jute mill machinery and equipment; and P9,100.00 as additional working capital. Parenthetically, it may be mentioned that the jute mill machinery had already been purchased by Saura on the strength of a letter of credit extended by the Prudential Bank and Trust Co., and arrived in Davao City in July 1953; and that to secure its release without first paying the draft, Saura, Inc. executed a trust receipt in favor of the said bank. On January 7, 1954 RFC passed Resolution No. 145 approving the loan application for P500,000.00, to be secured by a first mortgage on the factory building to be constructed, the land site thereof, and the machinery and equipment to be installed. Among the other terms spelled out in the resolution were the following: 1. That the proceeds of the loan shall be utilized exclusively for the following purposes: For construction of factory building P250,000.00 For payment of the balance of purchase price of machinery and equipment 240,900.00 For working capital 9,100.00 T O T A L P500,000.00 4. That Mr. & Mrs. Ramon E. Saura, Inocencia Arellano, Aniceto Caolboy and Gregoria Estabillo and China Engineers, Ltd. shall sign the promissory notes jointly with the borrower-corporation; 5. That release shall be made at the discretion of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, subject to availability of funds, and as the construction of the factory buildings progresses, to be certified to by an appraiser of this Corporation;"

31
considered the same as cancelled as far as it was concerned. A follow-up letter dated July 2 requested RFC that the registration of the mortgage be withdrawn. In the meantime Saura, Inc. had written RFC requesting that the loan of P500,000.00 be granted. The request was denied by RFC, which added in its letter-reply that it was "constrained to consider as cancelled the loan of P300,000.00 ... in view of a notification ... from the China Engineers Ltd., expressing their desire to consider the loan insofar as they are concerned." On July 24, 1954 Saura, Inc. took exception to the cancellation of the loan and informed RFC that China Engineers, Ltd. "will at any time reinstate their signature as co-signer of the note if RFC releases to us the P500,000.00 originally approved by you.". On December 17, 1954 RFC passed Resolution No. 9083, restoring the loan to the original amount of P500,000.00, "it appearing that China Engineers, Ltd. is now willing to sign the promissory notes jointly with the borrower-corporation," but with the following proviso: That in view of observations made of the shortage and high cost of imported raw materials, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall certify to the following: 1. That the raw materials needed by the borrower-corporation to carry out its operation are available in the immediate vicinity; and 2. That there is prospect of increased production thereof to provide adequately for the requirements of the factory." The action thus taken was communicated to Saura, Inc. in a letter of RFC dated December 22, 1954, wherein it was explained that the certification by the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources was required "as the intention of the original approval (of the loan) is to develop the manufacture of sacks on the basis of locally available raw materials." This point is important, and sheds light on the subsequent actuations of the parties. Saura, Inc. does not deny that the factory he was building in Davao was for the manufacture of bags from local raw materials. The cover page of its brochure (Exh. M) describes the project as a "Joint venture by and between the Mindanao Industry Corporation and the Saura Import and Export Co., Inc. to finance, manage and operate a Kenaf mill plant, to manufacture copra and corn bags, runners, floor mattings, carpets, draperies; out of 100% local raw materials, principal kenaf." The explanatory note on page 1 of the same brochure states that, the venture "is the first serious attempt in this country to use 100% locally grown raw materials notably kenaf which is presently grown commercially in theIsland of Mindanao where the proposed jutemill is located ..." This fact, according to defendant DBP, is what moved RFC to approve the loan application in the first place, and to require, in its Resolution No. 9083, a certification from the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources as to the availability of local raw materials to provide adequately for the requirements of the factory. Saura, Inc. itself confirmed the defendant's stand impliedly in its letter of January 21, 1955: (1) stating that according to a special study made by the Bureau of Forestry "kenaf will not be available in sufficient quantity this year or probably even next year;" (2) requesting "assurances (from RFC) that my company and associates will be able to bring in sufficient jute materials as may be necessary for the full operation of the jute mill;" and (3) asking that releases of the loan be made as follows: a) For the payment of the receipt for jute mill machineries with the Prudential Bank & Trust Company P250,000.00 (For immediate release) b) For the purchase of materials and equipment per attached list to enable the jute mill to operate 182,413.91 c) For raw materials and labor 67,586.09 1) P25,000.00 to be released on the opening of the letter of credit for raw jute for $25,000.00. 2) P25,000.00 to be released upon arrival of raw jute. 3) P17,586.09 to be released as soon as the mill is ready to operate. On January 25, 1955 RFC sent to Saura, Inc. the following reply: Dear Sirs: This is with reference to your letter of January 21, 1955, regarding the release of your loan under consideration of P500,000. As stated in our letter of December 22, 1954, the releases of the loan, if revived, are proposed to be made from time to time, subject to availability of funds towards the end that the sack factory shall be placed in actual operating status. We shall be able to act on your request for revised purpose and manner of releases upon re-appraisal of the securities offered for the loan. With respect to our requirement that the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources certify that the raw materials needed are available in the immediate vicinity and that there is prospect of increased production thereof to provide adequately the requirements of the factory, we wish to reiterate that the basis of the original approval is to develop the manufacture of sacks on the basis of the locally available raw materials. Your statement that you will have to rely on the importation of jute and your request that we give you assurance that your company will be able to bring in sufficient jute materials as may be necessary for the operation of your factory, would not be in line with our principle in approving the loan. With the foregoing letter the negotiations came to a standstill. Saura, Inc. did not pursue the matter further. Instead, it requested RFC to cancel the mortgage, and so, on June 17, 1955 RFC executed the corresponding deed of cancellation and delivered it to Ramon F. Saura himself as president of Saura, Inc. It appears that the cancellation was requested to make way for the registration of a mortgage contract, executed on August 6, 1954, over the same property in favor of the Prudential Bank and Trust Co., under which contract Saura, Inc. had up to December 31 of the same year within which to pay its obligation on the trust receipt heretofore mentioned. It appears further that for failure to pay the said obligation the Prudential Bank and Trust Co. sued Saura, Inc. on May 15, 1955. On January 9, 1964, ahnost 9 years after the mortgage in favor of RFC was cancelled at the request of Saura, Inc., the latter commenced the present suit for damages, alleging failure of RFC (as predecessor of the defendant DBP) to comply with its obligation to release the proceeds of the loan applied for and approved, thereby preventing the plaintiff from

32
completing or paying contractual commitments it had entered into, in connection with its jute mill project. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that there was a perfected contract between the parties and that the defendant was guilty of breach thereof. The defendant pleaded below, and reiterates in this appeal: (1) that the plaintiff's cause of action had prescribed, or that its claim had been waived or abandoned; (2) that there was no perfected contract; and (3) that assuming there was, the plaintiff itself did not comply with the terms thereof. We hold that there was indeed a perfected consensual contract, as recognized in Article 1934 of the Civil Code, which provides: ART. 1954. An accepted promise to deliver something, by way of commodatum or simple loan is binding upon the parties, but the commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be perferted until the delivery of the object of the contract. There was undoubtedly offer and acceptance in this case: the application of Saura, Inc. for a loan of P500,000.00 was approved by resolution of the defendant, and the corresponding mortgage was executed and registered. But this fact alone falls short of resolving the basic claim that the defendant failed to fulfill its obligation and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover damages. It should be noted that RFC entertained the loan application of Saura, Inc. on the assumption that the factory to be constructed would utilize locally grown raw materials, principally kenaf. There is no serious dispute about this. It was in line with such assumption that when RFC, by Resolution No. 9083 approved on December 17, 1954, restored the loan to the original amount of P500,000.00. it imposed two conditions, to wit: "(1) that the raw materials needed by the borrower-corporation to carry out its operation are available in the immediate vicinity; and (2) that there is prospect of increased production thereof to provide adequately for the requirements of the factory." The imposition of those conditions was by no means a deviation from the terms of the agreement, but rather a step in its implementation. There was nothing in said conditions that contradicted the terms laid down in RFC Resolution No. 145, passed on January 7, 1954, namely "that the proceeds of the loan shall be utilized exclusively for the following purposes: for construction of factory building P250,000.00; for payment of the balance of purchase price of machinery and equipment P240,900.00; for working capital P9,100.00." Evidently Saura, Inc. realized that it could not meet the conditions required by RFC, and so wrote its letter of January 21, 1955, stating that local jute "will not be able in sufficient quantity this year or probably next year," and asking that out of the loan agreed upon the sum of P67,586.09 be released "for raw materials and labor." This was a deviation from the terms laid down in Resolution No. 145 and embodied in the mortgage contract, implying as it did a diversion of part of the proceeds of the loan to purposes other than those agreed upon. When RFC turned down the request in its letter of January 25, 1955 the negotiations which had been going on for the implementation of the agreement reached an impasse. Saura, Inc. obviously was in no position to comply with RFC's conditions. So instead of doing so and insisting that the loan be released as agreed upon, Saura, Inc. asked that the mortgage be cancelled, which was done on June 15, 1955. The action thus taken by both parties was in the nature cf mutual desistance what Manresa terms "mutuo disenso" 1 which is a mode of extinguishing obligations. It is a concept that derives from the principle that since mutual agreement can create a contract, mutual disagreement by the parties can cause its extinguishment. 2 The subsequent conduct of Saura, Inc. confirms this desistance. It did not protest against any alleged breach of contract by RFC, or even point out that the latter's stand was legally unjustified. Its request for cancellation of the mortgage carried no reservation of whatever rights it believed it might have against RFC for the latter's non-compliance. In 1962 it even applied with DBP for another loan to finance a rice and corn project, which application was disapproved. It was only in 1964, nine years after the loan agreement had been cancelled at its own request, that Saura, Inc. brought this action for damages.All these circumstances demonstrate beyond doubt that the said agreement had been extinguished by mutual desistance and that on the initiative of the plaintiff-appellee itself. With this view we take of the case, we find it unnecessary to consider and resolve the other issues raised in the respective briefs of the parties. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs against the plaintiff-appellee. Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teeh

33
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, these presents SELL, CEDE, TRANSFER and CONVEY, by way of sale unto ANGELINA GLORIA ONG, also of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to Alfredo Ong, and also a resident of Tabaco, Albay, Philippines, their heirs and assigns, the above-mentioned debt with the said LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, and by reason hereof they can make the necessary representation with the bank for the proper restructuring of the loan with the said bank in their favor;

- versus -

That as soon as our obligation has been duly settled, the bank is authorized to release the mortgage in favor of the vendees and for this purpose VENDEES can register this instrument with the Register of Deeds for the issuance of the titles already in their names.

ALFREDO ONG, November 24, 2010

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures this 9th day of December 1996 at Tabaco, Albay, Philippines.

(signed) VELASCO, JR., J.: EVANGELINE O. SY Vendor

(signed) JOHNSON B. SY Vendor

This is an appeal from the October 20, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-CV No. 84445 entitled Alfredo Ong v. Land Bank of the Philippines, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17 in Tabaco City.

The Facts

On March 18, 1996, spouses Johnson and Evangeline Sy secured a loan from Land Bank Legazpi City in the amount of PhP 16 million. The loan was secured by three (3) residential lots, five (5) cargo trucks, and a warehouse. Under the loan agreement, PhP 6 million of the loan would be short-term and would mature on February 28, 1997, while the balance of PhP 10 million would be payable in seven (7) years. The Notice of Loan Approval dated February 22, 1996 contained an acceleration clause wherein any default in payment of amortizations or other charges would accelerate the maturity of the loan.[1]

Evangelines father, petitioner Alfredo Ong, later went to Land Bank to inform it about the sale and assumption of mortgage.[3] Atty. Edna Hingco, the Legazpi City Land Bank Branch Head, told Alfredo and his counsel Atty. Ireneo de Lumen that there was nothing wrong with the agreement with the Spouses Sy but provided them with requirements for the assumption of mortgage. They were also told that Alfredo should pay part of the principal which was computed at PhP 750,000 and to update due or accrued interests on the promissory notes so that Atty. Hingco could easily approve the assumption of mortgage. Two weeks later, Alfredo issued a check for PhP 750,000 and personally gave it to Atty. Hingco. A receipt was issued for his payment. He also submitted the other documents required by Land Bank, such as financial statements for 1994 and 1995. Atty. Hingco then informed Alfredo that the certificate of title of the Spouses Sy would be transferred in his name but this never materialized. No notice of transfer was sent to him.[4]

Subsequently, however, the Spouses Sy found they could no longer pay their loan. On December 9, 1996, they sold three (3) of their mortgaged parcels of land for PhP 150,000 to Angelina Gloria Ong, Evangelines mother, under a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. The relevant portion of the document[2] is quoted as follows:

WHEREAS, we are no longer in a position to settle our obligation with the bank; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00) Philippine Currency, we hereby

Alfredo later found out that his application for assumption of mortgage was not approved by Land Bank. The bank learned from its credit investigation report that the Ongs had a real estate mortgage in the amount of PhP 18,300,000 with another bank that was past due. Alfredo claimed that this was fully paid later on. Nonetheless, Land Bank foreclosed the mortgage of the Spouses Sy after several months. Alfredo only learned of the foreclosure when he saw the subject mortgage properties included in a Notice of Foreclosure of Mortgage and Auction Sale at the RTC in Tabaco, Albay. Alfredos other counsel, Atty. Madrilejos, subsequently talked to Land Banks lawyer and was told that the PhP 750,000 he paid would be returned to him.[5]

34
On December 12, 1997, Alfredo initiated an action for recovery of sum of money with damages against Land Bank in Civil Case No. T-1941, as Alfredos payment was not returned by Land Bank. Alfredo maintained that Land Banks foreclosure without informing him of the denial of his assumption of the mortgage was done in bad faith. He argued that he was lured into believing that his payment of PhP 750,000 would cause Land Bank to approve his assumption of the loan of the Spouses Sy and the transfer of the mortgaged properties in his and his wifes name.*6+ He also claimed incurring expenses for attorneys fees of PhP 150,000, filing fee of PhP 15,000, and PhP 250,000 in moral damages.[7]

The RTC held that the contract approving the assumption of mortgage was not perfected as a result of the credit investigation conducted on Alfredo. It noted that Alfredo was not even informed of the disapproval of the assumption of mortgage but was just told that the accounts of the spouses Sy had matured and gone unpaid. It ruled that under the principle of equity and justice, the bank should return the amount Alfredo had paid with interest at 12% per annum computed from the filing of the complaint. The RTC further held that Alfredo was entitled to attorneys fees and litigation expenses for being compelled to litigate.[10]

Testifying for Land Bank, Atty. Hingco claimed during trial that as branch manager she had no authority to approve loans and could not assure anybody that their assumption of mortgage would be approved. She testified that the breakdown of Alfredos payment was as follows:

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

PhP 101,409.59 applied to principal 216,246.56 accrued interests receivable 396,571.77 interests 18,766.10 penalties

WHEREFORE, premises considered, a decision is rendered, ordering defendant bank to pay plaintiff, Alfredo Ong the amount of P750,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum computed from Dec. 12, 1997 and attorneys fees and litigation expenses of P50,000.00.

Costs against defendant bank. 16,805.98 accounts receivable ---------------SO ORDERED.[11] Total: 750,000.00

According to Atty. Hingco, the bank processes an assumption of mortgage as a new loan, since the new borrower is considered a new client. They used character, capacity, capital, collateral, and conditions in determining who can qualify to assume a loan. Alfredos proposal to assume the loan, she explained, was referred to a separate office, the Lending Center. [8]

The Ruling of the Appellate Court

During cross-examination, Atty. Hingco testified that several months after Alfredo made the tender of payment, she received word that the Lending Center rejected Alfredos loan application. She stated that it was the Lending Center and not her that should have informed Alfredo about the denial of his and his wifes assumption of mortgage. She added that although she told Alfredo that the agreement between the spouses Sy and Alfredo was valid between them and that the bank would accept payments from him, Alfredo did not pay any further amount so the foreclosure of the loan collaterals ensued. She admitted that Alfredo demanded the return of the PhP 750,000 but said that there was no written demand before the case against the bank was filed in court. She said that Alfredo had made the payment of PhP 750,000 even before he applied for the assumption of mortgage and that the bank received the said amount because the subject account was past due and demandable; and the Deed of Assumption of Mortgage was not used as the basis for the payment. [9]

On appeal, Land Bank faulted the trial court for (1) holding that the payment of PhP 750,000 made by Ong was one of the requirements for the approval of his proposal to assume the mortgage of the Sy spouses; (2) erroneously ordering Land Bank to return the amount of PhP 750,000 to Ong on the ground of its failure to effect novation; and (3) erroneously affirming the award of PhP 50,000 to Ong as attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision.*12+ It held that Alfredos recourse is not against the Sy spouses. According to the appellate court, the payment of PhP 750,000 was for the approval of his assumption of mortgage and not for payment of arrears incurred by the Sy spouses. As such, it ruled that it would be incorrect to consider Alfredo a third person with no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation under Article 1236 of the Civil Code. Although Land Bank was not bound by the Deed between Alfredo and the Spouses Sy, the appellate court found that Alfredo and Land Banks active preparations for Alfredos assumption of mortgage essentially novated the agreement.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

35
On January 5, 2010, the CA denied Land Banks motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Hence, Land Bank appealed to us. will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.

The Issues We agree with Land Bank on this point as to the first part of paragraph 1 of Art. 1236. Land Bank was not bound to accept Alfredos payment, since as far as the former was concerned, he did not have an interest in the payment of the loan of the Spouses Sy. However, in the context of the second part of said paragraph, Alfredo was not making payment to fulfill the obligation of the Spouses Sy. Alfredo made a conditional payment so that the properties subject of the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage would be titled in his name. It is clear from the records that Land Bank required Alfredo to make payment before his assumption of mortgage would be approved. He was informed that the certificate of title would be transferred accordingly. He, thus, made payment not as a debtor but as a prospective mortgagor. But the trial court stated:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Art. 1236 of the Civil Code does not apply and in finding that there is no novation.

II

Whether the Court of Appeals misconstrued the evidence and the law when it affirmed the trial court decisions ordering Land Bank to pay Ong the amount of Php750,000.00 with interest at 12% annum. [T]he contract was not perfected or consummated because of the adverse finding in the credit investigation which led to the disapproval of the proposed assumption. There was no evidence presented that plaintiff was informed of the disapproval. What he received was a letter dated May 22, 1997 informing him that the account of spouses Sy had matured but there [were] no payments. This was sent even before the conduct of the credit investigation on June 20, 1997 which led to the disapproval of the proposed assumption of the loans of spouses Sy.[13]

III

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it affirmed the award of Php50,000.00 to Ong as attorneys fees and expenses of litigation.

The Ruling of this Court

We affirm with modification the appealed decision.

Alfredo, as a third person, did not, therefore, have an interest in the fulfillment of the obligation of the Spouses Sy, since his interest hinged on Land Banks approval of his application, which was denied. The circumstances of the instant case show that the second paragraph of Art. 1236 does not apply. As Alfredo made the payment for his own interest and not on behalf of the Spouses Sy, recourse is not against the latter. And as Alfredo was not paying for another, he cannot demand from the debtors, the Spouses Sy, what he has paid.

Recourse is against Land Bank

Novation of the loan agreement Land Bank contends that Art. 1236 of the Civil Code backs their claim that Alfredo should have sought recourse against the Spouses Sy instead of Land Bank. Art. 1236 provides: Land Bank also faults the CA for finding that novation applies to the instant case. It reasons that a substitution of debtors was made without its consent; thus, it was not bound to recognize the substitution under the rules on novation.

The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.

On the matter of novation, Spouses Benjamin and Agrifina Lim v. M.B. Finance Corporation[14] provides the following discussion: Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid without the knowledge or against the

36
Novation, in its broad concept, may either be extinctive or modificatory. It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the creation of a new obligation that takes the place of the former; it is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement. An extinctive novation results either by changing the object or principal conditions (objective or real), or by substituting the person of the debtor or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor (subjective or personal). Under this mode, novation would have dual functions one to extinguish an existing obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its place requiring a conflux of four essential requisites: (1) a previous valid obligation; (2) an agreement of all parties concerned to a new contract; (3) the extinguishment of the old obligation; and (4) the birth of a valid new obligation. x x x Unjust enrichment

Land Bank maintains that the trial court erroneously applied the principle of equity and justice in ordering it to return the PhP 750,000 paid by Alfredo. Alfredo was allegedly in bad faith and in estoppel. Land Bank contends that it enjoyed the presumption of regularity and was in good faith when it accepted Alfredos tender of PhP 750,000. It reasons that it did not unduly enrich itself at Alfredos expense during the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, since it tendered its bid by subtracting PhP 750,000 from the Spouses Sys outstanding loan obligation. Alfredos recourse then, according to Land Bank, is to have his payment reimbursed by the Spouses Sy.

In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other. The test of incompatibility is whether or not the two obligations can stand together, each one having its independent existence. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

We rule that Land Bank is still liable for the return of the PhP 750,000 based on the principle of unjust enrichment. Land Bank is correct in arguing that it has no obligation as creditor to recognize Alfredo as a person with interest in the fulfillment of the obligation. But while Land Bank is not bound to accept the substitution of debtors in the subject real estate mortgage, it is estopped by its action of accepting Alfredos payment from arguing that it does not have to recognize Alfredo as the new debtor. The elements of estoppel are:

Furthermore, Art. 1293 of the Civil Code states:

Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the place of the original one, may be made even without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor. Payment by the new debtor gives him rights mentioned in articles 1236 and 1237.

First, the actor who usually must have knowledge, notice or suspicion of the true facts, communicates something to another in a misleading way, either by words, conduct or silence; second, the other in fact relies, and relies reasonably or justifiably, upon that communication; third, the other would be harmed materially if the actor is later permitted to assert any claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct; and fourth, the actor knows, expects or foresees that the other would act upon the information given or that a reasonable person in the actors position would expect or foresee such action.[17]

We do not agree, then, with the CA in holding that there was a novation in the contract between the parties. Not all the elements of novation were present. Novation must be expressly consented to. Moreover, the conflicting intention and acts of the parties underscore the absence of any express disclosure or circumstances with which to deduce a clear and unequivocal intent by the parties to novate the old agreement.[15] Land Bank is thus correct when it argues that there was no novation in the following:

By accepting Alfredos payment and keeping silent on the status of Alfredos application, Land Bank misled Alfredo to believe that he had for all intents and purposes stepped into the shoes of the Spouses Sy.

[W]hether or not Alfredo Ong has an interest in the obligation and payment was made with the knowledge or consent of Spouses Sy, he may still pay the obligation for the reason that even before he paid the amount of P750,000.00 on January 31, 1997, the substitution of debtors was already perfected by and between Spouses Sy and Spouses Ong as evidenced by a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage executed by them on December 9, 1996. And since the substitution of debtors was made without the consent of Land Bank a requirement which is indispensable in order to effect a novation of the obligation, it is therefore not bound to recognize the substitution of debtors. Land Bank did not intervene in the contract between Spouses Sy and Spouses Ong and did not expressly give its consent to this substitution.[16]

The defense of Land Bank Legazpi City Branch Manager Atty. Hingco that it was the banks Lending Center that should have notified Alfredo of his assumption of mortgage disapproval is unavailing. The Lending Centers lack of notice of disapproval, the Tabaco Branchs silence on the disapproval, and the banks subsequent actions show a failure of the bank as a whole, first, to notify Alfredo that he is not a recognized debtor in the eyes of the bank; and second, to apprise him of how and when he could collect on the payment that the bank no longer had a right to keep.

We turn then on the principle upon which Land Bank must return Alfredos payment. Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.*18+ There is unjust enrichment under Art. 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[19]

37
Another claim made by Land Bank is the presumption of regularity it enjoys and that it was in good faith when it accepted Alfredos tender of PhP 750,000. Additionally, unjust enrichment has been applied to actions called accion in rem verso. In order that the accion in rem verso may prosper, the following conditions must concur: (1) that the defendant has been enriched; (2) that the plaintiff has suffered a loss; (3) that the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground; and (4) that the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, or quasi-delict.[20] The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.[21]

The defense of good faith fails to convince given Land Banks actions. Alfredo was not treated as a mere prospective borrower. After he had paid PhP 750,000, he was made to sign bank documents including a promissory note and real estate mortgage. He was assured by Atty. Hingco that the titles to the properties covered by the Spouses Sys real estate mortgage would be transferred in his name, and upon payment of the PhP 750,000, the account would be considered current and renewed in his name.[24]

The principle applies to the parties in the instant case, as, Alfredo, having been deemed disqualified from assuming the loan, had no duty to pay petitioner bank and the latter had no right to receive it.

Moreover, the Civil Code likewise requires under Art. 19 that *e+very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Land Bank, however, did not even bother to inform Alfredo that it was no longer approving his assumption of the Spouses Sys mortgage. Yet it acknowledged his interest in the loan when the branch head of the bank wrote to tell him that his daughters loan had not been paid.*22+ Land Bank made Alfredo believe that with the payment of PhP 750,000, he would be able to assume the mortgage of the Spouses Sy. The act of receiving payment without returning it when demanded is contrary to the adage of giving someone what is due to him. The outcome of the application would have been different had Land Bank first conducted the credit investigation before accepting Alfredos payment. He would have been notified that his assumption of mortgage had been disapproved; and he would not have taken the futile action of paying PhP 750,000. The procedure Land Bank took in acting on Alfredos application cannot be said to have been fair and proper.

Land Bank posits as a defense that it did not unduly enrich itself at Alfredos expense during the foreclosure of the mortgaged properties, since it tendered its bid by subtracting PhP 750,000 from the Spouses Sys outstanding loan obligation. It is observed that this is the first time Land Bank is revealing this defense. However, issues, arguments, theories, and causes not raised below may no longer be posed on appeal.*25+ Land Banks contention, thus, cannot be entertained at this point.

Land Bank further questions the lower courts decision on the basis of the inconsistencies made by Alfredo on the witness stand. It argues that Alfredo was not a credible witness and his testimony failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of regular duties on the part of Land Bank.

This claim, however, touches on factual findings by the trial court, and we defer to these findings of the trial court as sustained by the appellate court. These are generally binding on us. While there are exceptions to this rule, Land Bank has not satisfactorily shown that any of them is applicable to this issue.[26] Hence, the rule that the trial court is in a unique position to observe the demeanor of witnesses should be applied and respected[27] in the instant case.

As to the claim that the trial court erred in applying equity to Alfredos case, we hold that Alfredo had no other remedy to recover from Land Bank and the lower court properly exercised its equity jurisdiction in resolving the collection suit. As we have held in one case:

In sum, we hold that Land Bank may not keep the PhP 750,000 paid by Alfredo as it had already foreclosed on the mortgaged lands.

Equity, as the complement of legal jurisdiction, seeks to reach and complete justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are incompetent to do so. Equity regards the spirit and not the letter, the intent and not the form, the substance rather than the circumstance, as it is variously expressed by different courts.[23]

Interest and attorneys fees

As to the applicable interest rate, we reiterate the guidelines found in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[28]

II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:

38
damages arising from default in the performance of obligations in general and/or for money judgment not involving a loan or forbearance of money, goods, or credit, the governing provision is Art. 2209 of the Civil Code prescribing a yearly 6% interest. Art. 2209 pertinently provides:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum.

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.

The term forbearance, within the context of usury law, has been described as a contractual obligation of a lender or creditor to refrain, during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay the loan or debt then due and payable.

3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. synthesized the rules on the imposition of interest, if proper, and the applicable rate, as follows: The 12% per annum rate under CB Circular No. 416 shall apply only to loans or forbearance of money, goods, or credits, as well as to judgments involving such loan or forbearance of money, goods, or credit, while the 6% per annum under Art. 2209 of the Civil Code applies when the transaction involves the payment of indemnities in the concept of damage arising from the breach or a delay in the performance of obligations in general, with the application of both rates reckoned from the time the complaint was filed until the *adjudged+ amount is fully paid. In either instance, the reckoning period for the commencement of the running of the legal interest shall be subject to the condition that the courts are vested with discretion, depending on the equities of each case, on the award of interest.*30+ (Emphasis supplied.)

No evidence was presented by Alfredo that he had sent a written demand to Land Bank before he filed the collection suit. Only the verbal agreement between the lawyers of the parties on the return of the payment was mentioned.[29] Consequently, the obligation of Land Bank to return the payment made by Alfredo upon the formers denial of the latters application for assumption of mortgage must be reckoned from the date of judicial demand on December 12, 1997, as correctly determined by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.

The next question is the propriety of the imposition of interest and the proper imposable rate of applicable interest. The RTC granted the rate of 12% per annum which was affirmed by the CA. From the abovequoted guidelines, however, the proper imposable interest rate is 6% per annum pursuant to Art. 2209 of the Civil Code. Sunga-Chan v. Court of Appeals is illuminating in this regard:

Based on our ruling above, forbearance of money refers to the contractual obligation of the lender or creditor to desist for a fixed period from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay the loan or debt then due and for which 12% per annum is imposed as interest in the absence of a stipulated rate. In the instant case, Alfredos conditional payment to Land Bank does not constitute forbearance of money, since there was no agreement or obligation for Alfredo to pay Land Bank the amount of PhP 750,000, and the obligation of Land Bank to return what Alfredo has conditionally paid is still in dispute and has not yet been determined. Thus, it cannot be said that Land Banks alleged obligation has become a forbearance of money.

In Reformina v. Tomol, Jr., the Court held that the legal interest at 12% per annum under Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 416 shall be adjudged only in cases involving the loan or forbearance of money. And for transactions involving payment of indemnities in the concept of

On the award of attorneys fees, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation were awarded because Alfredo was compelled to litigate due to the unjust refusal of Land Bank to refund the amount he paid. There are instances when it is just and equitable to award attorneys fees and expenses of litigation.[31] Art. 2208 of the Civil Code pertinently states:

39
In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: a registered title thereto, the same was secured through collusion with public officials and in fraud of Defendants. By way of counterclaim they pray that Plaintiff be required to reconvey the lands to them or otherwise pay them the sum of P500,000, value of the property.

xxxx

(2) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.

Given that Alfredo was indeed compelled to litigate against Land Bank and incur expenses to protect his interest, we find that the award falls under the exception above and is, thus, proper given the circumstances.

On a final note. The instant case would not have been litigated had Land Bank been more circumspect in dealing with Alfredo. The bank chose to accept payment from Alfredo even before a credit investigation was underway, a procedure worsened by the failure to even inform him of his credit standings impact on his assumption of mortgage. It was, therefore, negligent to a certain degree in handling the transaction with Alfredo. It should be remembered that the business of a bank is affected with public interest and it should observe a higher standard of diligence when dealing with the public.[32]

There is no question that the lands are within the big parcel originally registered on July 8, 1914 in G.L.R.O. Record No. 7681 under Original Certificate of Title No. 735. The survey of the big parcel took place in 1910 and 1911 and registration proceedings began in September, 1911 (see Exh. 5). The lands in question are now included in a parcel registered in the name of Plaintiff J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., a corporation, under transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267 (37687) of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal (Exhs. A and B). Plaintiff is the owner of the lands, having obtained title thereto by purchase from the heirs of D. Tuason, Inc. (Exh. E). The evidence shows that about forty or more years ago, one Florencio Sanchez, father of Defendant Lucia Sanchez, had been occupying both parcels of land, planting the bigger parcel to rice and corn and the smaller one to sweet potatoes and vegetables, personally and through the help of tenants. Upon the death of Florencio Sanchez in 1919 Toribio Arrinquin cultivated the bigger land for Lucia Sanchez with the assistance of Carlos Javier. Upon Toribios death, Javier continued the cultivation. Both Toribio and Javier were tenants of Lucia Sanchez and shared the products with her. In 1940 Lucia Sanchez was asked to declare the land for tax purposes and she did so (Exh. 3). But her own tax declaration contained the note that it was a duplicate of and included in Tax Declaration No. 764 in the name of J. M. Tuason. While Lucia claims to have paid taxes on the land, no tax receipt was produced by her. In the year 1948 people began to construct their houses on the land, some with Lucias permission, other without permission at all. Lucia collected rentals from those who were willing. Rentals were from P2 up per house. It is important to note that Defendants did not prove in what concept Lucia Sanchezs father had been occupying and cultivating the lands subject of the action. Neither was there any pretense that her occupation was adverse against the Tuasons or the whole world, except that Lucia, in the course of her testimony, said she attends to the land because she is the owner (t. s. n. Lerma, p. 30). She made this statement when it was disclosed that she has a brother, who has made no claim to the land. On the other hand, Plaintiff sought to prove by the testimonies of Domingo Ramos and Policarpio de Jesus that Lucias father, one by the name of Sisong Paud, had been paying rentals to the Tuason family; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat he died after the first world war, and that upon his death his son continued cultivating the land. The above witnesses showed they knew the land and the deceased father of Lucia Sanchez and knew the character of the land in the neighborhood and knew them to be lands of the Tuasons to whom occupants paid rentals. A consideration of the facts proved leads to the conclusion that Lucia Sanchez and her father must have occupied and cultivated the land paying nominal rentals to the owners of the land, the Tuason family, or merely by sufferance of the latter. We note that the lands were not used by Defendants for building their houses on. Only temporary houses were built thereon for the tillers of the soil. The trial court correctly declared Plaintiff owner of the lands and dismissed Defendants claim of ownership of the lands and their prayer for reconveyance. Plaintiff has a title thereto, which Defendants have not been able to contest. No evidence was submitted to show that Defendants ever occupied the lands as owners, and adversely against the registered owners. But its award of damages in the sum of P72,000

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CRCV No. 84445 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of PhP 750,000 will earn interest at 6% per annum reckoned from December 12, 1997, and the total aggregate monetary awards will in turn earn 12% per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. EN BANC [G.R. No. L-6938. May 30, 1956.] J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MIGUEL DE GUZMAN and LUCIA SANCHEZ, Defendants-Appellants.

DECISION LABRADOR, J.: This is an action instituted by Plaintiff to eject the Defendants from two parcels of land situated north of Espaa Extension and east of an imaginary line extending northward from the intersection of said street and Cordillera Street, Quezon City, and to collect the rental value thereof. Defendants deny Plaintiffs title to said lands and allege open, public, notorious and continuous possession thereof under claim of ownership from time immemorial. They further claim that if Plaintiff has

40
and P1,800 are not justified. P72,000 represents the interest that the owner would have realized, if the lands were converted into a subdivision and sold. There is no competent evidence introduced that the said lands could have been sold at the price fixed or that buyers would have paid or could have paid said price. We hold that the damages are speculative. P1,800 was fixed as the sum received by Lucia Sanchez from squatters. But Lucia Sanchez herself testified, on being called as witness for Plaintiff, that many of the squatters who constructed their houses did not pay, or if they paid in the beginning, failed to pay later on. All she admitted was P30 a month in 1949 and P50 in 1950 (t. s. n. Duque, p. 15) or a total of P960 for two years. For subsequent years, she refused to state how much she collected. This notwithstanding, the amount could have been around P500. The sum of P1,800 awarded as damages should, therefore, be reduced to P1,500. The claim of Defendants-Appellants that Plaintiff is not entitled to bring the action because Gregorio Araneta, Inc. is entrusted with the management of the land is without merit. The action is to quiet title and for ejectment, and the party entitled to bring it is the owner, which is the Plaintiff. The other claims are so obviously unfounded as to merit any consideration at all. The judgment is modified insofar as the award of damages is concerned. The award of P72,000 is hereby set aside and that of P1,800 reduced to P1,500. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed, with costs against Defendants-Appellants. Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia JJ., concur.

41
G.R. No. L-26578 January 28, 1974 LEGARDA HERMANOS and JOSE LEGARDA, petitioners, vs. FELIPE SALDAA and COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTH DIVISION) * respondents. Manuel Y. Macias for petitioners. Mario E. Ongkiko for private respondent. Petitioners replied in their letter of February 11, 1961 that as respondent had failed to complete total payment of the 120 installments by May, 1958 as stipulated in the contracts to sell, "pursuant to the provisions of both contracts all the amounts paid in accordance with the agreement together with the improvements on the premises have been considered as rents paid and as payment for damages suffered by your failure," 2 and "Said cancellation being in order, is hereby confirmed." From the adverse decision of July 17, 1963 of the trial court sustaining petitioners' cancellation of the contracts and dismissing respondent's complaint, respondent appellate court on appeal rendered its judgment of July 27, 1966 reversing the lower court's judgment and ordering petitioners "to deliver to the plaintiff possession of one of the two lots, at the choice of defendants, and to execute the corresponding deed of conveyance to the plaintiff for the said lot," 3 ruling as follows: During the hearing, plaintiff testified that he suspended payments because the lots were not actually delivered to him, or could not be, due to the fact that they were completely under water; and also because the defendants-owners failed to make improvements on the premises, such as roads, filling of the submerged areas, etc., despite repeated promises of their representative, the said Mr. Cenon. As regards the supposed cancellation of the contracts, plaintiff averred that no demand has been made upon him regarding the unpaid installments, and for this reason he could not be declared in default so as to entitle the defendants to cancel the said contracts. The issue, therefore, is: Under the above facts, may defendants be compelled, or not, to allow plaintiff to complete payment of the purchase price of the two lots in dispute and thereafter to execute the final deeds of conveyance thereof in his favor? xxx xxx xxx Whether or not plaintiffs explanation for his failure to pay the remaining installments is true, considering the circumstances obtaining in this case, we elect to apply the broad principles of equity and justice. In the case at bar, we find that the plaintiff has paid the total sum of P3,582.06 including interests, which is even more than the value of the two lots. And even if the sum applied to the principal alone were to be considered, which was of the total of P1,682.28, the same was already more than the value of one lot, which is P1,500.00. The only balance due on both lots was P1,317.72, which was even less than the value of one lot. We will consider as fully paid by the plaintiff at least one of the two lots, at the choice of the defendants. This is more in line with good conscience than a total denial to the plaintiff of a little token of what he has paid the defendant Legarda Hermanos. 4 Hence, the present petition for review, wherein petitioners insist on their right of cancellation under the "plainly valid written agreements which constitute the law between the parties" as against "the broad principles of equity and justice" applied by the appellate court. Respondent on the other hand while adhering to the validity of the doctrine of the Caridad Estates cases 5 which recognizes the right of a vendor of land under a contract to sell to cancel the contract upon default, with forfeiture of the installments paid as rentals, disputes its applicability herein contending that here petitioners-sellers were equally in default as the lots were "completely under water" and "there is neither evidence nor a finding that the petitioners in fact cancelled the contracts previous to receipt of respondent's letter." 6 The Court finds that the appellate court's judgment finding that of the total sum of P3,582.06 (including interests of P1,889.78) already paid by respondent (which was more than the value of two lots), the sum

TEEHANKEE, J.:1wph1.t The Court, in affirming the decision under review of the Court of Appeals, which holds that the respondent buyer of two small residential lots on installment contracts on a ten-year basis who has faithfully paid for eight continuous years on the principal alone already more than the value of one lot, besides the larger stipulated interests on both lots, is entitled to the conveyance of one fully paid lot of his choice, rules that the judgment is fair and just and in accordance with law and equity. The action originated as a complaint for delivery of two parcels of land in Sampaloc, Manila and for execution of the corresponding deed of conveyance after payment of the balance still due on their purchase price. Private respondent as plaintiff had entered into two written contracts with petitioner Legarda Hermanos as defendant subdivision owner, whereby the latter agreed to sell to him Lots Nos. 7 and 8 of block No. 5N of the subdivision with an area of 150 square meters each, for the sum of P1,500.00 per lot, payable over the span of ten years divided into 120 equal monthly installments of P19.83 with 10% interest per annum, to commence on May 26, 1948, date of execution of the contracts. Subsequently, Legarda Hermanos partitioned the subdivision among the brothers and sisters, and the two lots were among those allotted to co-petitioner Jose Legarda who was then included as codefendant in the action. It is undisputed that respondent faithfully paid for eight continuous years about 95 (of the stipulated 120) monthly installments totalling P3,582.06 up to the month of February, 1956, which as per petitioners' own statement of account, Exhibit "1", was applied to respondent's account (without distinguishing the two lots), as follows: To interests P1,889.78 To principal 1,682.28 Total P3,582.06 1 It is equally undisputed that after February, 1956 up to the filing of respondent's complaint in the Manila court of first instance in 1961, respondent did not make further payments. The account thus shows that he owed petitioners the sum of P1,317.72 on account of the balance of the purchase price (principal) of the two lots (in the total sum of P3,000.00), although he had paid more than the stipulated purchase price of P1,500.00 for one lot. Almost five years later, on February 2, 1961 just before the filing of the action, respondent wrote petitioners stating that his desire to build a house on the lots was prevented by their failure to introduce improvements on the subdivision as "there is still no road to these lots," and requesting information of the amount owing to update his account as "I intend to continue paying the balance due on said lots."

42
applied by petitioners to the principal alone in the amount of P1,682.28 was already more than the value of one lot of P1,500.00 and hence one of the two lots as chosen by respondent would be considered as fully paid, is fair and just and in accordance with law and equity. As already stated, the monthly payments for eight years made by respondent were applied to his account without specifying or distinguishing between the two lots subject of the two agreements under petitioners' own statement of account, Exhibit "1". 7 Even considering respondent as having defaulted after February 1956, when he suspended payments after the 95th installment, he had as of the already paid by way of principal (P1,682.28) more than the full value of one lot (P1,500.00). The judgment recognizing this fact and ordering the conveyance to him of one lot of his choice while also recognizing petitioners' right to retain the interests of P1,889.78 paid by him for eight years on both lots, besides the cancellation of the contract for one lot which thus reverts to petitioners, cannot be deemed to deny substantial justice to petitioners nor to defeat their rights under the letter and spirit of the contracts in question. The Court's doctrine in the analogous case of J.M. Tuason & Co. Inc. vs. Javier 8 is fully applicable to the present case, with the respondent at bar being granted lesser benefits, since no rescission of contract was therein permitted. There, where the therein buyer-appellee identically situated as herein respondent buyer had likewise defaulted in completing the payments after having religiously paid the stipulated monthly installments for almost eight years and notwithstanding that the seller-appellant had duly notified the buyer of the rescission of the contract to sell, the Court upheld the lower court's judgment denying judicial confirmation of the rescission and instead granting the buyer an additional grace period of sixty days from notice of judgment to pay all the installment payments in arrears together with the stipulated 10% interest per annum from the date of default, apart from reasonable attorney's fees and costs, which payments, the Court observed, would have the plaintiff-seller "recover everything due thereto, pursuant to its contract with the defendant, including such damages as the former may have suffered in consequence of the latter's default." In affirming, the Court held that "Regardless, however, of the propriety of applying said Art. 1592 thereto, We find that plaintiff herein has not been denied substantial justice, for, according to Art. 1234 of said Code: 'If the obligation has been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may recover as though there had been a strict and complete fulfillment, less damages suffered by the obligee,'" and "that in the interest of justice and equity, the decision appealed from may be upheld upon the authority of Article 1234 of the Civil Code." 9 ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment of the appellate court is hereby affirmed. Without pronouncement as to costs. Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Makasiar, Esguerra and Muoz Palma, JJ., con

43
G.R. No. L-30597 June 30, 1987 GUILLERMO AZCONA and FE JALANDONI AZCONA, petitioners, vs. JOSE JAMANDRE, Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Cirilo Jamandre (Sp. Proc. 6921 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental), and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Article 1318 of the Civil Code for lack of a subject matter. Moreover, the failure of the parties to approve and annex the said parcelary plan had the effect of a breach of the contract that justified its cancellation under its paragraph 8. 8 In one breath, the petitioner is arguing that there was no contract because there was no object and at the same time that there was a contract except that it was violated. The correct view, as we see it, is that there was an agreed subjectmatter, to wit, the 80 hectares of the petitioner's share in the Sta. Fe hacienda, although it was not expressly defined because the parcelary plan was not annexed and never approved by the parties. Despite this lack, however, there was an ascertainable object because the leased premises were sufficiently Identified and delineated as the petitioner admitted in his amended answer and in his direct testimony. 9 Thus, in his amended answer, he asserted that "the plaintiff . . .must delimit his work to the area previously designated and delivered." Asked during the trial how many hectares the private respondent actually occupied, the petitioner declared: "About 80 hectares. The whole 80 hectares." 10 The petitioner cannot now contradict these written and oral admissions." 11 Moreover, it appears that the failure to attach the parcelary plan to the contract is imputable to the petitioner himself because it was he who was supposed to cause the preparation of the said plan. As he testified on direct examination, "Our agreement was to sign our agreement, then I will have the parcelary plan prepared so that it will be a part of our contract." 12 That this was never done is not the respondent's fault as he had no control of the survey of the petitioner's land. Apparently, the Court of Appeals ** found, the parties impliedly decided to forego the annexing of the parcelary plan because they had already agreed on the area and limits of the leased premises. 13 The Identification of the 80 hectares being leased rendered the parcelary plan unnecessary, and its absence did not nullify the agreement. Coming next to the alleged default in the payment of the stipulated rentals, we observe first that when in Exhibit "B" the petitioner declared that "I hereby waive payment for the rentals corresponding to the crop year 1960-61 and which was due on March 30, 1960, " there was really nothing to waive because, as he himself put it in the same document, possession of the leased property "was not actually delivered" to the respondent. 14 The petitioner claims that such possession was not delivered because the approval by the PNB of the lease contract had not "materialized" due to the respondent's neglect. Such approval, he submitted, was to have been obtained by the respondents, which seems logical to us, for it was the respondent who was negotiating the loan from the PNB. As the respondent court saw it, however, "paragraph 6 (of the contract) does not state upon whom fell the obligation to secure the approval" so that it was not clear that "the fault, if any, was due solely to one or the other." 15 At any rate, that issue and the omission of the parcelary plan became immaterial when the parties agreed on the lease for the succeeding agricultural year 1961-62, the respondent paying and the petitioner receiving therefrom the sum of P7,000.00, as acknowledged in Exhibit "B," which is reproduced in full as follows: Bacolod City According to the petitioners, the parcelary plan was never agreed upon or annexed to the contract, which thereby became null and void under October 26, 1960

CRUZ, J.: This involves the interpretation of a contract of lease which was found by the trial court to have been violated by both the plaintiff and the defendant. On appeal, its decision was modified by the respondent court in favor of the plaintiff, for which reason the defendant has now come to us in a petition for certiorari. By the said contract, 1 Guillermo Azcona (hereinafter called the petitioner) leased 80 hectares of his 150-hectare pro indiviso share in Hacienda Sta. Fe in Escalante, Negros Occidental, to Cirilo Jamandre (represented here by the administrator of his intestate estate, and hereinafter called the private respondent). The agreed yearly rental was P7,200.00. The lease was for three agricultural years beginning 1960, extendible at the lessee's option to two more agricultural years, up to 1965. The first annual rental was due on or before March 30, 1960, but because the petitioner did not deliver possession of the leased property to the respondent, he "waived" payment, as he put it, of that rental. 2 The respondent actually entered the premises only on October 26, 1960, after payment by him to the petitioner of the sum of P7,000.00, which was acknowledged in the receipt later offered as Exhibit "B". On April 6, 1961, the petitioner, through his lawyer, notified the respondent that the contract of lease was deemed cancelled, terminated, and of no further effect," pursuant to its paragraph 8, for violation of the conditions specified in the said agreement. 3 Earlier, in fact, the respondent had been ousted from the possession of 60 hectares of the leased premises and left with only 20 hectares of the original area. 4 The reaction of the respondent to these developments was to file a complaint for damages against the petitioner, who retaliated with a counterclaim. As previously stated, both the complaint and the counterclaim were dismissed by the trial court * on the finding that the parties were in pari delicto. 5 The specific reasons invoked by the petitioner for canceling the lease contract were the respondent's failure: 1) to attach thereto the parcelary plan Identifying the exact area subject of the agreement, as stipulated in the contract; 2; to secure the approval by the Philippine National Bank of the said contract; and 3) to pay the rentals. 6 The parcelary plan was provided for in the contract as follows: That the LESSOR by these presents do hereby agree to lease in favor of the LESSEE a portion of the said lots above-described with an extension of EIGHTY (80) hectares, more or less, which portion is to be Identified by the parcelary plan duly marked and to be initialed by both LESSOR and LESSEE, and which parcelary plan is known as Annex "A" of this contract and considered as an integral part hereof. 7

44
RECEIPT RECEIVED from Mr. Cirilo Jamandre at the City of Bacolod, Philippines, this 26th day of October, 1960, Philippine National Bank Check No. 180646-A (Manager's Check Binalbagan Branch) for the amount of SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P7,000.00), Philippine Currency as payment for the rental corresponding to crop year 1961-62, by virtue of the contract of lease I have executed in his favor dated November 23, 1959, and ratified under Notary Public Mr. Enrique F. Marino as Doc. No. 119, Page No. 25, Book No. XII, Series of 1959. It is hereby understood, that this payment corresponds to the rentals due on or before January 30, 1961, as per contract. It is further understood that I hereby waive payment for the rentals corresponding to crop year 1960-61 and which was due on March 30, 1960, as possession of the property lease in favor of Mr. Cirilo Jamandre was not actually delivered to him, but the same to be delivered only after receipt of the amount as stated in this receipt. That Mr. Cirilo Jamandre is hereby authorized to take immediate possession of the property under lease effective today, October 26, 1960. WITNESS my hand at the City of Bacolod, Philippines, this 26th day of October, 1960. (SGD.) GUILLERMO AZCONA SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: (SGD.) JOSE T. JAMANDRE Citing the stipulation in the lease contract for an annual rental of P7,200.00, the petitioner now submits that there was default in the payment thereof by the respondent because he was P200.00 short of such rental. That deficiency never having been repaired, the petitioner concludes, the contract should be deemed cancelled in accordance with its paragraph 8. 16 For his part, the respondent argues that the receipt represented an express reduction of the stipulated rental in consideration of his allowing the use of 16 hectares of the leased area by the petitioner as grazing land for his cattle. Having unqualifiedly accepted the amount of P7,000.00 as rental for the agricultural year 1961-62, the petitioner should not now be heard to argue that the payment was incomplete. 17 After a study of the receipt as signed by the petitioner and witnessed for the respondent, this Court has come to the conclusion, and so holds, that the amount of P7,000.00 paid to by the respondent and received by the petitioner represented payment in full of the rental for the agricultural year 1961-62. The language is clear enough: "The amount of SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P7,000.00), Philippine Currency, as payment for the rental corresponding to crop year 1961-62 ... to the rental due on or before January 30, 1961, as per contract." The conclusion should be equally clear. The words "as per contract" are especially significant as they suggest that the parties were aware of the provisions of the agreement, which was described in detail elsewhere in the receipt. The rental stipulated therein was P7,200.00. The payment being acknowledged in the receipt was P7,000.00 only. Yet no mention was made in the receipt of the discrepancy and, on the contrary, the payment was acknowledged "as per contract." We read this as meaning that the provisions of the contract were being maintained and respected except only for the reduction of the agreed rental. The respondent court held that the amount of P200.00 had been condoned, but we do not think so. The petitioner is correct in arguing that the requisites of condonation under Article 1270 of the Civil Code are not present. What we see here instead is a mere reduction of the stipulated rental in consideration of the withdrawal from the leased premises of the 16 hectares where the petitioner intended to graze his cattle. The signing of Exhibit "B " by the petitioner and its acceptance by the respondent manifested their agreement on the reduction, which modified the lease contract as to the agreed consideration while leaving the other stipulations intact. The petitioner says that having admittedly been drafted by lawyer Jose Jamandre, the respondent's son, the receipt would have described the amount of P7,000.00 as "payment in full" of the rental if that were really the case. It seems to us that this meaning was adequately conveyed in the acknowledgment made by the petitioner that this was "payment for the rental corresponding to crop year 1961-62" and "corresponds to the rentals due on or before January 30, 1961, as per contract." On the other hand, if this was not the intention, the petitioner does not explain why he did not specify in the receipt that there was still a balance of P200.00 and, to be complete, the date when it was to be paid by the respondent. It is noted that the receipt was meticulously worded, suggesting that the parties were taking great pains, indeed, to provide against any possible misunderstanding, as if they were even then already apprehensive of future litigation. Such a reservation-if there was one-would have been easily incorporated in the receipt, as befitted the legal document it was intended to be. In any event, the relative insignificance of the alleged balance seems to us a paltry justification for annulling the contract for its supposed violation. If the petitioner is fussy enough to invoke it now, it stands to reason that he would have fussed over it too in the receipt he willingly signed after accepting, without reservation and apparently without protest, only P7,000.00. The applicable provision is Article 1235 of the Civil Code, declaring that: Art. 1235. When the obligee accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection, the obligation is deemed fully complied with. The petitioner says that he could not demand payment of the balance of P200.00 on October 26, 1960, date of the receipt because the rental for the crop year 1961-62 was due on or before January 30, 1961. 18 But this would not have prevented him from reserving in the receipt his right to collect the balance when it fell due. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that when the due date arrived, he made any demand, written or verbal, for the payment of that amount. As this Court is not a trier of facts, 19 we defer to the findings of the respondent court regarding the losses sustained by the respondent on the basis of the estimated yield of the properties in question in the years he was supposed to possess and exploit them. While the calculations offered by the petitioner are painstaking and even apparently exhaustive, we do not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent court to warrant its reversal on this matter. We also sustain the P5,000.00 attorney's fee. WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in full, with costs against the petitioners.

45
(j) Stanvac Refinery Service Building at Limay, Bataan. SO ORDERED. EN BANC G.R. No. L-27782 July 31, 1970 OCTAVIO A. KALALO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO J. LUZ, defendant-appellant. Amelia K. del Rosario for plaintiff-appellee. Pelaez, Jalandoni & Jamir for defendant-appellant. On December 1 1, '1961, appellee sent to appellant a statement of account (Exhibit "1"), 3 to which was attached an itemized statement of defendant-appellant's account (Exh. "1-A"), according to which the total engineering fee asked by appellee for services rendered amounted to P116,565.00 from which sum was to be deducted the previous payments made in the amount of P57,000.00, thus leaving a balance due in the amount of P59,565.00. On May 18, 1962 appellant sent appellee a resume of fees due to the latter. Said fees, according to appellant. amounted to P10,861.08 instead of the amount claimed by the appellee. On June 14, 1962 appellant sent appellee a check for said amount, which appellee refused to accept as full payment of the balance of the fees due him. On August 10, 1962, appellee filed a complaint against appellant, containing four causes of action. In the first cause of action, appellee alleged that for services rendered in connection with the different projects therein mentioned there was due him fees in sum s consisting of $28,000 (U.S.) and P100,204.46, excluding interests, of which sums only P69,323.21 had been paid, thus leaving unpaid the $28,000.00 and the balance of P30,881.25. In the second cause of action, appellee claimed P17,000.00 as consequential and moral damages; in the third cause of action claimed P55,000.00 as moral damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and in the fourth cause of action he claimed P25,000.00 as actual damages, and also for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. In his answer, appellant admitted that appellee rendered engineering services, as alleged in the first cause of action, but averred that some of appellee's services were not in accordance with the agreement and appellee's claims were not justified by the services actually rendered, and that the aggregate amount actually due to appellee was only P80,336.29, of which P69,475.21 had already been paid, thus leaving a balance of only P10,861.08. Appellant denied liability for any damage claimed by appellee to have suffered, as alleged in the second, third and fourth causes of action. Appellant also set up affirmative and special defenses, alleging that appellee had no cause of action, that appellee was in estoppel because of certain acts, representations, admissions and/or silence, which led appellant to believe certain facts to exist and to act upon said facts, that appellee's claim regarding the Menzi project was premature because appellant had not yet been paid for said project, and that appellee's services were not complete or were performed in violation of the agreement and/or otherwise unsatisfactory. Appellant also set up a counterclaim for actual and moral damages for such amount as the court may deem fair to assess, and for attorney's fees of P10,000.00. Inasmuch as the pleadings showed that the appellee's right to certain fees for services rendered was not denied, the only question being the assessment of the proper fees and the balance due to appellee after deducting the admitted payments made by appellant, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, authorized the case to be heard before a Commissioner. The Commissioner rendered a report which, in resume, states that the amount due to appellee was $28,000.00 (U.S.) as his fee in the International Research Institute Project which was twenty percent (20%) of the $140,000.00 that was paid to appellant, and P51,539.91 for the other projects, less the sum of P69,475.46 which was already paid by the appellant. The Commissioner also recommended the payment to appellee of the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees. At the hearing on the Report of the Commissioner, the respective counsel of the parties manifested to the court that they had no objection to the findings of fact of the Commissioner contained in the

ZALDIVAR, J.: Appeal from the decision, dated, February 10, 1967, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch V, Quezon City) in its Civil Case No. Q-6561. On November 17, 1959, plaintiff-appellee Octavio A. Kalalo hereinafter referred to as appellee), a licensed civil engineer doing business under the firm name of O. A. Kalalo and Associates, entered into an agreement (Exhibit A ) 1 with defendant-appellant Alfredo J . Luz (hereinafter referred to as appellant), a licensed architect, doing business under firm name of A. J. Luz and Associates, whereby the former was to render engineering design services to the latter for fees, as stipulated in the agreement. The services included design computation and sketches, contract drawing and technical specifications of all engineering phases of the project designed by O. A. Kalalo and Associates bill of quantities and cost estimate, and consultation and advice during construction relative to the work. The fees agreed upon were percentages of the architect's fee, to wit: structural engineering, 12-%; electrical engineering, 2-%. The agreement was subsequently supplemented by a "clarification to letter-proposal" which provided, among other things, that "the schedule of engineering fees in this agreement does not cover the following: ... D. Foundation soil exploration, testing and evaluation; E. Projects that are principally engineering works such as industrial plants, ..." and "O. A. Kalalo and Associates reserve the right to increase fees on projects ,which cost less than P100,000 ...." 2 Pursuant to said agreement, appellee rendered engineering services to appellant in the following projects: (a) Fil-American Life Insurance Building at Legaspi City; (b) Fil-American Life Insurance Building at Iloilo City; (c) General Milling Corporation Flour Mill at Opon Cebu; (d) Menzi Building at Ayala Blvd., Makati, Rizal; (e) International Rice Research Institute, Research center Los Baos, Laguna; (f) Aurelia's Building at Mabini, Ermita, Manila; (g) Far East Bank's Office at Fil-American Life Insurance Building at Isaac Peral Ermita, Manila; (h) Arthur Young's residence at Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal; (i) L & S Building at Dewey Blvd., Manila; and

46
Report, and they agreed that the said Report posed only two legal issues, namely: (1) whether under the facts stated in the Report, the doctrine of estoppel would apply; and (2) whether the recommendation in the Report that the payment of the amount. due to the plaintiff in dollars was legally permissible, and if not, at what rate of exchange it should be paid in pesos. After the parties had submitted their respective memorandum on said issues, the trial court rendered its decision dated February 10, 1967, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant, by ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P51,539.91 and $28,000.00, the latter to be converted into the Philippine currency on the basis of the current rate of exchange at the time of the payment of this judgment, as certified to by the Central Bank of the Philippines, from which shall be deducted the sum of P69,475.46, which the defendant had paid the plaintiff, and the legal rate of interest thereon from the filing of the complaint in the case until fully paid for; by ordering the defendant to pay to plaintiff the further sum of P8,000.00 by way of attorney's fees which the Court finds to be reasonable in the premises, with costs against the defendant. The counterclaim of the defendant is ordered dismissed. From the decision, this appeal was brought, directly to this Court, raising only questions of law. During the pendency of this appeal, appellee filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of attachment under Section 1 (f) of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court upon the ground that appellant is presently residing in Canada as a permanent resident thereof. On June 3, 1969, this Court resolved, upon appellee's posting a bond of P10,000.00, to issue the writ of attachment, and ordered the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal to attach the estate, real and personal, of appellant Alfredo J. Luz within the province, to the value of not less than P140,000.00. The appellant made the following assignments of errors: I. The lower court erred in not declaring and holding that plaintiffappellee's letter dated December 11, 1961 (Exhibit "1") and the statement of account (Exhibit "1-A") therein enclosed, had the effect, cumulatively or alternatively, of placing plaintiff-appellee in estoppel from thereafter modifying the representations made in said exhibits, or of making plaintiff-appellee otherwise bound by said representations, or of being of decisive weight in determining the true intent of the parties as to the nature and extent of the engineering services rendered and/or the amount of fees due. II. The lower court erred in declaring and holding that the balance owing from defendant-appellant to plaintiff-appellee on the IRRI Project should be paid on the basis of the rate of exchange of the U.S. dollar to the Philippine peso at the time of payment of judgment. . III. The lower court erred in not declaring and holding that the aggregate amount of the balance due from defendant-appellant to plaintiffappellee is only P15,792.05. IV. The lower court erred in awarding attorney's fees in the sum of P8,000.00, despite the commissioner's finding, which plaintiff-appellee has accepted and has not questioned, that said fee be only P5,000.00; and V. The lower court erred in not granting defendant-appellant relief on his counter-claim. 1. In support of his first assignment of error appellant argues that in Exhibit 1-A, which is a statement of accounts dated December 11, 1961, The statement of accounts (Exh. 1-A) could not estop appellee, because appellant did not rely thereon as found by the Commissioner, from whose Report we read: While it is true that plaintiff vacillated in his claim, yet, defendant did not in anyway rely or believe in the different claims asserted by the plaintiff and instead insisted on a claim that plaintiff was only entitled to P10,861.08 as per a separate resume of fees he sent to the plaintiff on May 18, 1962 (See Exhibit 6). 4 The foregoing finding of the Commissioner, not disputed by appellant, was adopted by the trial court in its decision. Under article 1431 of the Civil Code, in order that estoppel may apply the person, to whom representations have been made and who claims the estoppel in his favor must have relied or acted on such representations. Said article provides: Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. An essential element of estoppel is that the person invoking it has been influenced and has relied on the representations or conduct of the person sought to be estopped, and this element is wanting in the instant case. In Cristobal vs. Gomez, 5 this Court held that no estoppel based on a document can be invoked by one who has not been mislead by the false statements contained therein. And in Republic of the Philippines vs. Garcia, et al., 6 this Court ruled that there is no estoppel when the statement or action invoked as its basis did not mislead the adverse party-Estoppel has been characterized as harsh or odious and not sent by appellee to appellant, appellee specified the various projects for which he claimed engineering fees, the precise amount due on each particular engineering service rendered on each of the various projects, and the total of his claims; that such a statement barred appellee from asserting any claim contrary to what was stated therein, or from taking any position different from what he asserted therein with respect to the nature of the engineering services rendered; and consequently the trial court could not award fees in excess of what was stated in said statement of accounts. Appellant argues that for estoppel to apply it is not necessary, contrary to the ruling of the trial court, that the appellant should have actually relied on the representation, but that it is sufficient that the representations were intended to make the defendant act there on; that assuming arguendo that Exhibit 1-A did not put appellee in estoppel, the said Exhibit 1-A nevertheless constituted a formal admission that would be binding on appellee under the law on evidence, and would not only belie any inconsistent claim but also would discredit any evidence adduced by appellee in support of any claim inconsistent with what appears therein; that, moreover, Exhibit 1A, being a statement of account, establishes prima facie the accuracy and correctness of the items stated therein and its correctness can no longer be impeached except for fraud or mistake; that Exhibit 1-A furthermore, constitutes appellee's own interpretation of the contract between him and appellant, and hence, is conclusive against him. On the other hand, appellee admits that Exhibit 1-A itemized the services rendered by him in the various construction projects of appellant and that the total engineering fees charged therein was P116,565.00, but maintains that he was not in estoppel: first, because when he prepared Exhibit 1-A he was laboring under an innocent mistake, as found by the trial court; second, because appellant was not ignorant of the services actually rendered by appellee and the fees due to the latter under the original agreement, Exhibit "A." We find merit in the stand of appellee.

47
favored in law. 7 When misapplied, estoppel becomes a most effective weapon to accomplish an injustice, inasmuch as it shuts a man's mouth from speaking the truth and debars the truth in a particular case. 8 Estoppel cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference: it must be clearly proved in all its essential elements by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. 9 No party should be precluded from making out his case according to its truth unless by force of some positive principle of law, and, consequently, estoppel in pains must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular. 1 0 The essential elements of estoppel in pais may be considered in relation to the party sought to be estopped, and in relation to the party invoking the estoppel in his favor. As related to the party to be estopped, the essential elements are: (1) conduct amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (2) intent, or at least expectation that his conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts. As related to the party claiming the estoppel, the essential elements are (1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as the facts in questions; (2) (reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped; (3) action or inaction based thereon of such character as To change the position or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice. 1 1 The first essential element in relation to the party sought to be estopped does not obtain in the instant case, for, as appears in the Report of the Commissioner, appellee testified "that when he wrote Exhibit 1 and prepared Exhibit 1-A, he had not yet consulted the services of his counsel and it was only upon advice of counsel that the terms of the contract were interpreted to him resulting in his subsequent letters to the defendant demanding payments of his fees pursuant to the contract Exhibit A." 1 2 This finding of the Commissioner was adopted by the trial court. 1 3 It is established , therefore, that Exhibit 1-A was written by appellee through ignorance or mistake. Anent this matter, it has been held that if an act, conduct or misrepresentation of the party sought to be estopped is due to ignorance founded on innocent mistake, estoppel will not arise. 1 4 Regarding the essential elements of estoppel in relation to the party claiming the estoppel, the first element does not obtain in the instant case, for it cannot be said that appellant did not know, or at least did not have the means of knowing, the services rendered to him by appellee and the fees due thereon as provided in Exhibit A. The second element is also wanting, for, as adverted to, appellant did not rely on Exhibit 1-A but consistently denied the accounts stated therein. Neither does the third element obtain, for appellant did not act on the basis of the representations in Exhibit 1-A, and there was no change in his position, to his own injury or prejudice. Appellant, however, insists that if Exhibit 1-A did not put appellee in estoppel, it at least constituted an admission binding upon the latter. In this connection, it cannot be gainsaid that Exhibit 1-A is not a judicial admission. Statements which are not estoppels nor judicial admissions have no quality of conclusiveness, and an opponent. whose admissions have been offered against him may offer any evidence which serves as an explanation for his former assertion of what he now denies as a fact. This may involve the showing of a mistake. Accordingly, in Oas vs. Roa, 1 6 it was held that when a party to a suit has made an admission of any fact pertinent to the issue involved, the admission can be received against him; but such an admission is not conclusive against him, and he is entitled to present evidence to overcome the effect of the admission. Appellee did explain, and the trial court concluded, that Exhibit 1-A was based on either his ignorance or innocent mistake and he, therefore, is not bound by it.

Appellant further contends that Exhibit 1-A being a statement of account, establishes prima facie the accuracy and correctness of the items stated therein. If prima facie, as contended by appellant, then it is not absolutely conclusive upon the parties. An account stated may be impeached for fraud, mistake or error. In American Decisions, Vol. 62, p. 95, cited as authority by appellant himself. we read thus: An account stated or settled is a mere admission that the account is correct. It is not an estoppel. The account is still open to impeachment for mistakes or errors. Its effect is to establish, prima facie, the accuracy of the items without other proof; and the party seeking to impeach it is bound to show affirmatively the mistake or error alleged. The force of the admission and the strength of the evidence necessary to overcome it will depend upon the circumstances of the case. In the instant case, it is Our view that the ignorance mistake that attended the writing of Exhibit 1-A by appellee was sufficient to overcome the prima facie evidence of correctness and accuracy of said Exhibit 1-A. Appellant also urges that Exhibit 1-A constitutes appellee's own interpretation of the contract, and is, therefore, conclusive against him. Although the practical construction of the contract by one party, evidenced by his words or acts, can be used against him in behalf of the other party, 1 7 yet, if one of the parties carelessly makes a wrong interpretation of the words of his contract, or performs more than the contract requires (as reasonably interpreted independently of his performance), as happened in the instant case, he should be entitled to a restitutionary remedy, instead of being bound to continue to his erroneous interpretation or his erroneous performance and "the other party should not be permitted to profit by such mistake unless he can establish an estoppel by proving a material change of position made in good faith. The rule as to practical construction does not nullify the equitable rules with respect to performance by mistake." 1 8 In the instant case, it has been shown that Exhibit 1-A was written through mistake by appellee and that the latter is not estopped by it. Hence, even if said Exhibit 1-A be considered as practical construction of the contract by appellee, he cannot be bound by such erroneous interpretation. It has been held that if by mistake the parties followed a practice in violation of the terms of the agreement, the court should not perpetuate the error. 1 9 2. In support of the second assignment of error, that the lower court erred in holding that the balance from appellant on the IRRI project should be paid on the basis of the rate of exchange of the U.S. dollar to the Philippine peso at the time of payment of the judgment, appellant contends: first, that the official rate at the time appellant received his architect's fees for the IRRI project, and correspondingly his obligation to appellee's fee on August 25, 1961, was P2.00 to $1.00, and cites in support thereof Section 1612 of the Revised Administrative Code, Section 48 of Republic Act 265 and Section 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 699; second, that the lower court's conclusion that the rate of exchange to be applied in the conversion of the $28,000.00 is the current rate of exchange at the time the judgment shall be satisfied was based solely on a mere presumption of the trial court that the defendant did not convert, there being no showing to that effect, the dollars into Philippine currency at the official rate, when the legal presumption should be that the dollars were converted at the official rate of $1.00 to P2.00 because on August 25, 1961, when the IRRI project became due and payable, foreign exchange controls were in full force and effect, and partial decontrol was effected only afterwards, during the Macapagal

48
administration; third, that the other ground advanced by the lower court for its ruling, to wit, that appellant committed a breach of his obligation to turn over to the appellee the engineering fees received in U.S. dollars for the IRRI project, cannot be upheld, because there was no such breach, as proven by the fact that appellee never claimed in Exhibit 1-A that he should be paid in dollars; and there was no provision in the basic contract (Exh. "A") that he should be paid in dollars; and, finally, even if there were such provision, it would have no binding effect under the provision of Republic Act 529; that, moreover, it cannot really be said that no payment was made on that account for appellant had already paid P57,000.00 to appellee, and under Article 125 of the Civil Code, said payment could be said to have been applied to the fees due from the IRRI project, this project being the biggest and this debt being the most onerous. In refutation of appellant's argument in support of the second assignment of error, appellee argues that notwithstanding Republic Act 529, appellant can be compelled to pay the appellee in dollars in view of the fact that appellant received his fees in dollars, and appellee's fee is 20% of appellant's fees; and that if said amount is be converted into Philippine Currency, the rate of exchange should be that at the time of the execution of the judgment. 2 0 We have taken note of the fact that on August 25, 1961, the date when appellant said his obligation to pay appellee's fees became due, there was two rates of exchange, to wit: the preferred rate of P2.00 to $1.00, and the free market rate. It was so provided in Circular No. 121 of the Central Bank of the Philippines, dated March 2, 1961. amending an earlier Circular No. 117, and in force until January 21, 1962 when it was amended by Circular No. 133, thus: 1. All foreign exchange receipts shall be surrendered to the Central Bank of those authorized to deal in foreign exchange as follows: Percentage of Total to be surrendered at Preferred: Free Market Rate: Rate: (a) Export Proceeds, U.S. Government Expenditures invisibles other than those specifically mentioned below. ................................................ 25 75 (b) Foreign Investments, Gold Proceeds, Tourists and Inward Remittances of Veterans and Filipino Citizens; and Personal Expenses of Diplomatic Per personnel ................................. 100" 2 1 The amount of $140,000.00 received by appellant foil the International Rice Research Institute project is not within the scope of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph No. 1 of Circular No. 121. Appellant has not shown that 25% of said amount had to be surrendered to the Central Bank at the preferred rate because it was either export proceeds, or U.S. Government expenditures, or invisibles not included in sub-paragraph (b). Hence, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in presuming that appellant converted said amount at the free market rate. It is hard to believe that a person possessing dollars would exchange his dollars at the preferred rate of P2.00 to $1.00, when he is not obligated to do so, rather than at the free market rate which is much higher. A person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns, and that the ordinary course of business has been followed. 2 2 Under the agreement, Exhibit A, appellee was entitled to 20% of $140,000.00, or the amount of $28,000.00. Appellee, however, cannot oblige the appellant to pay him in dollars, even if appellant himself had received his fee for the IRRI project in dollars. This payment in dollars is prohibited by Republic Act 529 which was enacted on June 16, 1950. Said act provides as follows: SECTION 1. Every provision contained in, or made with respect to, any obligation which provision purports to give the obligee the right to require payment in gold or in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency or in an amount of money of the Philippines measured thereby, be as it is hereby declared against public policy, and null, void and of no effect, and no such provision shall be contained in, or made with respect to, any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation heretofore or here after incurred, whether or not any such provision as to payment is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts: Provided, That, ( a) if the obligation was incurred prior to the enactment of this Act and required payment in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency, it shall be discharged in Philippine currency measured at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time the obligation was incurred, (b) except in case of a loan made in a foreign currency stipulated to be payable in the same currency in which case the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of the stipulated date of payment shall prevail. All coin and currency, including Central Bank notes, heretofore or hereafter issued and declared by the Government of the Philippines shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private. Under the above-quoted provision of Republic Act 529, if the obligation was incurred prior to the enactment of the Act and require payment in a particular kind of coin or currency other than the Philippine currency the same shall be discharged in Philippine currency measured at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time the obligation was incurred. As We have adverted to, Republic Act 529 was enacted on June 16, 1950. In the case now before Us the obligation of appellant to pay appellee the 20% of $140,000.00, or the sum of $28,000.00, accrued on August 25, 1961, or after the enactment of Republic Act 529. It follows that the provision of Republic Act 529 which requires payment at the prevailing rate of exchange when the obligation was incurred cannot be applied. Republic Act 529 does not provide for the rate of exchange for the payment of obligation incurred after the enactment of said Act. The logical Conclusion, therefore, is that the rate of exchange should be that prevailing at the time of payment. This view finds support in the ruling of this Court in the case of Engel vs. Velasco & Co. 2 3 where this Court held that even if the obligation assumed by the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a sum of money expressed in American currency, the indemnity to be allowed should be expressed in Philippine currency at the rate of exchange at the time of judgment rather than at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of defendant's breach. This is also the ruling of American court as follows: The value in domestic money of a payment made in foreign money is fixed with respect to the rate of exchange at the time of payment. (70 CJS p. 228) According to the weight of authority the amount of recovery depends upon the current rate of exchange, and not the par value of the particular money involved. (48 C.J. 605-606) The value in domestic money of a payment made in foreign money is fixed in reference to the rate of exchange at the time of such payment. (48 C.J. 605) It is Our considered view, therefore, that appellant should pay the appellee the equivalent in pesos of the $28,000.00 at the free market rate of exchange at the time of payment. And so the trial court did not err when it held that herein appellant should pay appellee $28,000.00 "to be converted into the Philippine currency on the basis of the current

49
rate of exchange at the time of payment of this judgment, as certified to by the Central Bank of the Philippines, ...." 2 4 Appellant also contends that the P57,000.00 that he had paid to appellee should have been applied to the due to the latter on the IRRI project because such debt was the most onerous to appellant. This contention is untenable. The Commissioner who was authorized by the trial court to receive evidence in this case, however, reports that the appellee had not been paid for the account of the $28,000.00 which represents the fees of appellee equivalent to 20% of the $140,000.00 that the appellant received as fee for the IRRI project. This is a finding of fact by the Commissioner which was adopted by the trial court. The parties in this case have agreed that they do not question the finding of fact of the Commissioner. Thus, in the decision appealed from the lower court says: At the hearing on the Report of the Commissioner on February 15, 1966, the counsels for both parties manifested to the court that they have no objection to the findings of facts of the Commissioner in his report; and agreed that the said report only poses two (2)legal issues, namely: (1) whether under the facts stated in the Report, the doctrine of estoppel will apply; and (2) whether the recommendation in the Report that the payment of amount due to the plaintiff in dollars is permissible under the law, and, if not, at what rate of exchange should it be paid in pesos (Philippine currency) .... 2 5 In the Commissioner's report, it is spetifically recommended that the appellant be ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of "$28,000. 00 or its equivalent as the fee of the plaintiff under Exhibit A on the IRRI project." It is clear from this report of the Commissioner that no payment for the account of this $28,000.00 had been made. Indeed, it is not shown in the record that the peso equivalent of the $28,000.00 had been fixed or agreed upon by the parties at the different times when the appellant had made partial payments to the appellee. 3. In his third assignment of error, appellant contends that the lower court erred in not declaring that the aggregate amount due from him to appellee is only P15,792.05. Appellant questions the propriety or correctness of most of the items of fees that were found by the Commissioner to be due to appellee for services rendered. We believe that it is too late for the appellant to question the propriety or correctness of those items in the present appeal. The record shows that after the Commissioner had submitted his report the lower court, on February 15, 1966, issued the following order: When this case was called for hearing today on the report of the Commissioner, the counsels of the parties manifested that they have no objection to the findings of facts in the report. However, the report poses only legal issues, namely: (1) whether under the facts stated in the report, the doctrine of estoppel will apply; and (2) whether the recommendation in the report that the alleged payment of the defendant be made in dollars is permissible by law and, if not, in what rate it should be paid in pesos (Philippine Currency). For the purpose of resolving these issues the parties prayed that they be allowed to file their respective memoranda which will aid the court in the determination of said issues. 2 6 In consonance with the afore-quoted order of the trial court, the appellant submitted his memorandum which opens with the following statements: As previously manifested, this Memorandum shall be confined to: (a) the finding in the Commissioner's Report that defendant's defense of estoppel will not lie (pp. 17-18, Report); and (b) the recommendation in the Commissioner's Report that defendant be ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of '$28,000.00 (U.S.) or its equivalent as the fee of the plaintiff under Exhibit 'A' in the IRRI project.' More specifically this Memorandum proposes to demonstrate the affirmative of three legal issues posed, namely: First: Whether or not plaintiff's letter dated December 11, 1961 (Exhibit 'I') and/or Statement of Account (Exhibit '1-A') therein enclosed has the effect of placing plaintiff in estoppel from thereafter modifying the representations made in said letter and Statement of Account or of making plaintiff otherwise bound thereby; or of being decisive or great weight in determining the true intent of the parties as to the amount of the engineering fees owing from defendant to plaintiff; Second: Whether or not defendant can be compelled to pay whatever balance is owing to plaintiff on the IRRI (International Rice and Research Institute) project in United States dollars; and Third: Whether or not in case the ruling of this Honorable Court be that defendant cannot be compelled to pay plaintiff in United States dollars, the dollar-to-peso convertion rate for determining the peso equivalent of whatever balance is owing to plaintiff in connection with the IRRI project should be the 2 to 1 official rate and not any other rate. 2 7 It is clear, therefore, that what was submitted by appellant to the lower court for resolution did not include the question of correctness or propriety of the amounts due to appellee in connection with the different projects for which the appellee had rendered engineering services. Only legal questions, as above enumerated, were submitted to the trial court for resolution. So much so, that the lower court in another portion of its decision said, as follows: The objections to the Commissioner's Report embodied in defendant's memorandum of objections, dated March 18, 1966, cannot likewise be entertained by the Court because at the hearing of the Commissioner's Report the parties had expressly manifested that they had no objection to the findings of facts embodied therein. We, therefore hold that the third assignment of error of the appellant has no merit. 4. In his fourth assignment of error, appellant questions the award by the lower court of P8,000.00 for attorney's fees. Appellant argues that the Commissioner, in his report, fixed the sum of P5,000.00 as "just and reasonable" attorney's fees, to which amount appellee did not interpose any objection, and by not so objecting he is bound by said finding; and that, moreover, the lower court gave no reason in its decision for increasing the amount to P8,000.00. Appellee contends that while the parties had not objected to the findings of the Commissioner, the assessment of attorney's fees is always subject to the court's appraisal, and in increasing the recommended fees from P5,000.00 to P8,000.00 the trial court must have taken into consideration certain circumstances which warrant the award of P8,000.00 for attorney's fees. We believe that the trial court committed no error in this connection. Section 12 of Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, on which the fourth assignment of error is presumably based, provides that when the parties stipulate that a commissioner's findings of fact shall be final, only questions of law arising from the facts mentioned in the report shall thereafter be considered. Consequently, an agreement by the parties to abide by the findings of fact of the commissioner is equivalent to an

50
agreement of facts binding upon them which the court cannot disregard. The question, therefore, is whether or not the estimate of the reasonable fees stated in the report of the Commissioner is a finding of fact. The report of the Commissioner on this matter reads as follows: As regards attorney's fees, under the provisions of Art 2208, par (11), the same may be awarded, and considering the number of hearings held in this case, the nature of the case (taking into account the technical nature of the case and the voluminous exhibits offered in evidence), as well as the way the case was handled by counsel, it is believed, subject to the Court's appraisal of the matter, that the sum of P5,000.00 is just and reasonable as attorney's fees." 2 8 It is thus seen that the estimate made by the Commissioner was an expression of belief, or an opinion. An opinion is different from a fact. The generally recognized distinction between a statement of "fact" and an expression of "opinion" is that whatever is susceptible of exact knowledge is a matter of fact, while that not susceptible of exact knowledge is generally regarded as an expression of opinion. 2 9 It has also been said that the word "fact," as employed in the legal sense includes "those conclusions reached by the trior from shifting testimony, weighing evidence, and passing on the credit of the witnesses, and it does not denote those inferences drawn by the trial court from the facts ascertained and settled by it. 3 0 In the case at bar, the estimate made by the Commissioner of the attorney's fees was an inference from the facts ascertained by him, and is, therefore, not a finding of facts. The trial court was, consequently, not bound by that estimate, in spite of the manifestation of the parties that they had no objection to the findings of facts of the Commissioner in his report. Moreover, under Section 11 of Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, the court may adopt, modify, or reject the report of the commissioner, in whole or in part, and hence, it was within the trial court's authority to increase the recommended attorney's fees of P5,000.00 to P8,000.00. It is a settled rule that the amount of attorney's fees is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. 3 1 It is true, as appellant contends, that the trial court did not state in the decision the reasons for increasing the attorney's fees. The trial court, however, had adopted the report of the Commissioner, and in adopting the report the trial court is deemed to have adopted the reasons given by the Commissioner in awarding attorney's fees, as stated in the above-quoted portion of the report. Based on the reasons stated in the report, the trial court must have considered that the reasonable attorney's fees should be P8,000.00. Considering that the judgment against the appellant would amount to more than P100,000.00, We believe that the award of P8,000.00 for attorney's fees is reasonable. 5. In his fifth assignment of error appellant urges that he is entitled to relief on his counterclaim. In view of what We have stated in connection with the preceding four assignments of error, We do not consider it necessary to dwell any further on this assignment of error. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the defendant-appellant. It is so ordered. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

51
G.R. No. L-49494 May 31, 1979 NELIA G. PONCE and VICENTE C. PONCE, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and JESUSA B. AFABLE, respondents. Romeo L. Mendoza & Gallardo S. Tongohan for petitioners. Ramon M. Velayo for private respondent. Plaintiffs filed their Answer to defendant Mendoza's counterclaim denying under oath the allegations of usury. After petitioners had rested, the case was deemed submitted for decision since respondent Afable and her co-debtors had repeatedly failed to appear before the trial Court for the presentation of their evidence. On March 9, 1972, the trial Court rendered judgment ordering respondent Afable and her co-debtors, Felisa L. Mendoza and Ma. Aurora C. Dio , to pay petitioners, jointly and severally, the sum of P814,868.42, plus 12% interest per annum from July 31, 1969 until full payment, and a sum equivalent to 10% of the total amount due as attorney's fees and costs. From said Decision, by respondent Afable appealed to the Court of Appeals. She argued that the contract under consideration involved the payment of US dollars and was, therefore, illegal; and that under the in pari delicto rule, since both parties are guilty of violating the law, neither one can recover. It is to be noted that said defense was not raised in her Answer. On December 13, 1977, the Court of Appeals* rendered judgment affirming the decision of the trial Court. In a Resolution dated February 27, 1978, the Court of Appeals,** denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. However, in a Resolution dated June 8, 1978, the Court of Appeals acting on the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by private respondent, set aside the Decision of December 13, 1977, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the Complaint. The Court of Appeals opined that the intent of the parties was that the promissory note was payable in US dollars, and, therefore, the transaction was illegal with neither party entitled to recover under the in pari delicto rule. Their Motions for Reconsideration having been denied in the Resolutions dated July 6, 1978 and November 27, 1978, petitioners filed the instant Petition raising the following Assignments of Error. I THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE EVIDENCING THE TRANSACTION OF THE PARTIES IS PAYABLE IN U.S. DOLLARS THEREBY DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES OUTSIDE OF THEIR PROMISSORY NOTE DESPITE LACK OF SHOWING THAT IT FAILED TO EXPRESS THE TRUE INTENT OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND ITS PAYABILITY IN PHILIPPINE PESOS WHICH IS EXPRESSED, AMONG OTHERS, BY ITS CLEAR AND PRECISE TERMS. II THE RESPONDENT COURT, OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT REPUBLIC ACT 529, OTHERWISE KNOWN ASIAN ACT TO ASSURE UNIFORM VALUE TO PHILIPPINE COINS AND CURRENCY,' COVERS THE TRANSACTION OF THE PARTIES HEREIN. III THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT JESUSA B. AFABLE COULD NOT FAVORABLY AVAIL HERSELF OF THE DEFENSE OF ALLEGED APPLICABILITY OF REPUBLIC ACT 529 AND THE DOCTRINE OF IN PARI DELICTO AS THESE WERE NOT PLEADED NOR ADOPTED BY HER IN THE TRIAL.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: This is a Petition for Certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated June 8, 1978, reconsidering its Decision dated December 17, 1977 and reversing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in favor of petitioners as well as the Resolutions, dated July 6, 1978 and November 27, 1978, denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. The factual background of the case is as follows: On June 3, 1969, private respondent Jesusa B. Afable, together with Felisa L. Mendoza and Ma. Aurora C. Dio executed a promissory note in favor of petitioner Nelia G. Ponce in the sum of P814,868.42, Philippine Currency, payable, without interest, on or before July 31, 1969. It was further provided therein that should the indebtedness be not paid at maturity, it shall draw interest at 12% per annum, without demand; that should it be necessary to bring suit to enforce pay ment of the note, the debtors shall pay a sum equivalent to 10% of the total amount due for attorney's fees; and, in the event of failure to pay the indebtedness plus interest in accordance with its terms, the debtors shall execute a first mortgage in favor of the creditor over their properties or of the Carmen Planas Memorial, Inc. Upon the failure of the debtors to comply with the terms of the promissory note, petitioners (Nelia G. Ponce and her husband) filed, on July 27, 1970, a Complaint against them with the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of the principal sum of P814,868.42, plus interest and damages. Defendant Ma. Aurora C. Dio's Answer consisted more of a general denial and the contention that she did not borrow any amount from plaintiffs and that her signature on the promissory note was obtained by plaintiffs on their assurance that the same was for " formality only." Defendant Jesusa B. Afable, for her part, asserted in her Answer that the promissory note failed to express the true intent and agreement of the parties, the true agreement being that the obligation therein mentioned would be assumed and paid entirely by defendant Felisa L. Mendoza; that she had signed said document only as President of the Carmen Planas Memorial, Inc., and that she was not to incur any personal obligation as to the payment thereof because the same would be repaid by defendant Mendoza and/or Carmen Planas Memorial, Inc. In her Amended Answer, defendant Felisa L. Mendoza admitted the authenticity and due execution of the promissory note, but averred that it was a recapitulation of a series of transactions between her and the plaintiffs, "with defendant Ma. Aurora C. Dio and Jesusa B. Afable coming only as accomodation parties." As affirmative defense, defendant Mendoza contended that the promissory note was the result of usurious transactions, and, as counterclaim, she prayed that plaintiffs be ordered to account for all the interests paid.

52
IV THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT REPUBLIC ACT 529 COVERS THE PARTIES TRANSACTION, THAT THE Doctrine OF IN PARI DELICTO DOES NOT APPLY AND THE PARTIES AGREEMENT WAS NOT NULL AND VOID PURSUANT TO THE RULING IN OCTAVIO A. KALALO VS. ALFREDO J. LUZ, NO.-27782, JULY 31, 1970. In the Resolution dated June 8, 1978, the Court of Appeals made the following observations: We are convinced from the evidence that the amount awarded by the lower Court was indeed owed by the defendants to the plaintiffs. However, the sole issue raised in this second motion for reconconsideration is not the existence of the obligation itself but the legality of the subject matter of the contract. If the subject matter is illegal and against public policy, the doctrine of pari delicto applies. xxx xxx xxx We are constrained to reverse our December 13, 1977 decision. While it is true that the promissory note does not mention any obligation to pay in dollars, plaintiff-appellee Ponce himself admitted that there was an agreement that he would be paid in dollars by the defendants. The promissory note is payable in U.S. donors. The in. tent of the parties prevails over the bare words of the written contracts. xxx xxx xxx The agreement is null and void and of no effect under Republic Act No. 529. Under the doctrine of pari delicto, no recovery can be made in favor of the plaintiffs for being themselves guilty of violating the law. 1 We are constrained to disagree. Reproduced hereunder is Section 1 of Republic Act No. 529, which was enacted on June 16, 1950: Section 1. Every provision contained in, or made with respect to, any domestic obligation to wit, any obligation contracted in the Philippines which provision purports to give the obligee the right to require payment in gold or in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency or in an amount of money of the Philippines measured thereby, be as it is hereby declared against public policy, and null voice and of no effect and no such provision shall be contained in, or made with respect to, any obligation hereafter incurred. The above prohibition shall not apply to (a) transactions were the funds involved are the proceeds of loans or investments made directly or indirectly, through bona fide intermediaries or agents, by foreign governments, their agencies and instrumentalities, and international financial and banking institutions so long as the funds are Identifiable, as having emanated from the sources enumerated above; (b) transactions affecting high priority economic projects for agricultural industrial and power development as may be determined by the National Economic Council which are financed by or through foreign funds; (c) forward exchange transactions entered into between banks or between banks and individuals or juridical persons; (d) import-export and other international banking financial investment and industrial transactions. With the exception of the cases enumerated in items (a) (b), (c) and (d) in the foregoing provision, in, which cases the terms of the parties' agreement shag apply, every other domestic obligation heretofore or hereafter incurred whether or not any such provision as to payment is contained therein or made with- respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts: Provided, That if the obligation was incurred prior to the enactment of this Act and required payment in a particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency, it shall be discharge in Philippine currency measured at the prevailing rates of exchange at the time the obligation was incurred, except in case of a loan made in foreign currency stipulated to be payable in the currency in which case the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of the stipulated date of payment shall prevail All coin and currency, including Central Bank notes, heretofore and hereafter issued and d by the Government of the Philippines shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private. (As amended by RA 4100, Section 1, approved June 19, 1964) (Empahsis supplied). It is to be noted that while an agreement to pay in dollars is declared as null and void and of no effect, what the law specifically prohibits is payment in currency other than legal tender. It does not defeat a creditor's claim for payment, as it specifically provides that "every other domestic obligation ... whether or not any such provision as to payment is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts." A contrary rule would allow a person to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another's expense. As the Court of Appeals itself found, the promissory note in question provided on its face for payment of the obligation in Philippine currency, i.e., P814,868.42. So that, while the agreement between the parties originally involved a dollar transaction and that petitioners expected to be paid in the amount of US$194,016.29, petitioners are not now insisting on their agreement with respondent Afable for the payment of the obligation in dollars. On the contrary, they are suing on the basis of the promissory note whereby the parties have already agreed to convert the dollar loan into Philippine currency at the rate of P4.20 to $1.00. 2 It may likewise be pointed out that the Promissory Note contains no provision "giving the obligee the right to require payment in a particular kind of currency other than Philippine currency, " which is what is specifically prohibited by RA No. 529. At any rate, even if we were to disregard the promissory note providing for the payment of the obligation in Philippine currency and consider that the intention of the parties was really to provide for payment of the obligation would be made in dollars, petitioners can still recover the amount of US$194,016.29, which respondent Afable and her co-debtors do not deny having received, in its peso equivalent. As held in Eastboard Navigation, Ltd. vs. Juan Ysmael & Co. Inc., 102 Phil. 1 (1957), and Arrieta vs. National Rice & Corn Corp., 3 if there is any agreement to pay an obligation in a currency other than Philippine legal tender, the same is nun and void as contrary to public policy, pursuant to Republic Act No. 529, and the most that could be demanded is to pay said obligation in Philippine currency. In other words, what is prohibited by RA No. 529 is the payment of an obligation in dollars, meaning that a creditor cannot oblige the debtor to pay him in dollars, even if the loan were given in said currency. In such a case, the indemnity to be allowed should be expressed in Philippine currency on the basis of the current rate of exchange at the time of payment. 4 The foregoing premises considered, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the other errors assigned by petitioners. WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated June 8, 1978, July 6, 1978 and November 27, 1978 are hereby set aside, and judgment is hereby rendered reinstating the Decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila. No pronouncement as to costs.

53
SO ORDERED. New Pacific Timber & Supply Co., Inc. vs. Seneris, No. L-41764, 101 SCRA 686 , December 19, 1980 G.R. No. L-41764 December 19, 1980 NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. ALBERTO V. SENERIS, RICARDO A. TONG and EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID, respondents. CONCEPCION JR., J.: A petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul and/or modify the order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City (Branch ii) dated August 28, 1975 denying petitioner's Ex-Parte Motion for Issuance of Certificate Of Satisfaction Of Judgment. Herein petitioner is the defendant in a complaint for collection of a sum 1 of money filed by the private respondent. On July 19, 1974, a compromise judgment was rendered by the respondent Judge in accordance with an amicable settlement entered into by the parties the terms and conditions of which, are as follows: (1) That defendant will pay to the plaintiff the amount of Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P54,500.00) at 6% interest per annum to be reckoned from August 25, 1972; (2) That defendant will pay to the plaintiff the amount of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) as attorney's fees for which P5,000.00 had been acknowledged received by the plaintiff under Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation Check No. 16-135022 amounting to P5,000.00 leaving a balance of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00); (3) That the entire amount of P54,500.00 plus interest, plus the balance of P1,000.00 for attorney's fees will be paid by defendant to the plaintiff within five months from today, July 19, 1974; and (4) Failure one the part of the defendant to comply with any of the above-conditions, a writ of execution may be issued by this Court for 2 the satisfaction of the obligation. For failure of the petitioner to comply with his judgment obligation, the respondent Judge, upon motion of the private respondent, issued an order for the issuance of a writ of execution on December 21, 1974. Accordingly, writ of execution was issued for the amount of P63,130.00 pursuant to which, the Ex-Officio Sheriff levied upon the following personal properties of the petitioner, to wit: (1) Unit American Lathe 24 (1) Unit American Lathe 18 Cracker Wheeler (1) Unit Rockford Shaper 24 and set the auction sale thereof on January 15, 1975. However, prior to January 15, 1975, petitioner deposited with the Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance, Zamboanga City, in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff of Zamboanga City, the sum of P63,130.00 for the payment of the judgment obligation, consisting of the following: 1. P50.000.00 in Cashier's Check No. S-314361 dated January 3, 1975 of the Equitable Banking Corporation; and 2. P13,130.00 incash.
3 4

January 16, 1975 at 10:00 o'clock a.m. At about 9:15 a.m., on January 16, 1975, a certain Mr. Taedo representing the petitioner appeared in the office of the Ex-Officio Sheriff and the latter reminded Mr. Taedo that the auction sale would proceed at 10:00 o'clock. At 10:00 a.m., Mr. Taedo and Mr. Librado, both representing the petitioner requested the Ex-Officio Sheriff to give them fifteen minutes within which to contract their lawyer which request was granted. After Mr. Taedo and Mr. Librado failed to return, counsel for private respondent insisted that the sale must proceed and the Ex-Officio Sheriff proceeded with the auction 6 sale. In the course of the proceedings, Deputy Sheriff Castro sold the levied properties item by item to the private respondent as the highest bidder in the amount of P50,000.00. As a result thereof, the Ex-Officio 7 Sheriff declared a deficiency of P13,130.00. Thereafter, on January 16, 1975, the Ex-Officio Sheriff issued a "Sheriff's Certificate of Sale" in favor of the private respondent, Ricardo Tong, married to Pascuala Tong for 8 the total amount of P50,000.00 only. Subsequently, on January 17, 1975, petitioner filed an ex-parte motion for issuance of certificate of satisfaction of judgment. This motion was denied by the respondent Judge in his order dated August 28, 1975. In view thereof, petitioner now questions said order by way of the present petition alleging in the main that said respondent Judge capriciously and whimsically abused his discretion in not granting the motion for issuance of certificate of satisfaction of judgment for the following reasons: (1) that there was already a full satisfaction of the judgment before the auction sale was conducted with the deposit made to the Ex-Officio Sheriff in the amount of P63,000.00 consisting of P50,000.00 in Cashier's Check and P13,130.00 in cash; and (2) that the auction sale was invalid for lack of proper notice to the petitioner and its counsel when the Ex-Officio Sheriff postponed the sale from June 15, 1975 to January 16, 1976 contrary to Section 24, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On November 10, 1975, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent Ex-Officio Sheriff from delivering the personal properties subject of the petition to Ricardo A. Tong in view of the issuance of the "Sheriff Certificate of Sale." We find the petition to be impressed with merit. The main issue to be resolved in this instance is as to whether or not the private respondent can validly refuse acceptance of the payment of the judgment obligation made by the petitioner consisting of P50,000.00 in Cashier's Check and P13,130.00 in cash which it deposited with the ExOfficio Sheriff before the date of the scheduled auction sale. In upholding private respondent's claim that he has the right to refuse payment by means of a check, the respondent Judge cited the following: Section 63 of the Central Bank Act: Sec. 63. Legal Character. Checks representing deposit money do not have legal tender power and their acceptance in payment of debts, both public and private, is at the option of the creditor, Provided, however, that a check which has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor in cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account. Article 1249 of the New Civil Code: Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in abeyance. Likewise, the respondent Judge sustained the contention of the private respondent that he has the right to refuse payment of the amount of P13,130.00 in cash because the said amount is less than the judgment obligation, citing the following Article of the New Civil Code:

In a letter dated January 14, 1975, to the Ex-Officio Sheriff, private respondent through counsel, refused to accept the check as well as the cash deposit. In the 'same letter, private respondent requested the scheduled auction sale on January 15, 1975 to proceed if the petitioner cannot produce the cash. However, the scheduled auction sale at 10:00 a.m. on January 15, 1975 was postponed to 3:00 o'clock p.m. of the same day due to further attempts to settle the case. Again, the scheduled auction sale that afternoon did not push through because of a last ditch attempt to convince the private respondent to accept the check. The auction sale was then postponed on the following day,

54
Art. 1248. Unless there is an express stipulation to that effect, the creditor cannot be compelled partially to receive the presentations in which the obligation consists. Neither may the debtor be required to make partial payment. However, when the debt is in part liquidated and in part unliquidated, the creditor may demand and the debtor may effect the payment of the former without waiting for the liquidation of the latter. It is to be emphasized in this connection that the check deposited by the petitioner in the amount of P50,000.00 is not an ordinary check but a Cashier's Check of the Equitable Banking Corporation, a bank of good standing and reputation. As testified to by the Ex-Officio Sheriff with 9 whom it has been deposited, it is a certified crossed check. It is a wellknown and accepted practice in the business sector that a Cashier's Check is deemed as cash. Moreover, since the said check had been certified by the drawee bank, by the certification, the funds represented by the check are transferred from the credit of the maker to that of the payee or holder, and for all intents and purposes, the latter becomes the depositor of the drawee bank, with rights and duties of one in such 10 situation. Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn, 11 the certification is equivalent to acceptance. Said certification "implies that the check is drawn upon sufficient funds in the hands of the drawee, that they have been set apart for its satisfaction, and that they shall be so applied whenever the check is presented for payment. It is an understanding that the check is good then, and shall continue good, and this agreement is as binding on the bank as its notes in circulation, a certificate of deposit payable to the order of the depositor, or any other obligation it can assume. The object of certifying a check, as regards 12 both parties, is to enable the holder to use it as money." When the holder procures the check to be certified, "the check operates as an 13 assignment of a part of the funds to the creditors." Hence, the exception to the rule enunciated under Section 63 of the Central Bank Act to the effect "that a check which has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor in cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account" shall apply in this case. Considering that the whole amount deposited by the petitioner consisting of Cashier's Check of P50,000.00 and P13,130.00 in cash covers the judgment obligation of P63,000.00 as mentioned in the writ of execution, then, We see no valid reason for the private respondent to have refused acceptance of the payment of the obligation in his favor. The auction sale, therefore, was uncalled for. Furthermore, it appears that on January 17, 1975, the Cashier's Check was even withdrawn by the petitioner and replaced with cash in the corresponding amount of P50,000.00 on January 27, 1975 pursuant to an agreement entered into by the parties at the instance of the respondent Judge. However, the private respondent still refused to receive the same. Obviously, the private respondent is more interested in the levied properties than in the mere satisfaction of the judgment obligation. Thus, petitioner's motion for the issuance of a certificate of satisfaction of judgment is clearly meritorious and the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in not granting the same under the circumstances. In view of the conclusion reached in this instance, We find no more need to discuss the ground relied in the petition. It is also contended by the private respondent that Appeal and not a special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy in this case, and that since the period to appeal from the decision of the respondent Judge has already expired, then, the present petition has been filed out of time. The contention is untenable. The decision of the respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 250 (166) has long become final and executory and so, the same is not being questioned herein. The subject of the petition at bar as having been issued in grave abuse of discretion is the order dated August 28, 1975 of the respondent Judge which was merely issued in execution of the said decision. Thus, even granting that appeal is open to the petitioner, the same is not an adequate and speedy remedy for the respondent Judge had already issued a writ of execution.
14

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Declaring as null and void the order of the respondent Judge dated August 28, 1975; 2. Declaring as null and void the auction sale conducted on January 16, 1975 and the certificate of sale issued pursuant thereto; 3. Ordering the private respondent to accept the sum of P63,130.00 under deposit as payment of the judgment obligation in his favor; 4. Ordering the respondent Judge and respondent Ex-Officio Sheriff to release the levied properties to the herein petitioner. The temporary restraining order issued is hereby made permanent. Costs against the private respondent. SO ORDERED.

55
G.R. No. 72110. November 16, 1990.* ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MALOLOS, INC., petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, and ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Rodrigo Law Office for petitioner. Antonio P. Barredo and Napoleon M. Malinas for private respondent. SARMIENTO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks the reversal and setting aside of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals,2 the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed 2 AC-G.R. CV No. 69626, Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation vs. Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. and set aside and another one entered for the plaintiff ordering the defendantappellee Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. to accept the balance of P124,000.00 being paid by plaintiff-appellant and thereafter to execute in favor of Robes-Francisco Realty Corporation a registerable Deed of Absolute Sale over 20,655 square meters portion of that parcel of land situated in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan described in OCT No. 575 (now Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-169493, 169494, 169495 and 169496) of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. In case of refusal of the defendant to execute the Deed of Final Sale, the clerk of court is directed to execute the said document. Without pronouncement as to damages and attorneys fees. Costs against the defendant-appellee.3 The case at bar arose from a complaint filed by the private respondent, then plaintiff, against the petitioner, then defendant, in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Bulacan, at Sta. Maria, Bulacan,4 for specific performance with damages, based on a contract5 executed on July 7, 1971. The property subject matter of the contract consists of a 20,655 sq.m.portion, out of the 30,655 sq.m. total area, of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 575 of the Province of Bulacan, issued and registered in the name of the petitioner which it sold to the private respondent for and in consideration of P123,930.00. The crux of the instant controversy lies in the compliance or noncompliance by the private respondent with the provision for payment to the petitioner of the principal balance of P100,000.00 and the accrued interest of P24,000.00 within the grace period. A chronological narration of the antecedent facts is as follows: On July 7, 1971, the subject contract over the land in question was executed between the petitioner as vendor and the private respondent through its then president, Mr. Carlos F. Robes, as vendee, stipulating for a downpayment of P23,930.00 and the balance of P100,000.00 plus 12% interest per annum to be paid within four (4) years from execution of the contract, that is, on or before July 7, 1975. The contract likewise provides for cancellation, forfeiture of previous payments, and reconveyance of the land in question in case the private respondent would fail to complete payment within the said period. On March 12, 1973, the private respondent, through its new president, Atty. Adalia Francisco, addressed a letter6 to Father Vasquez, parish priest of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, requesting to be furnished with a copy of the subject contract and the supporting documents. On July 17, 1975, admittedly after the expiration of the stipulated period for payment, the same Atty. Francisco wrote the petitioner a formal request7 that her company be allowed to pay the principal amount of P100,000.00 in three (3) equal installments of six (6) months each with the first installment and the accrued interest of P24,000.00 to be paid immediately upon approval of the said request. On July 29, 1975, the petitioner, through its counsel, Atty. Carmelo Fernandez, formally denied the said request of the private respondent, but granted the latter a grace period of five (5) days from the receipt of the denial8 to pay the total balance of P124,000.00, otherwise, the provisions of the contract regarding cancellation, forfeiture, and reconveyance would be implemented. On August 4, 1975, the private respondent, through its president, Atty. Francisco, wrote9 the counsel of the petitioner requesting an extension of 30 days from said date to fully settle its account. The counsel for the petitioner, Atty. Fernandez, received the said letter on the same day. Upon consultation with the petitioner in Malolos, Bulacan, Atty. Fernandez, as instructed, wrote the private respondent a letter10 dated August. Consequently, Atty. Francisco, the private respondents president, wrote a letter11 dated August 22, 1975, directly addressed to the petitioner, protesting the alleged refusal of the latter to accept tender of payment purportedly made by the former on August 5, 1975, the last day of the grace period. In the same letter of August 22, 1975, received on the following day by the petitioner, the private respondent demanded the execution of a deed of absolute sale over the land in question and after which it would pay its account in full, otherwise, judicial action would be resorted to. On August 27, 1975, the petitioners counsel, Atty. Fernandez, wrote a reply12 to the private respondent stating the refusal of his client to execute the deed of absolute sale due to its (private respondents) failure to pay its full obligation. Moreover, the petitioner denied that the private respondent had made any tender of payment whatsoever within the grace period. In view of this alleged breach of contract, the petitioner cancelled the contract and considered all previous payments forfeited and the land as ipso facto reconveyed. From a perusal of the foregoing facts, we find that both the contending parties have conflicting versions on the main question of tender of payment. The trial court, in its ratiocination, preferred not to give credence to the evidence presented by the private respondent. According to the trial court: x x x What made Atty. Francisco suddenly decide to pay plaintiffs obligation on August 5, 1975, go to defendants office at Malolos, and there tender her payment, when her request of August 4, 1975 had not yet been acted upon until August 7, 1975? If Atty. Francisco had decided to pay the obligation and had available funds for the purpose on August 5, 1975, then there would have been no need for her to write defendant on August 4, 1975 to request an extension of time. Indeed, Atty. Franciscos claim that she made a tender of payment on August 5, 1975such alleged act, considered in relation to the circumstances both antecedent and subsequent thereto, being not in accord with the normal pattern of human conductis not worthy of credence.13 The trial court likewise noted the inconsistency in the testimony of Atty. Francisco, president of the private respondent, who earlier testified that a certain Mila Policarpio accompanied her on August 5, 1975 to the office of the petitioner. Another person, however, named Aurora Oracion, was presented to testify as the secretary-companion of Atty. Francisco on that same occasion. Furthermore, the trial court considered as fatal the failure of Atty. Francisco to present in court the certified personal check allegedly tendered as payment or, at least, its xerox copy, or even bank records thereof. Finally, the trial court found that the private respondent had

56
insufficient funds available to fulfill the entire obligation considering that the latter, through its president, Atty. Francisco, only had a savings account deposit of P64,840.00, and although the latter had a moneymarket placement of P300,000.00. the same was to mature only after the expiration of the 5-day grace period. Based on the above considerations, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, finding plaintiff to have failed to make out its case, the court hereby declares the subject contract cancelled and plaintiffs down payment of P23,930.00 forfeited in favor of defendant, and hereby dismisses the complaint; and on the counterclaim, the Court orders plaintiff to pay defendant. (1) Attorneys fees of P10,000.00; (2) Litigation expenses of P2,000.00; and (3) Judicial costs. SO ORDERED.14 Not satisfied with the said decision, the private respondent appealed to the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) assigning as reversible errors, among others, the findings of the trial court that the available funds of the private respondent were insufficient and that the latter did not effect a valid tender of payment and consignation. The respondent court, in reversing the decision of the trial court, essentially relies on the following findings: x x x We are convinced from the testimony of Atty. Adalia Francisco and her witnesses that in behalf of the plaintiff-appellant they have a total available sum of P364,840.00 at her and at the plaintiffs disposal on or before August 4, 1975 to answer for the obligation of the plaintiffappellant. It was not correct for the trial court to conclude that the plaintiff-appellant had only about P64,840.00 in savings deposit on or before August 5, 1975, a sum not enough to pay the outstanding account of P124,000.00. The plaintiff-appellant, through Atty. Francisco proved and the trial court even acknowledged that Atty. Adalia Francisco had about P300,000.00 in money market placement. The error of the trial court lies in concluding that the money market placement of P300,000.00 was out of reach of Atty. Francisco. But as testified to by Mr. Catalino Estrella, a representative of the Insular Bank of Asia and America, Atty. Francisco could withdraw anytime her money market placement and place it at her disposal, thus proving her financial capability of meeting more than the whole of P124,000.00 then due per contract. This situation, We believe, proves the truth that Atty. Francisco apprehensive that her request for a 30-day grace period would be denied, she tendered payment on August 4, 1975 which offer defendant through its representative and counsel refused to receive. x x x15 (Italics supplied) In other words, the respondent court, finding that the private respondent had sufficient available funds, ipso facto concluded that the latter had tendered payment. Is such conclusion warranted by the facts proven? The petitioner submits that it is not. Hence, this petition.16 The petitioner presents the following issues for resolution: A. Is a finding that private respondent had sufficient available funds on or before the grace period for the payment of its obligation proof that it (private respondent) did tender of (sic) payment for its said obligation within said period? xxx xxx xxx B. Is it the legal obligation of the petitioner (as vendor) to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the private respondent (as vendee) before the latter has actually paid the complete consideration of the salewhere the contract between and executed by the parties stipulates That upon complete payment of the agreed consideration by the herein VENDEE, the VENDOR shall cause the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the VENDEE. xxx xxx xxx

C. Is an offer of a check a valid tender of payment of an obligation under a contract which stipulates that the consideration of the sale is in Philippine Currency?17 We find the petition impressed with merit. With respect to the first issue, we agree with the petitioner that a finding that the private respondent had sufficient available funds on or before the grace period for the payment of its obligation does not constitute proof of tender of payment by the latter for its obligation within the said period. Tender of payment involves a positive and unconditional act by the obligor of offering legal tender currency as payment to the obligee for the formers obligation and demanding that the latter accept the same. Thus, tender of payment cannot be presumed by a mere inference from surrounding circumstances. At most, sufficiency of available funds is only affirmative of the capacity or ability of the obligor to fulfill his part of the bargain. But whether or not the obligor avails himself of such funds to settle his outstanding account remains to be proven by independent and credible evidence. Tender of payment presupposes not only that the obligor is able, ready, and willing, but more so, in the act of performing his obligation. Ab posse ad actu non vale illatio. A proof that an act could have been done is no proof that it was actually done. The respondent court was therefore in error to have concluded from the sheer proof of sufficient available funds on the part of the private respondent to meet more than the total obligation within the grace period, the alleged truth of tender of payment. The same is a classic case of non-sequitur. On the contrary, the respondent court finds itself remiss in overlooking or taking lightly the more important findings of fact made by the trial court which we have earlier mentioned and which as a rule, are entitled to great weight on appeal and should be accorded full consideration and respect and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons.18 While the Court is not a trier of facts, yet, when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are at variance with those of the trial court,19 or when the inference of the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken,20 the Court has to review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the record. Apropos the second issue raised, although admittedly the documents for the deed of absolute sale had not been prepared, the subject contract clearly provides that the full payment by the private respondent is an a priori condition for the execution of the said documents by the petitioner. That upon complete payment of the agreed consideration by the herein VENDEE, the VENDOR shall cause the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the VENDEE.21 The private respondent is therefore in estoppel to claim otherwise as the latter did in the testimony in cross-examination of its president, Atty. Francisco, which reads: Q Now, you mentioned, Atty. Francisco, that you wanted the defendant to execute the final deed of sale before you would given (sic) the personal certified check in payment of your balance, is that correct?

57
A Yes, sir.22 xxx xxx xxx Art. 1159 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. And unless the stipulations in said contract are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, the same are binding as between the parties.23 What the private respondent should have done if it was indeed desirous of complying with its obligations would have been to pay the petitioner within the grace period and obtain a receipt of such payment duly issued by the latter. Thereafter, or, allowing a reasonable time, the private respondent could have demanded from the petitioner the execution of the necessary documents. In case the petitioner refused, the private respondent could have had always resorted to judicial action for the legitimate enforcement of its right. For the failure of the private respondent to undertake this more judicious course of action, it alone shall suffer the consequences. With regard to the third issue, granting arguendo that we would rule affirmatively on the two preceding issues, the case of the private respondent still can not succeed in view of the fact that the latter used a certified personal check which is not legal tender nor the currency stipulated, and therefore, can not constitute valid tender of payment. The first paragraph of Art. 1249 of the Civil Code provides that the payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. The Court en banc in the recent case of Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals,24 G.R. No. L-49188, stated thus: Since a negotiable instrument is only a substitute for money and not money, the delivery of such an instrument does not, by itself, operate as payment (citing Sec. 189, Act 2031 on Negs. Insts.; Art. 1249, Civil Code; Bryan London Co. v. American Bank, 7 Phil. 255; Tan Sunco v. Santos, 9 Phil. 44; 21 R.C.L. 60, 61). A check, whether a managers check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. Hence, where the tender of payment by the private respondent was not valid for failure to comply with the requisite payment in legal tender or currency stipulated within the grace period and as such, was validly refused receipt by the petitioner, the subsequent consignation did not operate to discharge the former from its obligation to the latter. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner in the legitimate exercise of its rights pursuant to the subject contract, did validly order therefore the cancellation of the said contract, the forfeiture of the previous payment, and the reconveyance ipso facto of the land in question. WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED and the DECISION of the respondent court promulgated on April 25, 1985 is hereby SET ASIDE and ANNULLED and the DECISION of the trial court dated May 25, 1981 is hereby REINSTATED. Costs against the private respondent.

58
G.R. No. 100290 June 4, 1993 NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR. and CARMEN TIBAJIA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and EDEN TAN, respondents. I WHETHER OR NOT THE BPI CASHIER'S CHECK NO. 014021 IN THE AMOUNT OF P262,750.00 TENDERED BY PETITIONERS FOR PAYMENT OF THE JUDGMENT DEBT, IS "LEGAL TENDER". II WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT MAY VALIDLY REFUSE THE TENDER OF PAYMENT PARTLY IN CHECK AND PARTLY IN CASH MADE BY PETITIONERS, THRU AURORA VITO AND COUNSEL, FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THE MONETARY OBLIGATION OF PETITIONERSSPOUSES. 1 The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not payment by means of check (even by cashier's check) is considered payment in legal tender as required by the Civil Code, Republic Act No. 529, and the Central Bank Act. It is contended by the petitioners that the check, which was a cashier's check of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, undoubtedly a bank of good standing and reputation, and which was a crossed check marked "For Payee's Account Only" and payable to private respondent Eden Tan, is considered legal tender, payment with which operates to discharge their monetary obligation. 2 Petitioners, to support their contention, cite the case of New Pacific Timber and Supply Co., Inc. v. Seeris 3 where this Court held through Mr. Justice Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. that "It is a well-known and accepted practice in the business sector that a cashier's check is deemed as cash". The provisions of law applicable to the case at bar are the following: a. Article 1249 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in abeyance.; b. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 529, as amended, which provides: Sec. 1. Every provision contained in, or made with respect to, any obligation which purports to give the obligee the right to require payment in gold or in any particular kind of coin or currency other than Philippine currency or in an amount of money of the Philippines measured thereby, shall be as it is hereby declared against public policy null and void, and of no effect, and no such provision shall be contained in, or made with respect to, any obligation thereafter incurred. Every obligation heretofore and hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision as to payment is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. c. Section 63 of Republic Act No. 265, as amended (Central Bank Act) which provides: Sec. 63. Legal character Checks representing deposit money do not have legal tender power and their acceptance in the payment of debts, both public and private, is at the option of the creditor: Provided, however, that a check which has been cleared and credited to the

PADILLA, J.: Petitioners, spouses Norberto Tibajia, Jr. and Carmen Tibajia, are before this Court assailing the decision * of respondent appellate court dated 24 April 1991 in CA-G.R. SP No. 24164 denying their petition for certiorari prohibition, and injunction which sought to annul the order of Judge Eutropio Migrio of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 151, Pasig, Metro Manila in Civil Case No. 54863 entitled "Eden Tan vs. Sps. Norberto and Carmen Tibajia." Stated briefly, the relevant facts are as follows: Case No. 54863 was a suit for collection of a sum of money filed by Eden Tan against the Tibajia spouses. A writ of attachment was issued by the trial court on 17 August 1987 and on 17 September 1987, the Deputy Sheriff filed a return stating that a deposit made by the Tibajia spouses in the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City in the amount of Four Hundred Forty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Pesos (P442,750.00) in another case, had been garnished by him. On 10 March 1988, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 151 of Pasig, Metro Manila rendered its decision in Civil Case No. 54863 in favor of the plaintiff Eden Tan, ordering the Tibajia spouses to pay her an amount in excess of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision by reducing the award of moral and exemplary damages. The decision having become final, Eden Tan filed the corresponding motion for execution and thereafter, the garnished funds which by then were on deposit with the cashier of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, were levied upon. On 14 December 1990, the Tibajia spouses delivered to Deputy Sheriff Eduardo Bolima the total money judgment in the following form: Cashier's Check P262,750.00 Cash 135,733.70 Total P398,483.70 Private respondent, Eden Tan, refused to accept the payment made by the Tibajia spouses and instead insisted that the garnished funds deposited with the cashier of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila be withdrawn to satisfy the judgment obligation. On 15 January 1991, defendant spouses (petitioners) filed a motion to lift the writ of execution on the ground that the judgment debt had already been paid. On 29 January 1991, the motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that payment in cashier's check is not payment in legal tender and that payment was made by a third party other than the defendant. A motion for reconsideration was denied on 8 February 1991. Thereafter, the spouses Tibajia filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction in the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition on 24 April 1991 holding that payment by cashier's check is not payment in legal tender as required by Republic Act No. 529. The motion for reconsideration was denied on 27 May 1991. In this petition for review, the Tibajia spouses raise the following issues:

59
account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor of cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account. From the aforequoted provisions of law, it is clear that this petition must fail. In the recent cases of Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 4 and Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 5 this Court held that A check, whether a manager's check or ordinary check, is not legal tender, and an offer of a check in payment of a debt is not a valid tender of payment and may be refused receipt by the obligee or creditor. The ruling in these two (2) cases merely applies the statutory provisions which lay down the rule that a check is not legal tender and that a creditor may validly refuse payment by check, whether it be a manager's, cashier's or personal check. Petitioners erroneously rely on one of the dissenting opinions in the Philippine Airlines case 6 to support their cause. The dissenting opinion however does not in any way support the contention that a check is legal tender but, on the contrary, states that "If the PAL checks in question had not been encashed by Sheriff Reyes, there would be no payment by PAL and, consequently, no discharge or satisfaction of its judgment obligation." 7 Moreover, the circumstances in the Philippine Airlines case are quite different from those in the case at bar for in that case the checks issued by the judgment debtor were made payable to the sheriff, Emilio Z. Reyes, who encashed the checks but failed to deliver the proceeds of said encashment to the judgment creditor. In the more recent case of Fortunado vs. Court of Appeals, 8 this Court stressed that, "We are not, by this decision, sanctioning the use of a check for the payment of obligations over the objection of the creditor." WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioners.

60
G.R. No. L-18390 December 20, 1971 PEDRO J. VELASCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., ET AL., defendants-appellees. RESOLUTION REYES, J.B.L., J.: Both appellant Velasco and appellee Manila Electric have filed their respective motions to reconsider the decision of this Court dated 6 August 1971. For the sake of clarity, the two motions will be here dealt with separately. A APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The thrust of this motion is that the decision has incorrectly assessed appellant's damages and unreasonably reduced their amount. It is first argued that the decision erred in not taking into account, in computing appellant's loss of income, the appellant's undeclared income of P8,338.20, assessed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the year 1954, in addition to his declared income for that year (P10,975), it being argued that appellant never claim any other source of income besides his professional earnings. Several circumstances of record disprove this claim. (1) That the amount of P8,338.20 was kept apart from ordinary earnings of appellant for the year 1954 (P10,975), and not declared with it, is in itself circumstantial evidence that it was not of comparable character. (2) If it was part of his ordinary professional income, appellant was guilty of fraud in not declaring it and he should not be allowed to derive advantage from his own wrongdoing. (3) The decision pointed out that by including the undeclared amount in appellant's disclosed professional earning for 1954, to a grand total of P19,313.20, the income for said year becomes abnormally high (in fact, more that double), as compared to appellant's earnings for the preceding years, 1951-1953, that averaged not more that P7,000 per annum. Such abnormality justifies the Court's refusal to consider the undisclosed P8,338.20 as part of appellant's regular income for the purpose of computing the reduction in his earnings as a result of the complained acts of appellee. (4) Finally, the true source of the undeclared amount lay in appellant's own knowledge, but he chose not to disclose it; neither did he call upon the assessing revenue officer to reveal its character. Appellant Velasco urges that the damages awarded him are inadequate considering the present high cost of living, and calls attention to Article 1250 of the present Civil Code, and to the doctrines laid down in People vs. Pantoja G.R. No. L-18793, 11 October 1968, 25 SCRA 468. We do not deem the rules invoked to be applicable. Article 1250 of the Civil Code is to the effect that: ART. 1250. In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. It can be seen from the employment of the words "extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated" that the legal rule envisages contractual obligations where a specific currency is selected by the parties as the medium of payment; hence it is inapplicable to obligations arising from tort and not from contract, as in the case at bar, besides there being no showing that the factual assumption of the article has come into existence. As to the Pantoja ruling, the regard paid to the decreasing purchase of the peso was considered a factor in estimating the indemnity due for loss of life, which in itself is not susceptible of accurate estimation. It should not be forgotten that the damages awarded to herein appellant were by no means full compensatory damages, since the decision makes clear that appellant, by his failure to minimize his damages by means easily within his reach, was declared entitled only to a reduced award for the nuisance sued upon (Steel vs. Rail & River Coal Co., 43 Ohio App. 228,182 N.E. 552); and the amount granted him had already taken into account the changed economic circumstances. Nor is the fact that appellant lost a chance to sell his house for P95,000 to Jose Valencia constitute a ground for an award of damages in that amount. As remarked in the main decision, there is no adequate proof of loss, since there is no evidence of the depreciation in the market value of the house in question caused by the acts of defendant Meralco The house, after all, has remained with appellant and he admits in his motion for reconsideration (page 48) that properties have increased in value by 200% since then. For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied. B APPELLEE'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER Appellee Manila Electric Company argues that in case the noise emitted by its substation can not be brought down to the 50 decibel level imposed by our decision in chief, the remedy of the appellant would be to compel appellee Company to acquire and pay for the value of the house, under the so-called doctrine of "inverse condemnation and cites in support our doctrines in Bengzon vs. Province of Pangasinan, 62 Phil. 816, and Republic vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., L-18841, 27 January 1969, 26 SCRA 620-634. But as pointed out by appellant in his opposition, this issue was not raised, nor was the inverse condemnation doctrine invoked in the trial court, so that it would be improper to consider it on appeal, and worse still, on a motion for reconsideration of the decision on the merits. Furthermore, there is no showing that it is impossible to reduce the substation noise to the level decreed by this Court in the main decision. On the contrary, appellee's own evidence is that the noise can be reduced by erecting a wall barrier on the line separating the substation lot and the property of appellant. The version that appellee did not erect the wall because of the objections of appellant's wife was denied by her, and there is no preponderance of evidence in favor of appellee on this point. Moreover, since it was appellant Dr. Velasco who complained, his wife's objection would not suffice to constitute a waiver of his claim. As to the petition to increase the sound level prescribed by his Court from 50 to 55 decibels on the ground that present "ambient sound already ranges from 44 to 55 decibels in the mornings", the same can not be granted. As shown by the evidence at the trial, the intensity of the noise emitted by appellee's transformers are most objectionable at night, when people are endeavoring to rest and sleep in compensation for the fatigue and tensions accumulated during daytime. WHEREFORE, appellee's motion to reconsider is likewise denied. Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar., JJ., concur.

ilipino Pipe and Foundry Corp. vs. NAWASA, 161 SCRA 32 , No. L-43446, May 03, 1988

61
G.R. No. L-43446 May 3, 1988 FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, defendantappellee. The trial court, in its order dated May 26, 1971, denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the bar by prior judgment did not apply to the case because the causes of action in the two cases are different: the first action being for collection of the defendant's indebtedness for the pipes, while the second case is for adjustment of the value of said judgment due to alleged supervening extraordinary inflation of the Philippine peso which has reduced the value of the bonds paid to the plaintiff. Article 1250 of the Civil Code provides: GRIO-AQUINO, J.: The plaintiff Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "FPFC" for brevity) appealed the dismissal of its complaint against defendant National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) by the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 5, 1973. The appeal was originally brought to the Court of Appeals. However, finding that the principal purpose of the action was to secure a judicial declaration that there exists 'extraordinary inflation' within the meaning of Article 1250 of the New Civil Code to warrant the application of that provision, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, certified the case to this Court for proper disposition. On June 12,1961, the NAWASA entered into a contract with the plaintiff FPFC for the latter to supply it with 4" and 6" diameter centrifugally cast iron pressure pipes worth P270,187.50 to be used in the construction of the Anonoy Waterworks in Masbate and the Barrio San Andres-Villareal Waterworks in Samar. Defendant NAWASA paid in installments on various dates, a total of One Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand and Six Hundred Eighty Pesos (P134,680.00) leaving a balance of One Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand, Five Hundred Seven Pesos and Fifty centavos (P135,507.50) excluding interest. Having completed the delivery of the pipes, the plaintiff demanded payment from the defendant of the unpaid balance of the price with interest in accordance with the terms of their contract. When the NAWASA failed to pay the balance of its account, the plaintiff filed a collection suit on March 16, 1967 which was docketed as Civil Case No. 66784 in the Court of First Instance of Manila. On November 23, 1967, the trial court rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 66784 ordering the defendant to pay the unpaid balance of P135,507.50 in NAWASA negotiable bonds, redeemable after ten years from their issuance with interest at 6% per annum, P40,944.73 as interest up to March 15, 1966 and the interest accruing thereafter to the issuance of the bonds at 6% per annum and the costs. Defendant, however, failed to satisfy the decision. It did not deliver the bonds to the judgment creditor. On February 18, 1971, the plaintiff FPFC filed another complaint which was docketed as Civil Case No. 82296, seeking an adjustment of the unpaid balance in accordance with the value of the Philippine peso when the decision in Civil Case No. 66784 was rendered on November 23, 1967. On May 3, 1971, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is barred by the 1967 decision in Civil Case No. 66784. In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.. The court suggested to the parties during the trial that they present expert testimony to help it in deciding whether the economic conditions then, and still prevailing, would justify the application of Article 1250 of the Civil Code. The plaintiff presented voluminous records and statistics showing that a spiralling inflation has marked the progress of the country from 1962 up to the present. There is no denying that the price index of commodities, which is the usual evidence of the value of the currency has been rising. The trial court pointed out, however, than this is a worldwide occurence, but hardly proof that the inflation is extraordinary in the sense contemplated by Article 1250 of the Civil Code, which was adopted by the Code Commission to provide "a just solution" to the "uncertainty and confusion as a result of Malabanan contracts entered into or payments made during the last war." (Report of the Code Commission, 132-133.) Noting that the situation situation during the Japanese Occupation "cannot that the be compared with the economic conditions today," the a. Malabanan trial court, on September 5, 1973, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. The only issue before Us whether, on the basis of the continously spiralling price index indisputably shown by the plaintiff, there exists an extraordinary inflation of the currency justifying an adjustment of defendant appellee's unpaid judgment obligation the plaintiff-appellant. Extraordinary inflation exists "when there is a decrease or increase in the purchasing power of the Philippine currency which is unusual or beyond the common fluctuation in the value said currency, and such decrease or increase could not have reasonably foreseen or was manifestly beyond contemplation the the parties at the time of the establishment of the obligation. (Tolentino Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code Vol. IV, p. 284.) An example of extraordinary inflation is the following description of what happened to the Deutschmark in 1920: More recently, in the 1920's Germany experienced a case of hyperinflation. In early 1921, the value of the German mark was 4.2 to the U.S. dollar. By May of the same year, it had stumbled to 62 to the

62
U.S. dollar. And as prices went up rapidly, so that by October 1923, it had reached 4.2 trillion to the U.S. dollar! (Bernardo M. Villegas & Victor R. Abola, Economics, An Introduction [Third Edition]). As reported, "prices were going up every week, then every day, then every hour. Women were paid several times a day so that they could rush out and exchange their money for something of value before what little purchasing power was left dissolved in their hands. Some workers tried to beat the constantly rising prices by throwing their money out of the windows to their waiting wives, who would rush to upload the nearly worthless paper. A postage stamp cost millions of marks and a loaf of bread, billions." (Sidney Rutberg, "The Money Balloon" New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975, p. 19, cited in "Economics, An Introduction" by Villegas & Abola, 3rd Ed.) While appellant's voluminous records and statistics proved that there has been a decline in the purchasing power of the Philippine peso, this downward fall of the currency cannot be considered "extraordinary." It is simply a universal trend that has not spared our country. WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed decision of the trial court, We affirm it in toto. No costs. SO ORDERED.

63
G.R. No. L-28776 August 19, 1988 SIMEON DEL ROSARIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES LIMITED, defendant-appellee. Ramon C. Fernandez for plaintiff-appellant. Picazo, Agcaoili, Santayana, Reyes & Tayao for defendants-NDC I. The trial court erred in holding that Executive Order No. 195 has not officially devalued the Philippine peso. II. The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. PARAS, J.: The antecedent relative facts of this case are as follows: 1. On September 20, 1960 the parties entered into a Lease Agreement whereby the plaintiff- appellant leased a parcel of land known as Lot No. 2191 of the cadastral Survey of Ligao, Albay to the defendant-appellee at a monthly rental of Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P250.00). 2. Paragraph 14 of said contract of lease provides: 14. In the event of an official devaluation or appreciation of the Philippine cannot the rental specified herein shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of any law or decree declaring such devaluation or appreciation as may specifically apply to rentals." 3. On November 6, 1965, President Diosdado Macapagal promulgated Executive Order No. 195 1 titled "Changing the Par Value of the Peso from US$0.50 to US$0.2564103 (U.S. Dollar of the Weight and Fineness in Effect on July 1, 1944). This took effect at noon of November 8, 1965. 4. By reason of this Executive Order No. 195, plaintiff-appellant demanded from the defendant-appellee ailieged increase in the monthly rentals from P250.00 a month to P487.50 a month. 5. Defendant-appellee fertilize to pay the increased monthly rentals. 6. On January 16, 1967, plaintiff-appellant filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 68154) with the CFI of Manila, Branch XVII praying that defendantappellee be ordered to pay the monthly rentals as increased by reason of Executive Order 195 and further prayed that plaintiff-appellant be paid the following amounts: The difference between P487.50 and P250.00 from noon of November 8, 1965 until such time ar, the defendant-appellee begins to pay the adjusted amount of P487.50 a month; the sum of P20,000.00 as moral damages; the sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs. 7. On January 8, 1968 the trial court in dismissing the complaint stated: ... in the opinion of the Court, said Executive Order No. 195, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, has not officially devalued the Philippine peso but merely modified the par value of the peso from US$.50 to US$0.2564103 (U.S. Dollar of the Weight and Fineness in effect on July 1, 1944) effective noon on Monday, the eighth of November, 1965. Said Executive Order certainly does not pretend to change the gold value of the Philippine peso as set forth in Sec. 48 of the Central Bank Act (R.A. 265), which is 7-13/21 grains of gold, 0.900 fine. Indeed, it does not make any reference at all to the gold value of the Philippine peso." (pp. 25-26, Record on Appeal; p. 13, Rollo) In view of the trial cross-claimant refusal to increase the rental, petitioner brought the instant petition on the theory that beneficient After a study of the case, We have come to the conclusion that the resultant decrease in the par value of the can-not (effected by Executive Order No. 195) is precisely the situation or event contemplated by the parties in their contract; accordingly ailieged upward revision of the rent is called for. Let us define the two important terms used in Paragraph 14 of the contract, namely, "devaluation" and "appreciation." (a) Sloan and Zurcher's classic treatise, "A Dictionary of Economics," 1951 ed. pp. 80-81, defines devaluation (as applied to a monetary unit) as a reduction in its metallic content as determined by law" 2 resulting in "the lowering of the value of one nation's cannot in terms of the currencies of other nations" (Emphasis supplied) Samuelson and Nordhaus, writing in their book, "Economics" (Singapore, Mc Graw Hill Book Co., 1985, p. 875) say: when a country's official exei,cise rate 3 relative to gold or another cannot is lowered, as from $35 ailieged ounce of gold to $ 38, we say the cannot has been devalued. " 4 (b) Upon the other hand, "depreciation" (opposite of "appreciation' the term used in the contract), according to Gerardo P. Sicat in his "Economics" (Manila: National Book Store, 1983,p.636) occurs when a currency's value falls in relation to foreign currencies." (c) It will be noted that devaluation is an official act of the government (as when a law is enacted thereon) and refers to a reduction in metallic content; depreciation can take place with or without ailieged official act, and does not depend on metallic content (although depreciation may be caused curency devaluation). In the case at bar, while no express reference has been made to metallic content, there nonetheless is a reduction in par value or in the purchasing power of Philippine currency. Even assuming there has been no official devaluation as the term is technically understood, the fact is that there has been a diminution or lessening in the purchasing power of the peso, thus, there has been a "depreciation" (opposite of "appreciation"). Moreover, when laymen unskilled in the semantics of economics use the terms "devaluation" or "depreciation" they certainly mean them in their ordinary signification decrease in value. Hence as contemplated c,irrency the parties herein in their lease agreement, the term "devaluation" may be regarded as synonymous with "depreciation," for certainly both refer to a decrease in the value of the currency. The rentals should therefore by their agreement be proportionately increased. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the rental prayed for c,irrency the plaintiff-appellant is hereby Executive Order No. 195 in effect decreased the worth or value of our currency, there has taken place a "devaluation" or "depreciation" which would justify the proportionate increase of rent. Hence this appeal, with the following two-pronged assignments of errors:

64
GRANTED, effective on the date the complaint was filed. No award of damages and no costs. G.R. No. L-50449 January 30, 1982 FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE, CO., INC., defendant-appellant. promissory note and chattel mortgage (Exh. A) which, in effect, the payment of the unpaid balance owed by defendant-appellant to Alexander Lim was financed by plaintiff-appellee such that Lim became fully paid. Appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the promissory note and chattel mortgage since it had defaulted in the payment of nine successive installments. Appellee then sent a demand letter (Exh. 1) whereby its counsel demanded "that you (appellant) remit the aforesaid amount in full in addition to stipulated interest and charges or return the mortgaged property to my client at its office at 2133 Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila within five (5) days from date of this letter during office hours. " Replying thereto, appellant, thru its assistant general- manager, wrote back (Exh. 2) advising appellee of its decision to "return the mortgaged property, which return shall be in full satisfaction of its indebtedness pursuant to Article 1484 of the New Civil Code." Accordingly, the mortgaged vehicle was returned to the appellee together with the document "Voluntary Surrender with Special Power of Attorney To Sell" 3 executed by appellant on March 12, 1973 and confirmed to by appellee's vice-president. On April 4, 1973, appellee wrote a letter (Exh. H) to appellant informing the latter that appellee cannot sell the motor vehicle as there were unpaid taxes on the said vehicle in the sum of P70,122.00. On the last portion of the said letter, appellee requested the appellant to update its account by paying the installments in arrears and accruing interest in the amount of P4,232.21 on or before April 9, 1973. On May 8, 1973, appellee, in a letter (Exh. 1), offered to deliver back the motor vehicle to the appellant but the latter refused to accept it, so appellee instituted an action for collection of a sum of money with damages in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 14, 1973. In its answer, appellant, while admitting the material allegations of the appellee's complaint, avers that appellee has no cause of action against it since its obligation towards the appellee was extinguished when in compliance with the appellee's demand letter, it returned the mortgaged property to the appellee, and that assuming arguendo that the return of the property did not extinguish its obligation, it was nonetheless justified in refusing payment since the appellee is not entitled to recover the same due to the breach of warranty committed by the original vendor-assignor Alexander Lim. After the case was submitted for decision, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XII rendered its decision dated February 25, 1974 which is the subject of the instant appeal in this Court. Appellant's five assignment of errors may be reduced to, or said to revolve around two issues: first, whether or not the return of the mortgaged motor vehicle to the appellee by virtue of its voluntary surrender by the appellant totally extinguished and/or cancelled its obligation to the appellee; second, whether or not the warranty for the unpaid taxes on the mortgaged motor vehicle may be properly raised and imputed to or passed over to the appellee. Consistent with its stand in the court a quo, appellant now reiterates its main contention that appellee, after giving appellant an option either to remit payment in full plus stipulated interests and charges or return the mortgaged motor vehicle, had elected the alternative remedy of exacting fulfillment of the obligation, thus, precluding the exercise of any other remedy provided for under Article 1484 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which reads:

DE CASTRO, J.: This case is certified to Us by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution 1 dated March 22, 1979 on the ground that it involves purely questions of law, as raised in the appeal of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XII in Civil Case No. 91932, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: In view of the foregoing consideration, the court hereby renders judgment l) directing defendant to pay plaintiff: a) the sum of P22,227.81 which is the outstanding unpaid obligation of the defendant under the assigned credit, with 12 %interest from the date of the firing of the complaint in this suit until the same is fully paid; b) the sum equivalent to l5% of P22,227.81 as and for attorney's fees; and 2) directing plaintiff to deliver to, and defendant to accept, the motor vehicle, subject of the chattel may have been changed by the result of ordinary wear and tear of the vehicle. Defendant to pay the cost of suit. SO ORDERED. The facts, as found in the decision 2 subject of the instant appeal, are undisputed. On October 30, 1971, the Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc., defendantappellant herein, purchased from one Alexander Lim, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale marked as Exhibit G, a motor vehicle described as Chevorlet, 1969 model with Serial No. 136699Z303652 for P55,247.80 with a down payment of P20,000.00 and the balance of P35,247.80 payable, under the terms and conditions of the promissory note (Exh. B), at a monthly installment of P1,036.70 for thirty-four (34) months, due and payable on the first day of each month starting December 1971 through and inclusive September 1, 1974 with 12 % interest per annum on each unpaid installment, and attorney's fees in the amount equivalent to 25% of the total of the outstanding unpaid amount. As security for the payment of said promissory note, the appellant executed a chattel mortgage (Exh. C) over the same motor vehicle in favor of said Alexander Lim. Subsequently, on November 2, 1971. Alexander Lim assigned to the Filinvest Finance Corporation all his rights, title, and interests in the promissory note and chattel mortgage by virtue of a Deed of Assignment (Exh. D). Thereafter, the Filinvest Finance Corporation, as a consequence of its merger with the Credit and Development Corporation assigned to the new corporation, the herein plaintiff-appellee Filinvest Credit Corporation, all its rights, title, and interests on the aforesaid

65
Article 1484. Civil Code. - In a contract of sale of personal property the price of which is payable in installments, the vendor may exercise any of the following remedies: 1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail to pay; 2) Cancel the sale, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments; 3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing sold, if one has been constituted, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments. In this case, he shall have no further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be void. In support of the above contention, appellant maintains that when it opted to return, as in fact it did return, the mortgaged motor vehicle to the appellee, said return necessarily had the effect of extinguishing appellant's obligation for the unpaid price to the appellee, construing the return to and acceptance by the appellee of the mortgaged motor vehicle as a mode of payment, specifically, dation in payment or dacion en pago which according to appellant, virtually made appellee the owner of the mortgaged motor vehicle by the mere delivery thereof, citing Articles 1232, 1245, and 1497 of the Civil Code, to wit: Article 1232. Payment means not only the delivery of money but also the performance, in any manner, of an obligation. xxx xxx xxx Article 1245. Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money, shall be governed by the law of sales. xxx xxx xxx Article 1497. The thing sold shall be understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee. Passing at once on the relevant issue raised in this appeal, We find appellant's contention devoid of persuasive force. The mere return of the mortgaged motor vehicle by the mortgagor, the herein appellant, to the mortgagee, the herein appellee, does not constitute dation in payment or dacion en pago in the absence, express or implied of the true intention of the parties. Dacion en pago, according to Manresa, is the transmission of the ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of obligation. 4 In dacion en pago, as a special mode of payment, the debtor offers another thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent of payment of an outstanding debt. The undertaking really partakes in one sense of the nature of sale, that is, the creditor is really buying the thing or property of the debtor, payment for which is to be charged against the debtor's debt. As such, the essential elements of a contract of sale, namely, consent, object certain, and cause or consideration must be present. In its modern concept, what actually takes place in dacion en pago is an objective novation of the obligation where the thing offered as an accepted equivalent of the performance of an obligation is considered as the object of the contract of sale, while the debt is considered as the purchase price. 5 In any case, common consent is an essential prerequisite, be it sale or innovation to have the effect of totally extinguishing the debt or obligation. The evidence on the record fails to show that the mortgagee, the herein appellee, consented, or at least intended, that the mere delivery to, and acceptance by him, of the mortgaged motor vehicle be construed as Appellant would also argue that by accepting the delivery of the mortgaged motor vehicle, appellee is estopped from demanding payment of the unpaid obligation. Estoppel would not he since, as clearly set forth above, appellee never accepted the mortgaged motor vehicle in full satisfaction of the mortgaged debt. Under the law, the delivery of possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, the herein appellee, can only operate to extinguish appellant's liability if the appellee had actually caused the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property when it recovered possession thereof. 6 It is worth noting that it is the fact of foreclosure and actual sale of the mortgaged chattel that bar the recovery by the vendor of any balance of the purchaser's outstanding obligation not satisfied by the sale. 7 As held by this Court, if the vendor desisted, on his own initiative, from consummating the auction sale, such desistance was a timely disavowal of the remedy of foreclosure, and the vendor can still sue for specific performance. 8 This is exactly what happened in the instant case. On the second issue, there is no dispute that there is an unpaid taxes of P70,122.00 due on the mortgaged motor vehicle which, according to appellant, liability for the breach of warranty under the Deed of Sale is shifted to the appellee who merely stepped into the shoes of the assignor Alexander Lim by virtue of the Deed of Assignment in favor of appellee. The Deed of Sale between Alexander Lim and appellant and the Deed of Assignment between Alexander Lim and appellee are very clear on this point. There is a specific provision in the Deed of Sale that the seller Alexander Lim warrants the sale of the motor vehicle to the buyer, the herein appellant, to be free from liens and encumbrances. When appellee accepted the assignment of credit from the seller Alexander Lim, there is a specific agreement that Lim continued to be actual payment, more specifically dation in payment or dacion en pago. The fact that the mortgaged motor vehicle was delivered to him does not necessarily mean that ownership thereof, as juridically contemplated by dacion en pago, was transferred from appellant to appellee. In the absence of clear consent of appellee to the proferred special mode of payment, there can be no transfer of ownership of the mortgaged motor vehicle from appellant to appellee. If at all, only transfer of possession of the mortgaged motor vehicle took place, for it is quite possible that appellee, as mortgagee, merely wanted to secure possession to forestall the loss, destruction, fraudulent transfer of the vehicle to third persons, or its being rendered valueless if left in the hands of the appellant. A more solid basis of the true intention of the parties is furnished by the document executed by appellant captioned "Voluntary Surrender with Special Power of Attorney To Sell" dated March 12, 1973, attached as Annex "C" of the appellant's answer to the complaint. An examination of the language of the document reveals that the possession of the mortgaged motor vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the appellant to the appellee authorizing the latter to look for a buyer and sell the vehicle in behalf of the appellant who retains ownership thereof, and to apply the proceeds of the sale to the mortgage indebtedness, with the undertaking of the appellant to pay the difference, if any, between the selling price and the mortgage obligation. With the stipulated conditions as stated, the appellee, in essence was constituted as a mere agent to sell the motor vehicle which was delivered to the appellee, not as its property, for if it were, he would have full power of disposition of the property, not only to sell it as is the limited authority given him in the special power of attorney. Had appellee intended to completely release appellant of its mortgage obligation, there would be no necessity of executing the document captioned "Voluntary Surrender with Special Power of Attorney To Sell." Nowhere in the said document can We find that the mere surrender of the mortgaged motor vehicle to the appellee extinguished appellant's obligation for the unpaid price.

66
bound by the warranties he had given to the buyer, the herein appellant, and that if it appears subsequently that "there are such counterclaims, offsets or defenses that may be interposed by the debtor at the time of the assignment, such counterclaims, offsets or defenses shall not prejudice the FILINVEST FINANCE CORPORATION and I (Alexander Lim) further warrant and hold the said corporation free and harmless from any such claims, offsets, or defenses that may be availed of." 9 It must be noted that the unpaid taxes on the motor vehicle is a burden on the property. Since as earlier shown, the ownership of the mortgaged property never left the mortgagor, the herein appellant, the burden of the unpaid taxes should be home by him, who, in any case, may not be said to be without remedy under the law, but definitely not against appellee to whom were transferred only rights, title and interest, as such is the essence of assignment of credit. 10 WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto with costs against defendant-appellant. SO ORDERED. THIRD DIVISION

67
G.R. No. L-48958 June 28, 1988 CITIZENS SURETY and INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PASCUAL M. PEREZ, respondents. F. Sumulong & Associates Law Offices for petitioner. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, On August 31, 1978, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Batangas on April 15, 1986 is hereby reversed and set aside and another one entered dismissing the claim of the Citizens' Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., against the estate of the late Nicasia Sarmiento. No pronouncement as to costs. (p. 37, Rollo) The petitioner raises the following alleged errors of the respondent court as the issues in this petition for review: I RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE OBLIGATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT PASCUAL M. PEREZ HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY VIRTUE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT (EXHIBIT "1") AND/OR THE RELEASE OF THE SECOND REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE (EXHIBIT "2"). II RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS DATION IN PAYMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT (EXHIBIT "1"). III In addition to the two indemnity agreements, Pascual M. Perez Enterprises was also required to put up a collateral security to further insure reimbursement to the petitioner of whatever losses or liabilities it may be made to pay under the surety bonds. Pascual M. Perez therefore executed a deed of assignment on the same day, December 4,1959, of his stock of lumber with a total value of P400,000.00. On April 12, 1960, a second real estate mortgage was further executed in favor of the petitioner to guarantee the fulfillment of said obligation. Pascual M. Perez Enterprises failed to comply with its obligation under the contract of sale of goods with Singer Sewing Machine Co., Ltd. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to pay, as it did pay, the fair value of the two surety bonds in the total amount of P144,000.00. Except for partial payments in the total sum of P55,600.00 and notwithstanding several demands, Pascual M. Perez Enterprises failed to reimburse the petitioner for the losses it sustained under the said surety bonds. The petitioner filed a claim for sum of money against the estate of the late Nicasia Sarmiento which was being administered by Pascual M. Perez. In opposing the money claim, Pascual M. Perez asserts that the surety bonds and the indemnity agreements had been extinguished by the execution of the deed of assignment. After the trial on the merits, the Court of First Instance of Batangas rendered judgment on April 15, 1968, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, considering that the estate of the late, Nicasia Sarmiento is jointly and severally liable to the Citizens' Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., for the amount the latter had paid the Singer Sewing Machine Company, Ltd., the court hereby orders the administrator Pascual M. Perez to pay the claimant the sum of P144,000.00, with interest at the rate of ten (10%) per cent per annum from the date this claim was filed, until fully paid, minus the payments already made in the amount of P55,600.00." (pp. 97-98, Record on Appeal) RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT TOTALLY REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS THUS DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF THE PRINCIPAL SUM DUE PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. (p. 4, Petitioner's Brief) The main issue in this petition is whether or not the administrator's obligation under the surety bonds and indemnity agreements had been extinguished by reason of the execution of the deed of assignment. It is the general rule that when the words of a contract are plain and readily understandable, there is no room for construction thereof (San Mauricio Milling Co. v. Ancheta, 105 SCRA 371). However, this is only a general rule and it admits exceptions. Pascual M. Perez executed an instrument denominated as "Deed of Assignment." Pertinent portions of the deed read as follows: I, Pascual M. Perez, Filipino, of legal age, married, with residence and postal address at 115 D. Silang, Batangas, as the owner and operator of a business styled "PASCUAL M. PEREZ ENTERPRISES," with office at R-31 Madrigal Building, Escolta, Manila, hereinafter referred to as ASSIGNOR, for and in consideration of the issuance in my behalf and in favor of the SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, LTD., of two Surety Bonds (CSIC) Bond Nos. 2631 and 2632 each in the amount of SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P72,000.00), or with a total sum of ONE RED FORTYFOUR THOUSAND PESOS (Pl44,000.00), Philippine Currency, by the CITIZENS' SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office at R-306 Samanillo Building, Escolta, Manila, Philippines, and duly represented in the act by its Vice-President and General Manager, ARISTEO L. LAT, hereinafter referred to as ASSIGNEE, assign by these presents, unto said ASSIGNEE, its heirs, successors, administrators or assigns the herein ASSIGNOR'S stock (Insured) of low grade lumber, class "No. 2 COMMON" kept and deposited at Tableria Tan Tao at Batangas, Batangas, with a total

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas in a case involving a claim for a sum of money against the estate of the late Nicasia Sarmiento, administered by her husband Pascual M. Perez. On December 4, 1959, the petitioner issued two (2) surety bonds CSIC Nos. 2631 and 2632 to guarantee compliance by the principal Pascual M. Perez Enterprises of its obligation under a "Contract of Sale of Goods" entered into with the Singer Sewing Machine Co. In consideration of the issuance of the aforesaid bonds, Pascual M. Perez, in his personal capacity and as attorney-in-fact of his wife, Nicasia Sarmiento and in behalf of the Pascual M. Perez Enterprises executed on the same date two (2) indemnity agreements wherein he obligated himself and the Enterprises to indemnify the petitioner jointly and severally, whatever payments advances and damage it may suffer or pay as a result of the issuance of the surety bonds.

68
measurement of Two Million (2,000,000.00) board feet and valued of P0.20 per board feet or with a total value of P400,000.00 which lumber is intended by the ASSIGNOR for exportation under a Commodity Trade Permit, the condition being that in the event that the herein assignor exports said lumber and as soon as he gets the necessary export shipping and related and pertinent documents therefor, the ASSIGNOR will turn said papers over to the herein ASSIGNEE, conserving all of the latter's dominion, rights and interests in said exportation. The ASSIGNEE hereby agrees and accepts this assignment under the conditions above-mentioned. (pp. 77-79, Record on Appeal) On its face, the document speaks of an assignment where there seems to be a complete conveyance of the stocks of lumber to the petitioner, as assignee. However, in the light of the circumstances obtaining at the time of the execution of said deed of assignment, we can not regard the transaction as an absolute conveyance. As held in the case of Sy v. Court of Appeals, (131 SCRA 116,124): It is a basic and fundamental rule in the interpretation of contract that if the terms thereof are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, then the literal meaning of the stipulations shall control but when the words appear contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. (Labasan v. Lacuesta, 86 SCRA 16) In order to judge the intention of the parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. (Emphasis supplied) The petitioner issued the two (2) surety bonds on December 4, 1959 in behalf of the Pascual M. Perez Enterprises to guaranty fullfillment of its obligation under the "Contract of Sale of Goods" entered into with the Singer Sewing Machine Co. In consideration of the two surety bonds, two indemnity agreements were executed by Pascual M. Perez followed by a Deed of Assignment which was also executed on the same date. In the case of Lopez v. Court of appeals (114 SCRA 673), we stated that: The indemnity agreement and the stock assignment must be considered together as related transactions because in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. (Article 1371, New Civil Code). Thus, considering that the indemnity agreement connotes a continuing obligation of Lopez towards Philamgen, while the stock assignment indicates a complete discharge of the same obligation, the existence of the indemnity agreement whereby Lopez had to pay a premium of P1,000.00 for a period of one year and agreed at all times to indemnify Philamgen of any and all kinds of losses which the latter might sustain by reason of it becoming a surety, is inconsistent with the theory of an absolute sale for and in consideration of the same undertaking of Philamgen. There would have been no necessity for the execution of the indemnity agreement if the stock assignment was really intended as an absolute conveyance. Hence, there are strong and cogent reasons to conclude that the parties intended said stock assignment to complement the indemnity agreement and thereby sufficiently guarantee the indemnification of Philamgen should it be required to pay Lopez" loan to Prudential Bank. (at pp. 682-683) The respondent court stated that "by virtue of the execution of the deed of assignment ownership of administrator-appellant's lumber materials had been transferred to the claimant-appellant and this amounted to dation in payment whereby the former is considered to have alienated his property in favor of the latter in satisfaction of a monetary debt (Artide 1245). As a consequence thereof, administratorappellant's obligation under the surety bonds is thereby extinguished upon the execution of the deed of assignment." This statement is not sustained by the records. The transaction could not be dation in payment. As pointed out in the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Edgardo L. Paras and the dissenting opinion of Justice Mariano Serrano when the deed of assignment was executed on December 4, 1959, the obligation of the assignor to refund the assignee had not yet arisen. In other words, there was no obligation yet on the part of the petitioner, Citizens' Surety and Insurance Company, to pay Singer Sewing Machine Co. There was nothing to be extinguished on that date, hence, there could not have been a dation in payment. In the case of Lopez v. Court of Appeals (supra) we had the occasion to explain: Considering the above jurisprudence, We find that the debt or obligation at bar has not matured on June 2, 1959 when Lopez 'alienated' his 4,000 shares of stock to Philamgen. Lopez' obligation would arise only when he would default in the payment of the principal obligation (the loan) to the bank and Philamgen had to pay for it. Such fact being adverse to the nature and concept of dation in payment, the same could not have been constituted when the stock assignment was executed. Moreover, there is no express provision in the terms of the stock assignment between Philamgen and Lopez that the principal obligation (which is the loan) is immediately extinguished by reason of such assignment. (at p. 686) The deed of assignment cannot be regarded as an absolute conveyance whereby the obligation under the surety bonds was automatically extinguished. The subsequent acts of the private respondent bolster the fact that the deed of assignment was intended merely as a security for the issuance of the two bonds. Partial payments amounting to P55,600.00 were made after the execution of the deed of assignment to satisfy the obligation under the two surety bonds. Since later payments were made to pay the indebtedness, it follows that no debt was extinguished upon the execution of the deed of assignment. Moreover, a second real estate mortgage was executed on April 12, 1960 and eventually cancelled only on May 15, 1962. If indeed the deed of assignment extinguished the obligation, there was no reason for a second mortgage to still have to be executed. We agree with the two dissenting opinions in the Court of Appeals that the only conceivable reason for the execution of still another mortgage on April 12, 1960 was because the obligation under the indemnity bonds still existed. It was not yet extinguished when the deed of assignment was executed on December 4, 1959. The deed of assignment was therefore intended merely as another collateral security for the issuance of the two surety bonds. Recapitulating the facts of the case, the records show that the petitioner surety company paid P144,000.00 to Singer on the basis of the two surety bonds it had issued in behalf of Pascual Perez Enterprises. Perez in turn was able to indemnify the petitioner for its payment to Singer in the amount of P55,600.00 thus leaving a balance of only P88,400.00. The petitioner surety company was more than adequately protected. Lumber worth P400,000.00 was assigned to it as collateral. A second real estate mortgage was also given by Perez although it was later cancelled obviously because the P400,000.00 worth of lumber was more than enough guaranty for the obligations assumed by the petitioner. As pointed out by Justice Paras in his separate opinion, the proper procedure was for Citizens' Insurance and Surety Co., to collect the remaining P88,400.00 from the sales of lumber and to return whatever remained to Perez. We cannot order the return in this decisions because the Estate of Mrs. Perez has not asked for any return of excess lumber

69
or its value. There appears to have been other transactions, surety bonds, and performance bonds between the petitioner and Perez Enterprises but theseare extraneous matters which, the records show, have absolutely no bearing on the resolution of the issues in this petition. With respect to the claim for interests and attomey's fees, we agree with the private respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to either one. It had the means to recoup its investment and losses many times over, yet it chose to litigate and delay the final determination of how much was really owing to it. As stated by Justice Paras in his separate opinion: Interest will not be given the Surety because it had all the while (or at least, it may be presumed that such was the case) the P400,000.00 worth of lumber, from which value the 'refunding' by assignor could have been deducted if it had so informed the assignor of the plan. For the same reason as in No. (5), attomey's fees cannot be charged, for despite the express stipulation on the matter in the contract, there was actually no failure on the part of the assignor to comply with the obligation of refinding. The means of compliance was right there with the Surety itself-. surely it could have earlier conferred with the assignor on how to effect the 'refunding. (p. 39, Rollo) WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. For the reasons abovestated, the claim of Citizens' Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., against the estate of Nicasia Sarmiento is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Fernan (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

70
G.R. No. L-58961 June 28, 1983 SOLEDAD SOCO, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCIS MILITANTE, Incumbent Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XII, Cebu City and REGINO FRANCISCO, JR., respondents. GUERRERO, J.: The decision subject of the present petition for review holds the view that there was substantial compliance with the requisites of consignation and so ruled in favor of private respondent, Regino Francisco, Jr., lessee of the building owned by petitioner lessor, Soledad Soco in the case for illegal detainer originally filed in the City Court of Cebu City, declaring the payments of the rentals valid and effective, dismissed the complaint and ordered the lessor to pay the lessee moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00 and the further sum of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees. We do not agree with the questioned decision. We hold that the essential requisites of a valid consignation must be complied with fully and strictly in accordance with the law, Articles 1256 to 1261, New Civil Code. That these Articles must be accorded a mandatory construction is clearly evident and plain from the very language of the codal provisions themselves which require absolute compliance with the essential requisites therein provided. Substantial compliance is not enough for that would render only a directory construction to the law. The use of the words "shall" and "must" which are imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, positively indicate that all the essential requisites of a valid consignation must be complied with. The Civil Code Articles expressly and explicitly direct what must be essentially done in order that consignation shall be valid and effectual. Thus, the law provides: 1257. In order that the consignation of the thing due may release the obligor, it must first be announced to the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation. The consignation shall be ineffectual if it is not made strictly in consonance with the provisions which regulate payment. Art. 1258. Consignation shall be made by depositing the things due at the disposal of judicial authority, before whom the tender of payment shall be proved, in a proper case, and the announcement of the consignation in other cases. The consignation having been made, the interested parties shall also be notified thereof. Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in abeyance. We have a long line of established precedents and doctrines that sustain the mandatory nature of the above provisions. The decision appealed from must, therefore, be reversed. The antecedent facts are substantially recited in the decision under review, as follows: It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff-appellee-Soco, for shortand the 'defendant-appellant-Francisco, for brevity- entered into a contract of lease on January 17, 1973, whereby Soco leased her commercial building and lot situated at Manalili Street, Cebu City, to Francisco for a monthly rental of P 800.00 for a period of 10 years renewable for another 10 years at the option of the lessee. The terms of the contract are embodied in the Contract of Lease (Exhibit "A" for Soco and Exhibit "2" for Francisco). It can readily be discerned from Exhibit "A" that paragraphs 10 and 11 appear to have been cancelled while in Exhibit "2" only paragraph 10 has been cancelled. Claiming that paragraph 11 of the Contract of Lease was in fact not part of the contract because it was cancelled, Soco filed Civil Case No. R-16261 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking the annulment and/or reformation of the Contract of Lease. ... Sometime before the filing of Civil Case No. R-16261 Francisco noticed that Soco did not anymore send her collector for the payment of rentals and at times there were payments made but no receipts were issued. This situation prompted Francisco to write Soco the letter dated February 7, 1975 (Exhibit "3") which the latter received as shown in Exhibit "3-A". After writing this letter, Francisco sent his payment for rentals by checks issued by the Commercial Bank and Trust Company. Obviously, these payments in checks were received because Soco admitted that prior to May, 1977, defendant had been religiously paying the rental. .... 1. The factual background setting of this case clearly indicates that soon after Soco learned that Francisco sub-leased a portion of the building to NACIDA, at a monthly rental of more than P3,000.00 which is definitely very much higher than what Francisco was paying to Soco under the Contract of Lease, the latter felt that she was on the losing end of the lease agreement so she tried to look for ways and means to terminate the contract. ... In view of this alleged non-payment of rental of the leased premises beginning May, 1977, Soco through her lawyer sent a letter dated November 23, 1978 (Exhibit "B") to Francisco serving notice to the latter 'to vacate the premises leased.' In answer to this letter, Francisco through his lawyer informed Soco and her lawyer that all payments of rental due her were in fact paid by Commercial Bank and Trust Company through the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Cebu (Exhibit " 1 "). Despite this explanation, Soco filed this instant case of Illegal Detainer on January 8, 1979. ... 2. Pursuant to his letter dated February 7, 1975(Exhibit"3") and for reasons stated therein, Francisco paid his monthly rentals to Soco by issuing checks of the Commercial Bank and Trust Company where he had a checking account. On May 13, 1975, Francisco wrote the VicePresident of Comtrust, Cebu Branch (Exhibit "4") requesting the latter to issue checks to Soco in the amount of P 840.00 every 10th of the month, obviously for payment of his monthly rentals. This request of Francisco was complied with by Comtrust in its letter dated June 4, 1975 (Exhibit "5"). Obviously, these payments by checks through Comtrust were received by Soco from June, 1975 to April, 1977 because Soco admitted that an rentals due her were paid except the rentals beginning May, 1977. While Soco alleged in her direct examination that 'since May, 1977 he (meaning Francisco) stopped paying the monthly rentals' (TSN, Palicte, p. 6, Hearing of October 24, 1979), yet on cross examination she admitted that before the filing of her complaint in the instant case, she knew that payments for monthly rentals were deposited with the Clerk

71
of Court except rentals for the months of May, June, July and August, 1977. ... Pressing her point, Soco alleged that 'we personally demanded from Engr. Francisco for the months of May, June, July and August, but Engr. Francisco did not pay for the reason that he had no funds available at that time.' (TSN-Palicte, p. 28, Hearing October 24, 1979). This allegation of Soco is denied by Francisco because per his instructions, the Commercial Bank and Trust Company, Cebu Branch, in fact, issued checks in favor of Soco representing payments for monthly rentals for the months of May, June, July and August, 1977 as shown in Debit Memorandum issued by Comtrust as follows: (a) Exhibit "6"-Debit Memo dated May 11, 1977 for P926.10 as payment for May, 1977; (b) Exhibit"7"-Debit Memo dated June l5, 197 7for P926.10 as payment for June, 1977; (c) Exhibit "8"-Debit Memo dated July 11, 1977 for P1926.10 as payment for July, 1977; (d) Exhibit "9"-Debit Memo dated August 10, 1977 for P926. 10 as payment for August, 1977. These payments are further bolstered by the certification issued by Comtrust dated October 29, 1979 (Exhibit "13"). Indeed the Court is convinced that payments for rentals for the months of May, June, July and August, 1977 were made by Francisco to Soco thru Comtrust and deposited with the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Cebu. There is no need to determine whether payments by consignation were made from September, 1977 up to the filing of the complaint in January, 1979 because as earlier stated Soco admitted that the rentals for these months were deposited with the Clerk of Court. ... Taking into account the factual background setting of this case, the Court holds that there was in fact a tender of payment of the rentals made by Francisco to Soco through Comtrust and since these payments were not accepted by Soco evidently because of her intention to evict Francisco, by all means, culminating in the filing of Civil Case R-16261, Francisco was impelled to deposit the rentals with the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Cebu. Soco was notified of this deposit by virtue of the letter of Atty. Pampio Abarientos dated June 9, 1977 (Exhibit "10") and the letter of Atty. Pampio Abarientos dated July 6. 1977 (Exhibit " 12") as well as in the answer of Francisco in Civil Case R-16261 (Exhibit "14") particularly paragraph 7 of the Special and Affirmative Defenses. She was further notified of these payments by consignation in the letter of Atty. Menchavez dated November 28, 1978 (Exhibit " 1 "). There was therefore substantial compliance of the requisites of consignation, hence his payments were valid and effective. Consequently, Francisco cannot be ejected from the leased premises for non-payment of rentals. ... As indicated earlier, the above decision of the Court of First Instance reversed the judgment of the City Court of Cebu, Branch 11, the dispositive portion of the latter reading as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant, Regino Francisco, Jr.: (1) To vacate immediately the premises in question, consisting of a building located at Manalili St., Cebu City; (2) To pay to the plaintiff the sum of P40,490.46 for the rentals, covering the period from May, 1977 to August, 1980, and starting with the month of September, 1980, to pay to the plaintiff for one (1) year a monthly rental of P l,072.076 and an additional amount of 5 per cent of said amount, and for so much amount every month thereafter equivalent to the rental of the month of every preceding year plus 5 percent of same monthly rental until the defendant shall finally vacate said premises and possession thereof wholly restored to the plaintiff-all plus legal interest from date of filing of the complaint; (3) To pay to the plaintiff the sum of P9,000.00 for attorney's fee; (4) To pay to the plaintiff the sum of P5,000.00 for damages and incidental litigation expenses; and (5) To pay the Costs. SOORDERED. Cebu City, Philippines, November 21, 1980. (SGD.) PATERNO D. MONTESCLAROS Acting Presiding Judge According to the findings of fact made by the City Court, the defendant Francisco had religiously paid to the plaintiff Soco the corresponding rentals according to the terms of the Least Contract while enjoying the leased premises until one day the plaintiff had to demand upon the defendant for the payment of the rentals for the month of May, 1977 and of the succeeding months. The plaintiff also demanded upon the defendant to vacate the premises and from that time he failed or refused to vacate his possession thereof; that beginning with the month of May, 1977 until at present, the defendant has not made valid payments of rentals to the plaintiff who, as a consequence, has not received any rental payment from the defendant or anybody else; that for the months of May to August, 1977, evidence shows that the plaintiff through her daughter, Teolita Soco and salesgirl, Vilma Arong, went to the office or residence of defendant at Sanciangko St., Cebu City, on various occasions to effect payment of rentals but were unable to collect on account of the defendant's refusal to pay; that defendant contended that payments of rental thru checks for said four months were made to the plaintiff but the latter refused to accept them; that in 1975, defendant authorized the Commercial Bank and Trust Company to issue checks to the plaintiff chargeable against his bank account, for the payment of said rentals, and the delivery of said checks was coursed by the bank thru the messengerial services of the FAR Corporation, but the plaintiff refused to accept them and because of such refusal, defendant instructed said bank to make consignation with the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Cebu as regard said rentals for May to August, 1977 and for subsequent months. The City Court further found that there is no showing that the letter allegedly delivered to the plaintiff in May, 1977 by Filomeno Soon, messenger of the FAR Corporation contained cash money, check, money order, or any other form of note of value, hence there could never be any tender of payment, and even granting that there was, but plaintiff refused to accept it without any reason, still no consignation for May, 1977 rental could be considered in favor of the defendant unless evidence is presented to establish that he actually made rental deposit with the court in cash money and prior and subsequent to such deposit, he notified the plaintiff thereof. Notwithstanding the contradictory findings of fact and the resulting opposite conclusions of law by the City Court and the Court of First Instance, both are agreed, however, that the case presents the issue of whether the lessee failed to pay the monthly rentals beginning May, 1977 up to the time the complaint for eviction was filed on January 8,

72
1979. This issue in turn revolves on whether the consignation of the rentals was valid or not to discharge effectively the lessee's obligation to pay the same. The City Court ruled that the consignation was not valid. The Court of First Instance, on the other hand, held that there was substantial compliance with the requisites of the law on consignation. Let us examine the law and consider Our jurisprudence on the matter, aside from the codal provisions already cited herein. According to Article 1256, New Civil Code, if the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due. Consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases: (1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment; (2) When he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due; (3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt; (4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect; (5) When the title of the obligation has been lost. Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. (Limkako vs. Teodoro, 74 Phil. 313). In order that consignation may be effective, the debtor must first comply with certain requirements prescribed by law. The debtor must show (1) that there was a debt due; (2) that the consignation of the obligation had been made because the creditor to whom tender of payment was made refused to accept it, or because he was absent or incapacitated, or because several persons claimed to be entitled to receive the amount due (Art. 1176, Civil Code); (3) that previous notice of the consignation had been given to the person interested in the performance of the obligation (Art. 1177, Civil Code); (4) that the amount due was placed at the disposal of the court (Art. 1178, Civil Code); and (5) that after the consignation had been made the person interested was notified thereof (Art. 1178, Civil Code). Failure in any of these requirements is enough ground to render a consignation ineffective. (Jose Ponce de Leon vs. Santiago Syjuco, Inc., 90 Phil. 311). Without the notice first announced to the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation, the consignation as a payment is void. (Limkako vs. Teodoro, 74 Phil. 313), In order to be valid, the tender of payment must be made in lawful currency. While payment in check by the debtor may be acceptable as valid, if no prompt objection to said payment is made (Desbarats vs. Vda. de Mortera, L-4915, May 25, 1956) the fact that in previous years payment in check was accepted does not place its creditor in estoppel from requiring the debtor to pay his obligation in cash (Sy vs. Eufemio, L-10572, Sept. 30, 1958). Thus, the tender of a check to pay for an obligation is not a valid tender of payment thereof (Desbarats vs. Vda. de Mortera, supra). See Annotation, The Mechanics of Consignation by Atty. S. Tabios, 104 SCRA 174-179. Tender of payment must be distinguished from consignation. Tender is the antecedent of consignation, that is, an act preparatory to the consignation, which is the principal, and from which are derived the immediate consequences which the debtor desires or seeks to obtain. Tender of payment may be extrajudicial, while consignation is necessarily judicial, and the priority of the first is the attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation. (8 Manresa 325). Reviewing carefully the evidence presented by respondent lessee at the trial of the case to prove his compliance with all the requirements of a valid tender of payment and consignation and from which the respondent Judge based his conclusion that there was substantial compliance with the law on consignation, We note from the assailed decision hereinbefore quoted that these evidences are: Exhibit 10, the letter of Atty. Pampio Abarintos dated June 9, 1977: Exhibit 12, letter of Atty. Pampio Abarintos dated July 6, 1977; Exhibit 14, the Answer of respondent Francisco in Civil Case R- 16261, particularly paragraph 7 of the Special and Affirmative Defenses; and Exhibit 1, letter of Atty. Eric Menchavez dated November 28, 1978. All these evidences, according to respondent Judge, proved that petitioner lessor was notified of the deposit of the monthly rentals. We have analyzed and scrutinized closely the above exhibits and We find that the respondent Judge's conclusion is manifestly wrong and based on misapprehension of facts. Thus(1) Exhibit 10 reads: (see p. 17, Records) June 9, 1977 Miss Soledad Soco Soledad Soco Retazo P. Gullas St., Cebu City Dear Miss Soco: This is in connection with the payment of rental of my client, Engr. Regino Francisco, Jr., of your building situated at Manalili St., Cebu City. It appears that twice you refused acceptance of the said payment made by my client. It appears further that my client had called your office several times and left a message for you to get this payment of rental but until the present you have not sent somebody to get it. In this connection, therefore, in behalf of my client, you are hereby requested to please get and claim the rental payment aforestated from the Office of my client at Tagalog Hotel and Restaurant, Sanciangko St., Cebu City. within three (3) days from receipt hereof otherwise we would be constrained to make a consignation of the same with the Court in accordance with law. Hoping for your cooperation on this matter, we remain. Very truly yours, (SGD.) PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS Counsel for Engr. REGINO FRANCISCO, Jr. We may agree that the above exhibit proves tender of payment of the particular monthly rental referred to (the letter does not, however, indicate for what month and also the intention to deposit the rental with the court, which is the first notice. But certainly, it is no proof of tender of payment of other or subsequent monthly rentals. Neither is it proof that notice of the actual deposit or consignation was given to the lessor, which is the second notice required by law. (2) Exhibit 12 (see p. 237, Records) states: July 6, 1977 Miss Soledad Soco

73
Soledad Soco Reta P. Gullas St., Cebu City Dear Miss Soco: This is to advise and inform you that my client, Engr. Regino Francisco, Jr., has consigned to you, through the Clerk of Court, City Court of Cebu, Cebu City, the total amount of Pl,852.20, as evidenced by cashier's checks No. 478439 and 47907 issued by the Commercial Bank and Trust Company (CBTC) Cebu City Branch, dated May 11, 1977 and June 15, 1977 respectively and payable to your order, under Official Receipt No. 0436936 dated July 6,1977. This amount represents payment of the rental of your building situated at Manalili St., Cebu City which my client, Engr. Regino Francisco, Jr., is renting. You can withdraw the said amount from the Clerk of Court, City Court of Cebu, Cebu City at any time. Please be further notified that all subsequent monthly rentals will be deposited to the Clerk of Court, City Court of Cebu, Cebu City. Very truly yours, (SGD.) PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS Counsel for ENGR. REGINO FRANCISCO, JR. The above evidence is, of course, proof of notice to the lessor of the deposit or consignation of only the two payments by cashier's checks indicated therein. But surely, it does not prove any other deposit nor the notice thereof to the lessor. It is not even proof of the tender of payment that would have preceded the consignation. (3) Exhibit 14, paragraph 7 of the Answer (see p. 246, Records) alleges: 7. That ever since, defendant had been religiously paying his rentals without any delay which, however, the plaintiff had in so many occasions refused to accept obviously in the hope that she may declare non-payment of rentals and claim it as a ground for the cancellation of the contract of lease. This, after seeing the improvements in the area which were effected, at no small expense by the defendant. To preserve defendant's rights and to show good faith in up to date payment of rentals, defendant had authorized his bank to issue regularly cashier's check in favor of the plaintiff as payment of rentals which the plaintiff had been accepting during the past years and even for the months of January up to May of this year, 1977 way past plaintiff's claim of lease expiration. For the months of June and July, however, plaintiff again started refusing to accept the payments in going back to her previous strategy which forced the defendant to consign his monthly rental with the City Clerk of Court and which is now the present state of affairs in so far as payment of rentals is concerned. These events only goes to show that the wily plaintiff had thought of this mischievous scheme only very recently and filed herein malicious and unfounded complaint. The above exhibit which is lifted from Civil Case No. R-16261 between the parties for annulment of the lease contract, is self-serving. The statements therein are mere allegations of conclusions which are not evidentiary. (4) Exhibit 1 (see p. 15, Records) is quoted thus: November 28, 1978 Atty. Luis V. Diores Suite 504, SSS Bldg. Jones Avenue, Cebu City Dear Compaero: Your letter dated November 23, 1978 which was addressed to my client, Engr. Regino Francisco, Jr. has been referred to me for reply. It is not true that my client has not paid the rentals as claimed in your letter. As a matter of fact, he has been religiously paying the rentals in advance. Payment was made by Commercial Bank and Trust Company to the Clerk of Court, Cebu City. Attached herewith is the receipt of payment made by him for the month of November, 1978 which is dated November 16, 1978. You can check this up with the City Clerk of Court for satisfaction. Regards. (SGD.) ERIC MENCHAVEZ Counsel for Regino Francisco, Jr. 377-B Junquera St., Cebu City (new address) Again, Exhibit 1 merely proves rental deposit for the particular month of November, 1978 and no other. It is no proof of tender of payment to the lessor, not even proof of notice to consign. We hold that the best evidence of the rental deposits with the Clerk of Court are the official receipts issued by the Clerk of Court. These the respondent lessee utterly failed to present and produce during the trial of the case. As pointed out in petitioner's Memorandum, no single official receipt was presented in the trial court as nowhere in the formal offer of exhibits for lessee Francisco can a single official receipt of any deposit made be found (pp. 8-9, Memorandum for Petitioner; pp. 163-164, Records). Summing up Our review of the above four (4) exhibits, We hold that the respondent lessee has utterly failed to prove the following requisites of a valid consignation: First, tender of payment of the monthly rentals to the lessor except that indicated in the June 9, l977 Letter, Exhibit 10. In the original records of the case, We note that the certification, Exhibit 11 of Filemon Soon, messenger of the FAR Corporation, certifying that the letter of Soledad Soco sent last May 10 by Commercial Bank and Trust Co. was marked RTS (return to sender) for the reason that the addressee refused to receive it, was rejected by the court for being immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent per its Order dated November 20, 1980. (See p. 117, CFI Records). Second, respondent lessee also failed to prove the first notice to the lessor prior to consignation, except the payment referred to in Exhibit 10. In this connection, the purpose of the notice is in order to give the creditor an opportunity to reconsider his unjustified refusal and to accept payment thereby avoiding consignation and the subsequent litigation. This previous notice is essential to the validity of the consignation and its lack invalidates the same. (Cabanos vs. Calo, 104 Phil. 1058; Limkako vs. Teodoro, 74 Phil. 313). There is no factual basis for the lower court's finding that the lessee had tendered payment of the monthly rentals, thru his bank, citing the lessee's letter (Exh. 4) requesting the bank to issue checks in favor of Soco in the amount of P840.00 every 10th of each month and to deduct the full amount and service fee from his current account, as well as Exhibit 5, letter of the Vice President agreeing with the request. But scrutinizing carefully Exhibit 4, this is what the lessee also wrote: "Please immediately notify us everytime you have the check ready so we may send somebody over to get it. " And this is exactly what the bank agreed: "Please be advised that we are in conformity to the above

74
arrangement with the understanding that you shall send somebody over to pick up the cashier's check from us." (Exhibit 4, see p. 230, Original Records; Exhibit 5, p. 231, Original Records) Evidently, from this arrangement, it was the lessee's duty to send someone to get the cashier's check from the bank and logically, the lessee has the obligation to make and tender the check to the lessor. This the lessee failed to do, which is fatal to his defense. Third, respondent lessee likewise failed to prove the second notice, that is after consignation has been made, to the lessor except the consignation referred to in Exhibit 12 which are the cashier's check Nos. 478439 and 47907 CBTC dated May 11, 1977 and June 15, 1977 under Official Receipt No. 04369 dated July 6, 1977. Respondent lessee, attempting to prove compliance with the requisites of valid consignation, presented the representative of the Commercial Bank and Trust Co., Edgar Ocaada, Bank Comptroller, who unfortunately belied respondent's claim. We quote below excerpts from his testimony, as follows: ATTY. LUIS DIORES: Q What month did you say you made ,you started making the deposit? When you first deposited the check to the Clerk of Court? A The payment of cashier's check in favor of Miss Soledad Soco was coursed thru the City Clerk of Court from the letter of request by our client Regino Francisco, Jr., dated September 8, 1977. From that time on, based on his request, we delivered the check direct to the City Clerk of Court. Q What date, what month was that, you first delivered the check to the Clerk of Court.? A We started September 12, 1977. A I did not. Q September 1977 up to the present time, you delivered the cashier's check to the City Clerk of Court? A Yes. A Yes, sir. Q You were issued the receipts of those checks? A Well, we have an acknowledgment letter to be signed by the one who received the check. Q You mean you were issued, or you were not issued any official receipt? My question is whether you were issued any official receipt? So, were you issued, or you were not issued? A We were not issued. Q On September, 1977, after you deposited the manager's check for that month with the Clerk of Court, did you serve notice upon Soledad Soco that the deposit was made on such amount for the month of September, 1977 and now to the Clerk of Court? Did you or did you not? A Well, we only act on something upon the request of our client. Q Please answer my question. I know that you are acting upon instruction of your client. My question was-after you made the deposit of the manager's check whether or not you notified Soledad Soco that such manager's check was deposited in the Clerk of Court from the month of September, 1977? Q Now, from 1977, September up to the present time, before the deposit was made with the Clerk of Court, did you serve notice to Soledad Soco that a deposit was going to be made in each and every month? A Not. Q In other words, from September 1977 up to the present time, you did not notify Soledad Soco that you were going to make the deposit with the Clerk of Court, and you did not also notify Soledad Soco after the deposit was made, that a deposit has been made in each and every month during that period, is that correct? A Yes Q And the reason was because you were not instructed by Mr. and Mrs. Regino Francisco, Jr. that such notification should be made before the deposit and after the deposit was made, is that correct? A No, I did not. (Testimony of Ocanada pp. 32-41, Hearing on June 3, 1980). Q Now, you did not make such notices because you were not such notices after the deposits you made, is that correct? A We are not bound to. Q I am not asking whether you are bound to or not. I'masking whether you did or you did not? A I did not. Q Alright, for October, 1977, after having made a deposit for that particular month, did you notify Miss Soledad Soco that the deposit was in the Clerk of Court? A No, we did not. Q Now, on November, 1977, did you notify Soledad Soco that you deposited the manager's check to the City Clerk of Court for that month? A I did not. Q You did not also notify Soledad Soco for the month December, 1977, so also from January, February, March, April, May, June, July until December, 1978, you did not also notify Miss Soledad Soco all the deposits of the manager's check which you said you deposited with the Clerk of Court in every end of the month? So also from each and every month from January 1979 up to December 1979, you did not also serve notice upon Soledad Socco of the deposit in the Clerk of Court, is that correct? A Yes. Q So also in January 1980 up to this month 1980, you did not instructed by your client Mr. and Mrs. Regino Francisco, jr. to make also serve notice upon Soledad Soco of the Manager's check which you said you deposited to the Clerk of Court?

75
Recapitulating the above testimony of the Bank Comptroller, it is clear that the bank did not send notice to Soco that the checks will be deposited in consignation with the Clerk of Court (the first notice) and also, the bank did not send notice to Soco that the checks were in fact deposited (the second notice) because no instructions were given by its depositor, the lessee, to this effect, and this lack of notices started from September, 1977 to the time of the trial, that is June 3, 1980. The reason for the notification to the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation after consignation had been made, which is separate and distinct from the notification which is made prior to the consignation, is stated in Cabanos vs. Calo, G.R. No. L-10927, October 30, 1958, 104 Phil. 1058. thus: "There should be notice to the creditor prior and after consignation as required by the Civil Code. The reason for this is obvious, namely, to enable the creditor to withdraw the goods or money deposited. Indeed, it would be unjust to make him suffer the risk for any deterioration, depreciation or loss of such goods or money by reason of lack of knowledge of the consignation." And the fourth requisite that respondent lessee failed to prove is the actual deposit or consignation of the monthly rentals except the two cashier's checks referred to in Exhibit 12. As indicated earlier, not a single copy of the official receipts issued by the Clerk of Court was presented at the trial of the case to prove the actual deposit or consignation. We find, however, reference to some 45 copies of official receipts issued by the Clerk of Court marked Annexes "B-1 " to "B-40" to the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order granting execution pending appeal filed by defendant Francisco in the City Court of Cebu (pp, 150194, CFI Original Records) as well as in the Motion for Reconsideration of the CFI decision, filed by plaintiff lessor (pp. 39-50, Records, marked Annex "E ") the allegation that "there was no receipt at all showing that defendant Francisco has deposited with the Clerk of Court the monthly rentals corresponding to the months of May and June, 1977. And for the months of July and August, 1977, the rentals were only deposited with the Clerk of Court on 20 November 1979 (or more than two years later)."... The deposits of these monthly rentals for July and August, 1977 on 20 November 1979, is very significant because on 24 October 1979, plaintiff Soco had testified before the trial court that defendant had not paid the monthly rentals for these months. Thus, defendant had to make a hurried deposit on the following month to repair his failure. " (pp. 43-44, Records). We have verified the truth of the above claim or allegation and We find that indeed, under Official Receipt No. 1697161Z, the rental deposit for August, 1977 in cashier's check No. 502782 dated 8-10-77 was deposited on November 20, 1979 (Annex "B-15", p. 169, Original CFI Records) and under Official Receipt No. 1697159Z, the rental deposit for July under Check No. 479647 was deposited on November 20, 1979 (Annex "B-16", p. 170, Original CFI Records). Indeed, these two rental deposits were made on November 20, 1979, two years late and after the filing of the complaint for illegal detainer. The decision under review cites Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9, the Debit Memorandum issued by Comtrust Bank deducting the amounts of the checks therein indicated from the account of the lessee, to prove payment of the monthly rentals. But these Debit Memorandums are merely internal banking practices or office procedures involving the bank and its depositor which is not binding upon a third person such as the lessor. What is important is whether the checks were picked up by the lessee as per the arrangement indicated in Exhibits 4 and 5 wherein the lessee had to pick up the checks issued by CBTC or to send somebody to pick them up, and logically, for the lessee to tender the same to the lessor. On this vital point, the lessee miserably failed to present any proof that he complied with the arrangement. We, therefore, find and rule that the lessee has failed to prove tender of payment except that in Exh. 10; he has failed to prove the first notice to the lessor prior to consignation except that given in Exh. 10; he has failed to prove the second notice after consignation except the two made in Exh. 12; and he has failed to pay the rentals for the months of July and August, 1977 as of the time the complaint was filed for the eviction of the lessee. We hold that the evidence is clear, competent and convincing showing that the lessee has violated the terms of the lease contract and he may, therefore, be judicially ejected. The other matters raised in the appeal are of no moment. The motion to dismiss filed by respondent on the ground of "want of specific assignment of errors in the appellant's brief, or of page references to the records as required in Section 16(d) of Rule 46," is without merit. The petition itself has attached the decision sought to be reviewed. Both Petition and Memorandum of the petitioner contain the summary statement of facts; they discuss the essential requisites of a valid consignation; the erroneous conclusion of the respondent Judge in reversing the decision of the City Court, his grave abuse of discretion which, the petitioner argues, "has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding in the matter of applying the law and jurisprudence on the matter." The Memorandum further cites other basis for petitioner's plea. In Our mind, the errors in the appealed decision are sufficiently stated and assigned. Moreover, under Our rulings, We have stated that: This Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case. Also, an unassigned error closely related to an error properly assigned or upon which the determination of the questioned raised by the error properly assigned is dependent, will be considered by the appellate court notwithstanding the failure to assign it as an error." (Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa German Airlines, L-28773, June 30, 1975, 64 SCRA 610) Under Section 5 of Rule 53, the appellate court is authorized to consider a plain error, although it was not specifically assigned by appellants." (Dilag vs. Heirs of Resurreccion, 76 Phil. 649) Appellants need not make specific assignment of errors provided they discuss at length and assail in their brief the correctness of the trial court's findings regarding the matter. Said discussion warrants the appellate court to rule upon the point because it substantially complies with Section 7, Rule 51 of the Revised Rules of Court, intended merely to compel the appellant to specify the questions which he wants to raise and be disposed of in his appeal. A clear discussion regarding an error allegedly committed by the trial court accomplishes the purpose of a particular assignment of error." (Cabrera vs. Belen, 95 Phil. 54; Miguel vs Court of Appeals, L- 20274, Oct. 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 760-773, cited in Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 11, 1970 ed., p. 534). Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be construed liberally in order that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice, due to legal technicalities, may be avoided." (Concepcion, et al. vs. The Payatas Estate Improvement Co., Inc., 103 Phil. 10 17). WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, 14th Judicial District, Branch XII is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the derision of the City Court of Cebu, Branch II is hereby reinstated, with costs in favor of the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

76
Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Abad S G.R. No. L-42230 April 15, 1988 LAURO IMMACULATA, represented by his wife AMPARO VELASCO, as Guardian Ad Litem, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch No. II, and HEIRS OF JUANITO VICTORIA, namely: LOLITA, TOMAS, BENJAMIN, VIRGINIA, BRENDA and ELVIE, all surnamed VICTORIA, and JUANITA NAVAL, surviving widow; and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, respondents. Pedro N. Belmi for petitioner. Alfonso G. Salvador for respondents. RESOLUTION

PARAS, J.: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Our decision dated November 26, 1986 asks Us to consider a point inadvertently missed by the Court the matter of legal redemption of a parcel of land previously obtained by petitioner Lauro Immaculata thru a free patent. The reconsideration of this issue is hereby GRANTED. While res judicata may bar questions on the validity of the sale in view of alleged insanity and intimidation (and this point is no longer pressed by counsel for the petitioner) still the question of the right of legal redemption has remained unresolved. Be it noted that in an action (Civil Case No. 20968) filed on March 24, 1975 before the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal, petitioner presented an alternative cause of action or prayer just in case the validity of the sale would be sustained. And this alternative cause of action or prayer is to allow petitioner to legally redeem the property. We hereby grant said alternative cause of action or prayer. While the sale was originally executed sometime in December, 1969, it was only on February 3, 1974 when, as prayed for 1 by private respondent, and as ordered by the court a quo, a "deed of conveyance" was formally executed. Since offer to redeem was made on March 24, 1975, this was clearly within the five-year period of legal redemption allowed by the Public Land Act (See Abuan v. Garcia, 14 SCRA 759, 761). The allegation that the offer to redeem was not sincere, because there was no consignation of the amount in Court is devoid of merit. The right to redeem is a RIGHT, not an obligation, therefore, there is no consignation required (De Jesus v. Garcia, C.A. 47 O.G. 2406; Resales v. Reyes, 25 Phil. 495, Vda. de Quirino v. Palarca, L-28269, Aug. 16, 1969) to preserve the right to redeem (Villegas v. Capistrano, 9 Phil. 416). WHEREFORE, as prayed for by the petitioner Lauro Immaculata (represented by his wife, Amparo Velasco, as Guardian ad litem) the decision of this Court dated November 26, 1986 is hereby MODIFIED, and the case is remanded to the court a quo for it to accept payment or consignation 2 (in connection with the legal redemption which We are hereby allowing the petitioner to do) by the herein petitioner of whatever he received from respondent at the time the transaction was made. SO ORDERED.

77
SCRA 363, No. L-21507, June 07, 1971 G.R. No. L-21507 June 7, 1971 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NATIVIDAD FRANKLIN, accused, ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., bondsman-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Acting Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Antonio M. Consing for plaintiffappellee. Advincula, Astraquillo, Villa & Ramos for bondsman-appellant. DIZON, J.: Appeal taken by the Asian Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga dated April 17, 1963, forfeiting the bail bond posted by it for the provisional release of Natividad Franklin, the accused in Criminal Case No. 4300 of said court, as well as from the latter's orders denying the surety company's motion for a reductions of bail, and its motion for reconsideration thereof. It appears that an information filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Angeles, Pampanga, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5536, Natividad Franklin was charged with estafa. Upon a bail bond posted by the Asian Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. in the amount of P2,000.00, she was released from custody. After the preliminary investigation of the case, the Justice of the Peace Court elevated it to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga where the Provincial Fiscal filed the corresponding information against the accused. The Court of First Instance then set her arraignment on July 14, 1962, on which date she failed to appear, but the court postponed the arraignment to July 28 of the same year upon motion of counsel for the surety company. The accused failed to appear again, for which reason the court ordered her arrest and required the surety company to show cause why the bail bond posted by it should not be forfeited. On September 25, 1962, the court granted the surety company a period of thirty days within which to produce and surrender the accused, with the warning that upon its failure to do so the bail bond posted by it would be forfeited. On October 25, 1962 the surety company filed a motion praying for an extension of thirty days within which to produce the body of the accused and to show cause why its bail bond should not be forfeited. As not withstanding the extension granted the surety company failed to produce the accused again, the court had no other alternative but to render the judgment of forfeiture. Subsequently, the surety company filed a motion for a reduction of bail alleging that the reason for its inability to produce and surrender the accused to the court was the fact that the Philippine Government had allowed her to leave the country and proceed to the United States on February 27, 1962. The reason thus given not being to the satisfaction of the court, the motion for reduction of bail was denied. The surety company's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the lower court on May 27, 1963, although it stated in its order that it would consider the matter of reducing the bail bond "upon production of the accused." The surety company never complied with this condition. Appellant now contends that the lower court should have released it from all liability under the bail bond posted by it because its failure to produce and surrender the accused was due to the negligence of the Philippine Government itself in issuing a passport to said accused, thereby enabling her to leave the country. In support of this contention the provisions of Article 1266 of the New Civil Code are invoked. Appellant's contention is untenable. The abovementioned legal provision does not apply to its case, because the same speaks of the relation between a debtor and a creditor, which does not exist in the case of a surety upon a bail bond, on the one hand, and the State, on the other. In U.S. vs. Bonoan, et al., 22 Phil., p. 1, We held that: The rights and liabilities of sureties on a recognizance or bail bond are, in many respects, different from those of sureties on ordinary bonds or commercial contracts. The former can discharge themselves from liability by surrendering their principal; the latter, as a general rule, can only be released by payment of the debt or performance of the act stipulated. In the more recent case of Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404, We also held that: By the mere fact that a person binds himself as surety for the accused, he takes charge of, and absolutely becomes responsible for the latter's custody, and under such circumstances it is incumbent upon him, or rather, it is his inevitable obligation not merely a right, to keep the accused at all times under his surveillance, inasmuch as the authority emanating from his character as surety is no more nor less than the Government's authority to hold the said accused under preventive imprisonment. In allowing the accused Eugenio Uy Tuising to leave the jurisdiction of the Philippines, the appellee necessarily ran the risk of violating and in fact it clearly violated the terms of its bail bonds because it failed to produce the said accused when on January 15, 1932, it was required to do so. Undoubtedly, the result of the obligation assumed by the appellee to hold the accused at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court was to prohibit said accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines because, otherwise, said orders and processes would be nugatory and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the court from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines, they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction. It is clear, therefore, that in the eyes of the law a surety becomes the legal custodian and jailer of the accused, thereby assuming the obligation to keep the latter at all times under his surveillance, and to produce and surrender him to the court upon the latter's demand. That the accused in this case was able to secure a Philippine passport which enabled her to go to the United States was, in fact, due to the surety company's fault because it was its duty to do everything and take all steps necessary to prevent that departure. This could have been accomplished by seasonably informing the Department of Foreign Affairs and other agencies of the government of the fact that the accused for whose provisional liberty it had posted a bail bond was facing a criminal charge in a particular court of the country. Had the surety company done this, there can be no doubt that no Philippine passport would have been issued to Natividad Franklin. UPON ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed in all its parts, with costs. Concepcion C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur. Castro, J., took no part.

78
G.R. No. L-23546 August 29, 1974 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY and BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO C. MANABAT, as assignee of Bian Transportation Company, Insolvent, respondent. Domingo E. de Lara for petitioners. M. A. Concordia & V.A. Guevarra for respondent. MAKASIAR, J.:p This is an appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 1964, which WE AFFIRM. The undisputed facts are recounted by the Court of Appeals through then Associate Justice Salvador Esguerra thus: On January 20, 1956, a contract was executed whereby the Bian Transportation Company leased to the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company at a monthly rental of P2,500.00 its certificates of public convenience over the lines known as Manila-Bian, Manila-Canlubang and Sta. RosaManila, and to the Batangas Transportation Company its certificate of public convenience over the line known as Manila-Batangas Wharf, together with one "International" truck, for a period of five years, renewable for another similar period, to commence from the approval of the lease contract by the Public Service Commission. On the same date the Public Service Commission provisionally approved the lease contract on condition that the lessees should operate on the leased lines in accordance with the prescribed time schedule and that such approval was subject to modification or cancellation and to whatever decision that in due time might be rendered in the case. Sometime after the execution of the lease contract, the plaintiff Bian Transportation Company was declared insolvent in Special Proceedings No. B-30 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, and Francisco C. Manabat was appointed as its assignee. From time to time, the defendants paid the lease rentals up to December, 1957, with the exception of the rental for August 1957, from which there was deducted the sum of P1,836.92 without the consent of the plaintiff. This deduction was based on the ground that the employees of the defendants on the leased lines went on strike for 6 days in June and another 6 days in July, 1957, and caused a loss of P500 for each strike, or a total of P1,000.00; and that in Civil Case No. 696 of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch II, judgment was rendered in favor of defendant Batangas Transportation Company against the Bian Transportation Company for the sum of P836.92. The assignee of the plaintiff objected to such deduction, claiming that the contract of lease would be suspended only if the defendants could not operate the leased lines due to the action of the officers, employees or laborers of the lessor but not of the lessees, and that the deduction of P836.92 amounted to a fraudulent preference in the insolvency proceedings as whatever judgment might have been rendered in favor of any of the lessees should have been filed as a claim in said proceedings. The defendants neither refunded the deductions nor paid the rentals beginning January, 1958, notwithstanding demands therefor made from time to time. At first, the defendants assured the plaintiff that the lease rentals would be paid, although it might be delayed, but in the end they failed to comply with their promise. On February 18, 1958, the Batangas Transportation Company and Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company separately filed with the Public Service Commission a petition for authority to suspend the operation on the lines covered by the certificates of public convenience leased to each of them by the Bian Transportation Company. The defendants alleged as reasons the reduction in the amount of dollars allowed by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines for the purchase of spare parts needed in the operation of their trucks, the alleged difficulty encountered in securing said parts, and their procurement at exorbitant costs, thus rendering the operation of the leased lines prohibitive. The defendants further alleged that the high cost of operation, coupled with the lack of passenger traffic on the leased lines resulted in financial losses. For these reasons they asked permission to suspend the operation of the leased lines until such time as the operating expenses were restored to normal levels so as to allow the lessees to realize a reasonable margin of profit from their operation. Plaintiff's assignee opposed the petition on the ground that the Public Service Commission had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for as it should involve the interpretation of the lease contract, which act falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts; that the petitioners had not asked for the suspension of the operation of the lines covered by their own certificates of public convenience; that to grant the petition would amount to an impairment of the obligation of contract; and that the defendants have no legal personality to ask for suspension of the operation of the leased lines since they belonged exclusively to the plaintiffwho is the grantee of the corresponding certificate of public convenience. Aside from the assignee, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue and other creditors of the Bian Transportation Company, like the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. and Parsons Hardware Company, filed oppositions to the petitions for suspension of operation. On October 15, 1958, the Public Service Commission overruled all oppositions filed by the assignee and other creditors of the insolvent, holding that upon its approval of the lease contract, the lessees acquired the operating rights of the lessor and assumed full responsibility for compliance with all the terms and conditions of the certificate of public convenience. The Public Service Commission further stated that the petition to suspend operation did not pertain to any act of dominion or ownership but only to the use of the certificate of public convenience which had been transferred by the plaintiff to the defendants, and that the suspension prayed for was but an incident of the operation of the lines leased to the defendants. The Public Service Commission further ruled that being a quasi-judicial body of limited jurisdiction, it had no authority to interpret contracts, which function belongs to the exclusive domain of the ordinary courts, but the petition did not call for interpretation of any provision of the lease contract as the authority of the Public Service Commission to grant or deny the prayer therein was derived from its regulatory power over the leased certificates of public convenience. While proceedings before the Public Service Commission were thus going on, as a consequence of the continuing failure of the lessees to fulfill their earlier promise to pay the accruing rentals on the leased certificates, On May 19, 1959, plaintiff Bian Transportation Company represented by Francisco C. Manabat, assignee, filed this action against defendants Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and Batangas Transportation Company for the recovery of the sum of P42,500 representing the accrued rentals for the lease of the certificates of public convenience of the former to the latter, corresponding to the period from January 1958, to May 1959, inclusive, plus the sum of P1,836.92 which was deducted by the defendants from the rentals due for August, 1957, together with all subsequent rentals from June, 1959, that became due and payable; P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and such corrective and exemplary damages as the court may find reasonable. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, there being another case pending in the Public Service Commission between the same parties for the same cause. ... (pp. 20-21, rec.; pp. 54-55, ROA). The motion to dismiss was, however, denied. Meanwhile The Public Service Commission delegated its Chief Attorney to receive evidence of the parties on the petition of the herein defendants for authority to suspend operation on the lines leased to them by the plaintiff. The defendants, the assignee of the plaintiff and other creditors of the insolvent presented evidence before the Chief Attorney and the hearing was concluded on June 29, 1959. On October 20, 1959, the Public Service Commission issued an order the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

79
In view of the foregoing, the petitioners herein are authorized to suspend their operation of the trips of the Bian Transportation Company between Batangas Piers-Manila, Bian-Manila, Sta. RosaManila and Canlubang-Manila authorized in the aforementioned cases from the date of the filing of their petition on February 18, 1958, until December 31, 1959. (p. 25, rec.; pp. 60-61, ROA). Going back to the Court of First Instance of Laguna ... The motion (to dismiss) having been denied, the defendants answered the complaint, alleging among others, that the Public Service Commission authorized the suspension of operation over the leased lines from February 18, 1950, up to December 31, 1959, and hence the lease contract should be deemed suspended during that period; that plaintiff failed to place defendants in peaceful and adequate enjoyment and possession of the things leased; that as a result of the plaintiff being declared insolvent the lease contract lost further force and effect and payment of rentals thereafter was made under a mistake and should be refunded to the defendants. (p. 21; rec.; p. 55, ROA). The Court of Appeals proceeded to state that After hearing in the court a quo and presentation by the parties herein of their respective memoranda, the trial court on March 18, 1960, rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, ordering the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the former the sum of P65,000.00 for the rentals of the certificates of public convenience corresponding to the period from January, 1958, to February, 1960, inclusive, including the withheld amount of P836.92 from the rentals for August, 1957, plus the rentals that might become due and payable beginning March, 1960, at the rate of P2,500.00 a month, with interest on the sums of P42,500 and P836.92 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint, with interest on the subsequent rentals at the same rate beginning the first of the following month, plus the sum of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees, and the cost of the suit. (pp. 25-26, rec.) From the decision of the Court of First Instance, defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the same in toto in its decision dated August 31, 1964. Said decision was received by the appellants on September 7, 1964. On September 21, 1964, appellants filed the present appeal, raising the following questions of law: 1. Considering that the Court of Appeals found that the Public Service Commission provisionally approved the lease contract of January 20, 1956 between petitioners and Bian Transportation Company upon the condition, amongothers, that such approval was subject to modification and cancellation and towhatever decision that in due time might be rendered in the case, the Court ofAppeals erred in giving no legal effect and significance whatever to the suspension of operations later granted by the Public Service Commission after due hearing covering the lines leased to petitioners thereby nullifying, contrary to law and decisions of this Honorable Court, the authority and powersconferred on the Public Service Commission. 2. The Court of Appeals misapplied the statutory rules on interpreting contracts and erred in its construction of the clauses in the lease agreement authorizing petitioners to suspend operation without the corresponding liability for rentals during the period of suspension. 3. Contrary to various decisions of this Honorable Court relieving the lessee from the obligation to pay rent where there is failure to use or enjoy the thing leased, the Court of Appeals erroneously required petitioners to pay rentals, with interest, during the period of suspension of the lease from January, 1958 up to the expiration of the agreement on January 20, 1961. (p. 7, rec.) On October 12, 1964, the Supreme Court issued a resolution dismissing said petition "for lack of merit." (p. 43, rec.). Said resolution was received by petitioners on October 16, 1964. On October 31, 1964, the day the Court's resolution was to become final, petitioners filed a "Motion to Admit Amended Petition and to Give Due Course Thereto." In said motion, petitioners explained ... The amendment includes an alternative ground relating to petitioners' prayer for the reduction of the rentals payable by them. This alternative petition was not included in the original one as petitioners where genuinely convinced that they should have been absolved from all liabilities whatever. However, in view of the apparent position taken by this Honorable Court, as implied in its resolution on October 12, 1964, notice of which was received on October 16, 1964, petitioners now squarely submit their alternative position for consideration. There is decisional authority for the reduction of rentals payable (see Reyes v. Caltex, 47 O.G. 1193, 1203-1204) (p. 44, rec). The new question raised is presented thus: xxx xxx xxx IV This Honorable Court is authorized to equitably reduce the rentals payableby the petitioners, should this Honorable Court adopt the position of the Courtof Appeals and the lower court that petitioners have not been releived from thepayment of rentals on the leased lines. (p. 7 Amended Petition for Certiorari,pp. 46, 52, rec.). On November 5, 1964, the Supreme Court required respondents herein to file an answer to the amended petition. On the same date, respondents filed, quite belatedly, an opposition to the motion of the petitioners. Said opposition was later "noted" by the Court in its resolution dated December 1, 1964. I First, it must be pointed out that the first three questions of law raised by petitioners were already disposed of in Our resolution dated October 12, 1964 dismissing the original petition for lack of merit, which in effect affirmed the appealed decision of the Court of of Appeals. Although, in their motion to admit amended petition dated October 31, 1964, petitioners sought a reconsideration of the said resolution not only in the light of the fourth legal issue raised but also on the said first three legal questions, the petitioners advanced no additional arguments nor cited new authorities in support of their stand on the first three questions of law. They merely reproduced verbatim from their original petition their discussion on said questions. To the extent therefore that the motion filed by the petitioner seeks a reconsideration of our order of dismissal by submitting anew, through the amended petition, the very same arguments already dismissed by this Court, the motion shall be considered pro forma, (See Estrada v. Sto. Domingo, 28 SCRA 890, 905-906, 911) and hence is without merit. Consequently, we limit the resolution of this case solely on the discussions on the last (fourth) question of law raised, taking into consideration the discussion on the first three questions only insofar as they place the petitioners' discussion on the fourth question in its proper context and perspective. II The undisguised object of petitioners' discussion on the fourth question of law raised is to justify their plea for a reduction of the rentals on the ground that the subject matter of the lease was allegedly not used by them as a result of the suspension of operations on the lines authorized by the Public Service Commission. In support of said plea, petitioners invoke article 1680 of the Civil Code which grants lessees of rural lands a right to a reduction of rentals whenever the harvest on the land leased is considerably damaged by an extraordinary fortuitous event. Reliance was also placed by the petitioners on Our decision in Reyes v. Caltex (Phil.) Inc., 84 Phil. 654, which supposedly applied said article by analogy to a lease other than that covered by said legal provision. The authorities from which the petitioners draw support, however, are not applicable to the case at bar. Article 1680 of the Civil Code reads thus: Art. 1680. The lessee shall have no right to a reduction of the rent on accountof the sterility of the land leased, or by reason of the loss of fruits due toordinary fortuitous events; but he shall have such right in case of the loss ofmore than one-half of the fruits through extraordinary

80
and unforeseen fortuitous events, save always when there is a specific stipulation to the contrary. Extraordinary fortuitous events are understood to be: fire, war, pestilence, unusual flood, locusts, earthquake, or others which are uncommon, and which thecontracting parties could not have reasonably foreseen. Article 1680, it will be observed is a special provision for leases of rural lands. No other legal provision makes it applicable to ordinary leases. Had theintention of the lawmakers been so, they would have placed the article among the general provisions on lease. Nor can the article be applied analogously to ordinary leases, for precisely because of its special character, it was meant to apply only to a special specie of lease. It is a provision of social justice designed to relieve poor farmers from the harsh consequences of their contracts with rich landowners. And taken in that light, the article provides no refuge to lessees whose financial standing or social position is equal to, or even better than, the lessor as in the case at bar. Even if the cited article were a general rule on lease, its provisions nevertheless do not extend to petitioners. One of its requisites is that the cause of loss of the fruits of the leased property must be an "extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous event." The circumstances of the instant case fail tosatisfy such requisite. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the alleged causes for the suspension of operations on the lines leased, namely, the high prices of spare parts and gasoline and the reduction of the dollar allocations, "already existed when the contract of lease was executed" (p. 11, Decision; p. 30, rec.; Cuyugan v. Dizon, 89 Phil. 80). The cause of petitioners' inability to operate on the lines cannot, therefore, be ascribed to fortuitous events or circumstances beyond their control, but to their own voluntary desistance (p. 13, Decision; p. 32, rec.). If the petitioners would predicate their plea on the basis solely of their inability to use the certificates of public convenience, absent the requisite of fortuitous event, the cited article would speak strongly against their plea.Article 1680 opens with the statement: "The lessee shall have no right to reduction of the rent on account of the sterility of the land leased ... ." Obviously, no reduction can be sustained on the ground that the operation of the leased lines was suspended upon the mere speculation that it would yield no substantial profit for the lessee bus company. Petitioners' profits may be reduced due to increase operating costs; but the volume of passenger traffic along the leased lines not only remains same but may even increase as the tempo of the movement of population is intensified by the industrial development of the areas covered or connected by the leased routes. Moreover, upon proper showing, the Public Service Commission might have granted petitioners an increase in rates, as it has done so in several instances, so that public interest will always be promoted by a continuous flow of transportation facilities to service the population and the economy. The citizenry and the economy will suffer by reason of any disruption in the transportation facilities. Furthermore, we are not at all convinced that the lease contract brought no material advantage to the lessor for the period of suspension. It must be recalled that the lease contract not only stipulated for the transfer of the lessor's right to operate the lines covered by the contract, but also for a forbearance on the part of the lessor to operate transportation business along the same lines and to hold a certificate for that purpose. Thus, even if the lessee would not actually make use of the lessor's certificates over the leased lines, the contractual commitment of the lessor not to operate on the lines would sufficiently insure added profit to the lessees on account of the lease contract. In other words, the commitment alone of the lessor under the contract would enable the lessees to reap full benefits therefrom since the commuting public would, after all, be forced at their inconvenience and prejudice to patronize petitioner's remaining buses. Contrary to what petitioners want to suggest, WE refused in the Reyes case, supra, to apply by analogy Article 1680 and consequently, WE denied the plea oflessee therein for an equitable reduction of the stipulated rentals, holding that: The general rule on performance of contracts is graphically set forth in American treatises which is also the rule, in our opinion, obtaining under the Civil Code. Where a person by his contract charges himself with an obligation possible to be performed, he must perform it, unless the performance is rendered impossible by the act of God, by the law, or by the other party, it being the rule that in case the party desires to be excused from the performance in the event of contingencies arising, it is his duty to provide therefor in his contract. Hence, performance is not excused by subsequent inability to perform, by unforeseen difficulties, by unusual or unexpected expenses, by danger, by inevitable accident, by breaking of machinery, by strikes, by sickness, by failure of a party to avail himself of the benefits tobe had under the contract, by weather conditions, by financial stringency or bystagnation of business. Neither is performance excused by the fact that the contract turns out to be hard and improvident, unprofitable, or impracticable, ill-advised, or even foolish, or less profitable, unexpectedly burdensome. (17 CJS 946-948) (Reyes vs. Caltex, supra, 664. Emphasis supplied). Also expressed in said case is a ruling in American jurisprudence, which found relevance again in the case at bar, to wit: "(S)ince, by the lease, the lessee was to have the advantage of casual profits of the leased premises, he should run the hazard of casual losses during the term and not lay the whole burden upon the lessor." (Reyes vs. Caltex, supra, 664). Militating further against a grant of reduction of the rentals to the petitioners is the petitioners' conduct which is not in accord with the rules of fair play and justice. Petitioners, it must be recalled, promised to pay the accrued rentals in due time. Later, however, when they believed they found a convenient excuse for escaping their obligation, they reneged on their earlier promise. Moreover, petitioners' option to suspend operation on the leased lines appears malicious. Thus, Justice Esguerra, speaking for the Court of Appeals, propounded the following questions: "If it were true that thecause of the suspension was the high prices of spare parts, gasoline and needed materials and the reduction of the dollar allocation, why was it that only plaintiff-appellee's certificate of public convenience was sought to be suspended? Why did not the defendants-appellants ask for a corresponding reduction or suspension under their own certificate along the same route? Suppose the prices of the spare parts and needed materials were cheap, would the defendants-appellants have paid more than what is stipulated in the lease contract? We believe not. Hence, the suspension of operation on the leased lines was conceived as a scheme to lessen operation costs with the expectation of greater profit." (p. 14, Decision). Indeed, petitioners came to court with unclean hands, which fact militates against their plea for equity. WHEREFORE, THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED PETITIONS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED, AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DATED AUGUST 31, 1964 IS HEREBY AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONERS.

81
G.R. No. L-44349 October 29, 1976 JESUS V. OCCENA and EFIGENIA C. OCCENA, petitioners, vs. HON. RAMON V. JABSON, Presiding Judge of the Court Of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXVI; COURT OF APPEALS and TROPICAL HOMES, INC., respondents. Occena Law Office for petitioners. Serrano, Diokno & Serrano for respondents. ... a positive right is created in favor of the obligor to be released from the performance of an obligation in full or in part when its performance 'has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties. Hence, the petition at abar wherein petitioners insist that the worldwide increase inprices cited by respondent does not constitute a sufficient casue of action for modification of the subdivision contrct. After receipt of respondent's comment, the Court in its Resolution of September 13, 1976 resolved to treat the petition as special civil actionand declared the case submitted for decision. The petition must be granted. While respondent court correctly cited in its decision the Code Commission's report giving the rationale for Article 1267 of the Civil Code, to wit; The general rule is that impossibility of performance releases the obligor. However, it is submitted that when the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the court should be authorized to release the obligor in whole or in part. The intention of the parties should govern and if it appears that the service turns out to be so difficult as have been beyond their contemplation, it would be doing violence to that intention to hold the obligor still responsible. ... 2 It misapplied the same to respondent's complaint. If respondent's complaint were to be released from having to comply with the subdivision contract, assuming it could show at the trial that the service undertaken contractually by it had "become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties", then respondent court's upholding of respondet's complaint and dismissal of the petition would be justifiable under the cited codal article. Without said article, respondent would remain bound by its contract under the theretofore prevailing doctrine that performance therewith is ot excused "by the fact that the contract turns out to be hard and improvident, unprofitable, or unespectedly burdensome", 3 since in case a party desires to be excuse from performance in the event of such contingencies arising, it is his duty to provide threfor in the contract. But respondent's complaint seeks not release from the subdivision contract but that the court "render judgment I modifying the terms and Conditions of the Contract by fixing the proper shares that should pertain to the herein parties out of the gross proceed., from the sales of subdivided lots of subject subdivision". The cited article does not grant the courts this authority to remake, modify or revise the contract or to fix the division of shares between the parties as contractually stipulated with the force of law between the parties, so as to substitute its own terms for those covenanted by the partiesthemselves. Respondent's complaint for modification of contract manifestly has no basis in law and therefore states no cause of action. Under the particular allegations of respondent's complaint and the circumstances therein averred, the courts cannot even in equity grant the relief sought. Respondent court in its questioned resolution of June 28, 1976 set aside the preliminary injunction previously issued by it and dimissed petition on the ground that under Article 1267 of the Civil Code which provides that ART. 1267. When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part. 1

TEEHANKEE, J.: The Court reverses the Court of Appeals appealed resolution. The Civil Code authorizes the release of an obligor when the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties but does not authorize the courts to modify or revise the subdivision contract between the parties or fix a different sharing ratio from that contractually stipulated with the force of law between the parties. Private respondent's complaint for modification of the contract manifestly has no basis in law and must therefore be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. On February 25, 1975 private respondent Tropical Homes, Inc. filed a complaint for modification of the terms and conditions of its subdivision contract with petitioners (landowners of a 55,330 square meter parcel of land in Davao City), making the following allegations: "That due to the increase in price of oil and its derivatives and the concomitant worldwide spiralling of prices, which are not within the control of plaintiff, of all commodities including basis raw materials required for such development work, the cost of development has risen to levels which are unanticipated, unimagined and not within the remotest contemplation of the parties at the time said agreement was entered into and to such a degree that the conditions and factors which formed the original basis of said contract, Annex 'A', have been totally changed; 'That further performance by the plaintiff under the contract. That further performance by the plaintiff under the contract,Annex 'S', will result in situation where defendants would be unustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff; will cause an inequitous distribution of proceeds from the sales of subdivided lots in manifest actually result in the unjust and intolerable exposure of plaintiff to implacable losses, all such situations resulting in an unconscionable, unjust and immoral situation contrary to and in violation of the primordial concepts of good faith, fairness and equity which should pervade all human relations. Under the subdivision contract, respondent "guaranteed (petitioners as landowners) as the latter's fixed and sole share and participation an amount equivalent to forty (40%) percent of all cash receifpts fromthe sale of the subdivision lots" Respondent pray of the Rizal court of first instance that "after due trial, this Honorable Court render judgment modifying the terms and conditions of the contract ... by fixing the proer shares that shouls pertain to the herein parties out of the gross proceeds from the sales of subdivided lots of subjects subdivision". Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint principally for lack of cause of action, and upon denial thereof and of reconsideration by the lower court elevated the matter on certiorari to respondent Court of Appeals.

82
A final procedural note. Respondent cites the general rule that an erroneous order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and should not be corrected by certiorari but by appeal in due course. This case however manifestly falls within the recognized exception that certiorari will lie when appeal would not prove to be a speedy and adequate remedy.' Where the remedy of appeal would not, as in this case, promptly relieve petitioners from the injurious effects of the patently erroneous order maintaining respondent's baseless action and compelling petitioners needlessly to go through a protracted trial and clogging the court dockets by one more futile case, certiorari will issue as the plain, speedy and adequate remedy of an aggrieved party. ACCORDINGLY, the resolution of respondent appellate court is reversed and the petition for certiorari is granted and private respondent's complaint in the lower court is ordered dismissed for failure to state a sufficient cause of action. With costs in all instances against private respondent. Makasiar, Muoz Palma, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin JJ., concur.

83
G.R. No. 136202 January 25, 2007 between said parties and may be pursuant to banking rules and regulations, but did not in any way affect him. The debiting from another account of private respondent Salazar, considering that her other account was effectively closed, was not his concern. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff [private respondent Salazar] and against the defendant [petitioner BPI] and ordering the latter to pay as follows: 1. The amount of P267,707.70 with 12% interest thereon from September 16, 1991 until the said amount is fully paid; 2. The amount of P30,000.00 as and for actual damages; 3. The amount of P50,000.00 as and for moral damages; 4. The amount of P50,000.00 as and for exemplary damages; 5. The amount of P30,000.00 as and for attorneys fees; and 6. Costs of suit. The counterclaim is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of factual basis. The third-party complaint [filed by petitioner] is hereby likewise ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit. Third-party defendants *i.e., private respondent Templonuevos+ counterclaim is hereby likewise DISMISSED for lack of factual basis. SO ORDERED.4 On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC and held that respondent Salazar was entitled to the proceeds of the three (3) checks notwithstanding the lack of endorsement thereon by the payee. The CA concluded that Salazar and Templonuevo had previously agreed that the checks payable to JRT Construction and Trading5 actually belonged to Salazar and would be deposited to her account, with petitioner acquiescing to the arrangement.6 Petitioner therefore filed this petition on these grounds: I. Private respondent Salazar was advised to settle the matter with Templonuevo but they did not arrive at any settlement. As it appeared that private respondent Salazar was not entitled to the funds represented by the checks which were deposited and accepted for deposit, petitioner BPI decided to debit the amount of P267,707.70 from her Account No. 0201-0588-48 and the sum of P267,692.50 was paid to Templonuevo by means of a cashiers check. The difference between the value of the checks (P267,692.50) and the amount actually debited from her account (P267,707.70) represented bank charges in connection with the issuance of a cashiers check to Templonuevo. In the answer to the third-party complaint, private respondent Templonuevo admitted the payment to him of P267,692.50 and argued that said payment was to correct the malicious deposit made by private respondent Salazar to her private account, and that petitioner banks negligence and tolerance regarding the matter was violative of the primary and ordinary rules of banking. He likewise contended that the debiting or taking of the reimbursed amount from the account of private respondent Salazar by petitioner BPI was a matter exclusively The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in misinterpreting Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law and Section 3 (r and s) of Rule 131 of the New Rules on Evidence. II. The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in NOT applying the provisions of Articles 22, 1278 and 1290 of the Civil Code in favor of BPI. III. The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding, based on a misapprehension of facts, that the account from which BPI debited the amount of P267,707.70 belonged to a corporation with a separate and distinct personality. IV.

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANNABELLE A. SALAZAR, and JULIO R. TEMPLONUEVO, Respondents DECISION AZCUNA, J.: This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision1 dated April 3, 1998, and the Resolution2 dated November 9, 1998, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 42241. The facts3 are as follows: A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services filed an action for a sum of money with damages against herein petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) on December 5, 1991 before Branch 156 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. The complaint was later amended by substituting the name of Annabelle A. Salazar as the real party in interest in place of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services. Private respondent Salazar prayed for the recovery of the amount of Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred Seven Pesos and Seventy Centavos (P267,707.70) debited by petitioner BPI from her account. She likewise prayed for damages and attorneys fees. Petitioner BPI, in its answer, alleged that on August 31, 1991, Julio R. Templonuevo, third-party defendant and herein also a private respondent, demanded from the former payment of the amount of Two Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand, Six Hundred Ninety-Two Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P267,692.50) representing the aggregate value of three (3) checks, which were allegedly payable to him, but which were deposited with the petitioner bank to private respondent Salazars account (Account No. 0203-1187-67) without his knowledge and corresponding endorsement. Accepting that Templonuevos claim was a valid one, petitioner BPI froze Account No. 0201-0588-48 of A.A. Salazar and Construction and Engineering Services, instead of Account No. 0203-1187-67 where the checks were deposited, since this account was already closed by private respondent Salazar or had an insufficient balance.

84
The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding, based entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures, that there was an agreement between SALAZAR and TEMPLONUEVO that checks payable to TEMPLONUEVO may be deposited by SALAZAR to her personal account and that BPI was privy to this agreement. V. The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding, based entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures, that SALAZAR suffered great damage and prejudice and that her business standing was eroded. VI. (a) That Salazar previously had in her possession the following checks: The Court of Appeals erred in affirming instead of reversing the decision of the lower court against BPI and dismissing SALAZARs complaint. VII. The Honorable Court erred in affirming the decision of the lower court dismissing the third-party complaint of BPI.7 The issues center on the propriety of the deductions made by petitioner from private respondent Salazars account. Stated otherwise, does a collecting bank, over the objections of its depositor, have the authority to withdraw unilaterally from such depositors account the amount it had previously paid upon certain unendorsed order instruments deposited by the depositor to another account that she later closed? Petitioner argues thus: 1. There is no presumption in law that a check payable to order, when found in the possession of a person who is neither a payee nor the indorsee thereof, has been lawfully transferred for value. Hence, the CA should not have presumed that Salazar was a transferee for value within the contemplation of Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law,8 as the latter applies only to a holder defined under Section 191of the same.9 2. Salazar failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that her possession of the three checks was lawful despite her allegations that these checks were deposited pursuant to a prior internal arrangement with Templonuevo and that petitioner was privy to the arrangement. 3. The CA should have applied the Civil Code provisions on legal compensation because in deducting the subject amount from Salazars account, petitioner was merely rectifying the undue payment it made upon the checks and exercising its prerogative to alter or modify an erroneous credit entry in the regular course of its business. 4. The debit of the amount from the account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services was proper even though the value of the checks had been originally credited to the personal account of Salazar because A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services, an unincorporated single proprietorship, had no separate and distinct personality from Salazar. 5. Assuming the deduction from Salazars account was improper, the CA should not have dismissed petitioners third-party complaint against Templonuevo because the latter would have the legal duty to return to petitioner the proceeds of the checks which he previously received from it. 6. There was no factual basis for the award of damages to Salazar. (1) Solid Bank Check No. CB766556 dated January 30, 1990 in the amount of P57,712.50; (2) Solid Bank Check No. CB898978 dated July 31, 1990 in the amount of P55,180.00; and, (3) Equitable Banking Corporation Check No. 32380638 dated August 28, 1990 for the amount of P154,800.00; (b) That these checks which had an aggregate amount of P267,692.50 were payable to the order of JRT Construction and Trading, the name and style under which Templonuevo does business; (c) That despite the lack of endorsement of the designated payee upon such checks, Salazar was able to deposit the checks in her personal savings account with petitioner and encash the same; (d) That petitioner accepted and paid the checks on three (3) separate occasions over a span of eight months in 1990; and (e) That Templonuevo only protested the purportedly unauthorized encashment of the checks after the lapse of one year from the date of the last check.10 Petitioner concedes that when it credited the value of the checks to the account of private respondent Salazar, it made a mistake because it failed to notice the lack of endorsement thereon by the designated payee. The CA, however, did not lend credence to this claim and concluded that petitioners actions were deliberate, in view of its admission that the "mistake" was committed three times on three separate occasions, indicating acquiescence to the internal arrangement between Salazar and Templonuevo. The CA explained thus: It was quite apparent that the three checks which appellee Salazar deposited were not indorsed. Three times she deposited them to her account and three times the amounts borne by these checks were credited to the same. And in those separate occasions, the bank did not return the checks to her so that she could have them indorsed. Neither did the bank question her as to why she was depositing the checks to her account considering that she was not the payee thereof, thus allowing us to come to the conclusion that defendant-appellant BPI was fully aware that the proceeds of the three checks belong to appellee. For if the bank was not privy to the agreement between Salazar and Templonuevo, it is most unlikely that appellant BPI (or any bank for that matter) would have accepted the checks for deposit on three separate times nary any question. Banks are most finicky over accepting checks for deposit without the corresponding indorsement by their payee. In fact, they hesitate to accept indorsed checks for deposit if the depositor is not one they know very well.11 The petition is partly meritorious. First, the issue raised by petitioner requires an inquiry into the factual findings made by the CA. The CAs conclusion that the deductions from the bank account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services were improper stemmed from its finding that there was no ineffective payment to Salazar which would call for the exercise of petitioners right to set off against the formers bank deposits. This finding, in turn, was drawn from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced during trial and upon the admissions and stipulations of fact made during the pre-trial, most significantly the following:

85
The CA likewise sustained Salazars position that she received the checks from Templonuevo pursuant to an internal arrangement between them, ratiocinating as follows: If there was indeed no arrangement between Templonuevo and the plaintiff over the three questioned checks, it baffles us why it was only on August 31, 1991 or more than a year after the third and last check was deposited that he demanded for the refund of the total amount of P267,692.50. A prudent man knowing that payment is due him would have demanded payment by his debtor from the moment the same became due and demandable. More so if the sum involved runs in hundreds of thousand of pesos. By and large, every person, at the very moment he learns that he was deprived of a thing which rightfully belongs to him, would have created a big fuss. He would not have waited for a year within which to do so. It is most inconceivable that Templonuevo did not do this.12 Generally, only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.13 Factual findings of the CA are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court.14 Such questions on whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are questions of fact. The same holds true for questions on whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by the adverse party may be said to be strong, clear and convincing, or whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issues of fact which are not reviewable by the Court.15 This rule, however, is not absolute and admits of certain exceptions, namely: a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; c) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; f) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; g) when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; i) when the finding of fact of the CA is premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and j) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.16 In the present case, the records do not support the finding made by the CA and the trial court that a prior arrangement existed between Salazar and Templonuevo regarding the transfer of ownership of the checks. This fact is crucial as Salazars entitlement to the value of the instruments is based on the assumption that she is a transferee within the contemplation of Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Section 49 of the Negotiable Instruments Law contemplates a situation whereby the payee or indorsee delivers a negotiable instrument for value without indorsing it, thus: Transfer without indorsement; effect of- Where the holder of an instrument payable to his order transfers it for value without indorsing it, the transfer vests in the transferee such title as the transferor had therein, and the transferee acquires in addition, the right to have the indorsement of the transferor. But for the purpose of determining whether the transferee is a holder in due course, the negotiation takes effect as of the time when the indorsement is actually made. 17 It bears stressing that the above transaction is an equitable assignment and the transferee acquires the instrument subject to defenses and equities available among prior parties. Thus, if the transferor had legal title, the transferee acquires such title and, in addition, the right to have the indorsement of the transferor and also the right, as holder of the legal title, to maintain legal action against the maker or acceptor or other party liable to the transferor. The underlying premise of this provision, however, is that a valid transfer of ownership of the negotiable instrument in question has taken place. Transferees in this situation do not enjoy the presumption of ownership in favor of holders since they are neither payees nor indorsees of such instruments. The weight of authority is that the mere possession of a negotiable instrument does not in itself conclusively establish either the right of the possessor to receive payment, or of the right of one who has made payment to be discharged from liability. Thus, something more than mere possession by persons who are not payees or indorsers of the instrument is necessary to authorize payment to them in the absence of any other facts from which the authority to receive payment may be inferred.18 The CA and the trial court surmised that the subject checks belonged to private respondent Salazar based on the pre-trial stipulation that Templonuevo incurred a one-year delay in demanding reimbursement for the proceeds of the same. To the Courts mind, however, such period of delay is not of such unreasonable length as to estop Templonuevo from asserting ownership over the checks especially considering that it was readily apparent on the face of the instruments19 that these were crossed checks. In State Investment House v. IAC,20 the Court enumerated the effects of crossing a check, thus: (1) that the check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank; (2) that the check may be negotiated only once to one who has an account with a bank; and (3) that the act of crossing the check serves as a warning to the holder that the check has been issued for a definite purpose so that such holder must inquire if the check has been received pursuant to that purpose. Thus, even if the delay in the demand for reimbursement is taken in conjunction with Salazars possession of the checks, it cannot be said that the presumption of ownership in Templonuevos favor as the designated payee therein was sufficiently overcome. This is consistent with the principle that if instruments payable to named payees or to their order have not been indorsed in blank, only such payees or their indorsees can be holders and entitled to receive payment in their own right.21 The presumption under Section 131(s) of the Rules of Court stating that a negotiable instrument was given for a sufficient consideration will not inure to the benefit of Salazar because the term "given" does not pertain merely to a transfer of physical possession of the instrument. The phrase "given or indorsed" in the context of a negotiable instrument refers to the manner in which such instrument may be negotiated. Negotiable instruments are negotiated by "transfer to one person or another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof. If payable to bearer it is negotiated by delivery. If payable to order it is negotiated by the indorsement completed by delivery."22 The present case involves checks payable to order. Not being a payee or indorsee of the checks, private respondent Salazar could not be a holder thereof.

86
It is an exception to the general rule for a payee of an order instrument to transfer the instrument without indorsement. Precisely because the situation is abnormal, it is but fair to the maker and to prior holders to require possessors to prove without the aid of an initial presumption in their favor, that they came into possession by virtue of a legitimate transaction with the last holder.23 Salazar failed to discharge this burden, and the return of the check proceeds to Templonuevo was therefore warranted under the circumstances despite the fact that Templonuevo may not have clearly demonstrated that he never authorized Salazar to deposit the checks or to encash the same. Noteworthy also is the fact that petitioner stamped on the back of the checks the words: "All prior endorsements and/or lack of endorsements guaranteed," thereby making the assurance that it had ascertained the genuineness of all prior endorsements. Having assumed the liability of a general indorser, petitioners liability to the designated payee cannot be denied. Consequently, petitioner, as the collecting bank, had the right to debit Salazars account for the value of the checks it previously credited in her favor. It is of no moment that the account debited by petitioner was different from the original account to which the proceeds of the check were credited because both admittedly belonged to Salazar, the former being the account of the sole proprietorship which had no separate and distinct personality from her, and the latter being her personal account. The right of set-off was explained in Associated Bank v. Tan:24 A bank generally has a right of set-off over the deposits therein for the payment of any withdrawals on the part of a depositor. The right of a collecting bank to debit a client's account for the value of a dishonored check that has previously been credited has fairly been established by jurisprudence. To begin with, Article 1980 of the Civil Code provides that "[f]ixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan." Hence, the relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Thus, legal compensation under Article 1278 of the Civil Code may take place "when all the requisites mentioned in Article 1279 are present," as follows: To begin with, the irregularity appeared plainly on the face of the checks. Despite the obvious lack of indorsement thereon, petitioner permitted the encashment of these checks three times on three separate occasions. This negates petitioners claim that it merely made a mistake in crediting the value of the checks to Salazars account and instead bolsters the conclusion of the CA that petitioner recognized Salazars claim of ownership of checks and acted deliberately in paying the same, contrary to ordinary banking policy and practice. It must be emphasized that the law imposes a duty of diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited with it, for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. The collecting bank, being primarily engaged in banking, holds itself out to the public as the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a high standard of conduct.27 The taking and collection of a check without the proper indorsement amount to a conversion of the check by the bank.28 More importantly, however, solely upon the prompting of Templonuevo, and with full knowledge of the brewing dispute between Salazar and Templonuevo, petitioner debited the account held in the name of the sole proprietorship of Salazar without even serving due notice upon her. This ran contrary to petitioners assurances to private respondent Salazar that the account would remain untouched, pending the resolution of the controversy between her and Templonuevo.29 In this connection, the CA cited the letter dated September 5, 1991 of Mr. Manuel Ablan, Senior Manager of petitioner banks Pasig/Ortigas branch, to private respondent Salazar informing her that her account had been frozen, thus: From the tenor of the letter of Manuel Ablan, it is safe to conclude that Account No. 0201-0588-48 will remain frozen or untouched until herein [Salazar] has settled matters with Templonuevo. But, in an unexpected move, in less than two weeks (eleven days to be precise) from the time that letter was written, *petitioner+ bank issued a cashiers check in the name of Julio R. Templonuevo of the J.R.T. Construction and Trading for the sum of P267,692.50 (Exhibit "8") and debited said amount from Ms. Arcillas account No. 0201-0588-48 which was supposed to be frozen or controlled. Such a move by BPI is, to Our minds, a clear case of negligence, if not a fraudulent, wanton and reckless disregard of the right of its depositor. The records further bear out the fact that respondent Salazar had issued several checks drawn against the account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services prior to any notice of deduction being served. The CA sustained private respondent Salazars claim of damages in this regard: The act of the bank in freezing and later debiting the amount of P267,692.50 from the account of A.A. Salazar Construction and Engineering Services caused plaintiff-appellee great damage and prejudice particularly when she had already issued checks drawn against the said account. As can be expected, the said checks bounced. To prove this, plaintiff-appellee presented as exhibits photocopies of checks dated September 8, 1991, October 28, 1991, and November 14, 1991 (Exhibits "D", "E" and "F" respectively)30

(1) That each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) That both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) That the two debts be due; (4) That they be liquidated and demandable; (5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. While, however, it is conceded that petitioner had the right of set-off over the amount it paid to Templonuevo against the deposit of Salazar, the issue of whether it acted judiciously is an entirely different matter.25 As businesses affected with public interest, and because of the nature of their functions, banks are under obligation to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.26 In this regard, petitioner was clearly remiss in its duty to private respondent Salazar as its depositor.

These checks, it must be emphasized, were subsequently dishonored, thereby causing private respondent Salazar undue embarrassment and inflicting damage to her standing in the business community. Under the circumstances, she was clearly not given the opportunity to protect her interest when petitioner unilaterally withdrew the above amount from her account without informing her that it had already done so.

87
For the above reasons, the Court finds no reason to disturb the award of damages granted by the CA against petitioner. This whole incident would have been avoided had petitioner adhered to the standard of diligence expected of one engaged in the banking business. A depositor has the right to recover reasonable moral damages even if the banks negligence may not have been attended with malice and bad faith, if the former suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation.31 Moral damages are not meant to enrich a complainant at the expense of defendant. It is only intended to alleviate the moral suffering she has undergone. The award of exemplary damages is justified, on the other hand, when the acts of the bank are attended by malice, bad faith or gross negligence. The award of reasonable attorneys fees is proper where exemplary damages are awarded. It is proper where depositors are compelled to litigate to protect their interest.32 WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 3, 1998 and Resolution dated April 3, 1998 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 42241 are MODIFIED insofar as it ordered petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands to return the amount of Two Hundred Sixty-seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven and 70/100 Pesos (P267,707.70) to respondent Annabelle A. Salazar, which portion is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In all other respects, the same are AFFIRMED. No costs.

88
Gan Tion vs. CA, 28 SCRA 235, G.R. No. L-22490 May 21, 1969 GAN TION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ONG WAN SIENG and THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, respondents. Burgos and Sarte for petitioner. Roxas, Roxas, Roxas and Associates for respondents. MAKALINTAL, J.: The sole issue here is whether or not there has been legal compensation between petitioner Gan Tion and respondent Ong Wan Sieng. Ong Wan Sieng was a tenant in certain premises owned by Gan Tion. In 1961 the latter filed an ejectment case against the former, alleging non-payment of rents for August and September of that year, at P180 a month, or P360 altogether. The defendant denied the allegation and said that the agreed monthly rental was only P160, which he had offered to but was refused by the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a favorable judgment in the municipal court (of Manila), but upon appeal the Court of First Instance, on July 2, 1962, reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of P500 as attorney's fees. That judgment became final. On October 10, 1963 Gan Tion served notice on Ong Wan Sieng that he was increasing the rent to P180 a month, effective November 1st, and at the same time demanded the rents in arrears at the old rate in the aggregate amount of P4,320.00, corresponding to a period from August 1961 to October 1963.lwphi1.et In the meantime, over Gan Tion's opposition, Ong Wan Sieng was able to obtain a writ of execution of the judgment for attorney's fees in his favor. Gan Tion went on certiorari to the Court of Appeals, where he pleaded legal compensation, claiming that Ong Wan Sieng was indebted to him in the sum of P4,320 for unpaid rents. The appellate court accepted the petition but eventually decided for the respondent, holding that although "respondent Ong is indebted to the petitioner for unpaid rentals in an amount of more than P4,000.00," the sum of P500 could not be the subject of legal compensation, it being a "trust fund for the benefit of the lawyer, which would have to be turned over by the client to his counsel." In the opinion of said court, the requisites of legal compensation, namely, that the parties must be creditors and debtors of each other in their own right (Art. 1278, Civil Code) and that each one of them must be bound principally and at the same time be a principal creditor of the other (Art. 1279), are not present in the instant case, since the real creditor with respect to the sum of P500 was the defendant's counsel. This is not an accurate statement of the nature of an award for attorney's fee's. The award is made in favor of the litigant, not of his counsel, and is justified by way of indemnity for damages recoverable by the former in the cases enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.1 It is the litigant, not his counsel, who is the judgment creditor and who may enforce the judgment by execution. Such credit, therefore, may properly be the subject of legal compensation. Quite obviously it would be unjust to compel petitioner to pay his debt for P500 when admittedly his creditor is indebted to him for more than P4,000. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Civil Case No. 49535 is set aside. Costs against respondent. Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur. Teehankee and Barredo JJ., took no part. Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on leave.

89
PNB v. Ong Acero, 148 SCRA 166, G.R. No. L-69255 February 27, 1987 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. GLORIA G. VDA. DE ONG ACERO, ARNOLFO ONG ACERO & SOLEDAD ONG ACERO CHUA, respondents. Leopoldo E. Petilla for respondents. On October 13, 1977, Isabela Wood Construction and Development Corporation ** entered into a Credit Agreement with PNB. Under the agreement PNB, having approved the application of defendant (Isabela & c.) for the establishment for its account of a deferred letter of credit in the amount of DM 4,695,947.00 in favor of the Machinenfabric Augsburg Nunberg (MAN) of Germany from whom defendant purchased thirty-five (35) units of MAN trucks, defendant corporation agreed to put up, as collaterals, among others, the following: 4. The CLIENT shall assign to the BANK the proceeds of its contract with the Department of Public Works for the construction of Nagapit Suspension Bridge (Substructure) in Cagayan. This particular proviso in the aforesaid agreement was to be subsequently confirmed by Faustino Dy, Jr., as president of defendant corporation, in a letter to the PNB, dated February 21, 1970, quoted in full as follows: Gentlemen: This is to confirm our arrangement that the treasury warrant in the amount of P2,704 millon in favor of Isabela Wood Construction and Development Corporation to be delivered either by the Commission on Audit or the Ministry of Public Highways, shall be placed in a savings account with your bank to the extent of P 2 million. The said amount shall remain in the savings account until we are able to comply with the delivery and registration of the mortgage in favor of the Philippine National Bank of our Paranaque property, and the securing from Metropolitan Bank and Home Owners Savings and Loan Association to snow PNB a second mortgage on the properties of Isabela Wood Construction Group, Inc., presently under first mortgage with them. Thus, on March 9, 1970, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Credit Agreement, quoted above, PNB thru its International Department opened the savings account in question, under Account No. 010-58768D, with an initial deposit of P2,000,000.00, proceeds of a treasury warrant delivered to PNB (EXHIBIT 3-A). xxx xxx xxx 1. Reiterating the dispositive portion of the partial judgment issued by this Court, dated November 16, 1979, ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P1,532,000.07 as principal, with interest at 12% per annum from December 11, 1975 until the whole amount is fully paid; 2. Ordering defendant to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P207,148.00 as compensatory damages, with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until the whole amount is fully paid; 3. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs the amount of P383,000.00 as and by way of attorneys fees. 4 On the other hand, PNB's claim to the two-million-peso deposit in question is made to rest on an agreement between it and ISABELA in virtue of which, according to PNB: (1) the deposit was made by ISABELA Since defendant corporation failed to deliver to PNB by way of mortgage its Paranaque property, neither was defendant corporation able to secure from Metropolitan Bank and Home Owners Savings and Loan Association its consent to allow PNB a second mortgage, and considering that the obligation of defendant corporation to PNB have been due and unsettled, PNB applied the amount of P 2,102804.11 in defendant's savings account of PNB. It was upon this version of the facts, and its theory thereon based on a mutual set-off, or compensation, between it and ISABELA in accordance with Articles 1278 et al. of the Civil Code that PNB intervened in the action between the ACEROS and ISABELA on or about February 28, 1980 and moved for reconsideration of the Order of February 15, 1980 (requiring it to turn over to the sheriff the sum of P1,532,000.07, supra: fn. 2). But its motion met with no success. It was as "collateral" in connection with its indebtedness to PNB as to which it (ISABELA) had assumed certain contractual undertakings; and (2) in the event of ISABELA's failure to fulfill those undertakings, PNB was empowered to apply the deposit to the payment of that indebtedness. The facts upon which PNB's theory stands are summarized in the Order of CFI Judge Solano dated October 1, 1982, 5 relevant portions of which are here reproduced:

NARVASA, J.: Savings Account No. 010-5878868-D of Isabela Wood Construction & Development Corporation, opened with the Philippine National Bank on March 9, 1979 in the amount of P2 million is the subject of two (2) conflicting claims, sought to be definitively resolved in the proceedings at bar. 1 One claim is asserted by the ACEROS Gloria G. Vda. de Ong Acero, Arnolfo Ong Acero and Soledad Ong Acero-Chua, judgment creditors of the depositor (hereafter simply referred to as ISABELA) who seek to enforce against said savings account the final and executory judgment rendered in their favor by the Court of First Instance of Rizal QC Br. XVI). The other claim has been put forth by the Philippine National Bank (hereafter, simply PNB) which claims that since ISABELA was at some point in time both its debtor and creditor-ISABELA's deposit being deemed a loan to it (PNB)-there had occurred a mutual set-off between them, which effectively precluded the ACEROS' recourse to that deposit. The controversy was decided by the Intermediate Appellate Court adversely to the PNB. It is this decision that the PNB would have this Court reverse. The ACEROS' claim to the bank deposit is more specifically founded upon the garnishment thereof by the sheriff, effected in execution of the partial judgment rendered by the CFI at Quezon City in their favor on November 18, 1979. The partial judgment ordered payment by ISABELA to the ACEROS of the amount of P1,532,000.07. 2 Notice of garnisment was served on the PNB on January 9, 1980, pursuant to the writ of execution dated December 23, 1979. 3 This was followed by an Order issued on February 15, 1980 directing PNB to hand over this amount of P1,532,000.07 to the sheriff for delivery, in turn, to the ACEROS. Not quite two months later, or on April 8, 1980, a second (and the final and complete judgment) was promulgated by the CFI in favor of the ACEROS and against ISABELA, the dispositive part of which is as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant:

90
denied by the Lower Court (Hon. Judge Apostol, presiding) by Order dated May 14, 1980. 6 And a motion for the reconsideration of that Order of May 14, 1980 was also denied, by Order dated August 11, 1980. PNB again moved for reconsideration, this time of the Order of August 11, 1980; it also pleaded for suspension in the meantime of the enforcement of the Orders of February 15, and May 14, 1980. Its persistence seemingly paid off. For the Trial Court (now presided over by Hon. Judge Solano), directed on October 9, 1980 the setting aside of the said Orders of May 14, and August 11, 1980, and set for hearing PNB's first motion for the reconsideration of the Order of February 15, 1980. 7 Several months afterwards, or more precisely on October 1, 1982, the Order of February 15, 1980 was itself also struck down, 8 the Lower Court opining that under the circumstances, there had been a valid assignment by ISABELA to PNB of the amount deposited, which effectively placed that amount beyond the reach of the ACE ROS, viz: When the two million or so treasury warrant, proceeds of defendant's contract with the government was delivered to PNB, said amount, per agreement aforequoted, had already been assigned by defendant corporation to PNB, as collateral. The said amount is not a pledge. The assignment is valid. The defendant need not be the owner thereof at the time of assignment. An assignment of credit and other incorporeal rights shall be perfected in accordance with the provisions of Article 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the interest and upon its price. It is not necessary for the perfection of the contract of sale that the thing be delivered and that the price be paid. Neither is it necessary that the thing should belong to the vendor at the time of the perfection of the contract, it being sufficient that the vendor has the right to transfer ownership thereof at the time it is delivered. The shoe was now on the other foot. It was the ACEROS' turn to move for reconsideration, which they did as regards this Order of October 1, 1982; but by Order promulgated on December 14, 1982, the Court declined to modify its resolution. The ACEROS then appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which, after due proceedings, sustained them. On September 14, 1984, it rendered judgment the dispositive part whereof reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the Orders of October 1 and December 14, 1982 of the Court a quo are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and in their stead, it is hereby adjudged: 1. That the Order of February 15, 1980 of the Court a quo is hereby ordered reinstated; 2. That intervenor PNB must deliver the amount stated in the Order of February 15, 1980 with interest thereon at 12% from February 15, 1980 until delivered to appellants, the amount of interest to be paid by PNB and not to be deducted from the deposit of Isabela Wood; 3. That intervenor PNB must pay attorney's fees and expenses of litigation to appellants in the amount of P10,000.00 plus the costs of suit. 9 This dispositive part was subsequently modified at the ACEROS' instance, by Resolution dated November 8, 1984 which inter alia "additionally ** (ordered) PNB to likewise deliver to appellants the balance of the deposit of Isabela Wood Construction and Development Corporation after first deducting the amount applied to the partial judgment of P1,532,000.00 in satisfaction of appeallants' final judgment." 10 PNB's main thesis is that when it opened a savings account for ISABELA on March 9, 1979 in the amount of P 2M, it (PNB) became indebted to ISABELA in that amount. 11 So that when ISABELA itself subsequently came to be indebted to it on account of ISABELA's breach of the terms of the Credit Agreement of October 13, 1977, and therefore ISABELA and PNB became at the same time creditors and debtors of each other, compensation automatically took place between them, in accordance with Article 1278 of the Civil Code. The amounts due from each other were, in its view, applied by operation of law to satisfy and extinguish their respective credits. More specifically, the P2M owed by PNB to ISABELA was automatically applied in payment and extinguishment of PNB's own credit against ISABELA. This having taken place, that amount of P2M could no longer be levied on by any other creditor of ISABELA, as the ACEROS attempted to do in the case at bar, in order to satisfy their judgment against ISABELA. Article 1278 of the Civil Code does indeed provide that "Compensation shall take when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. " Also true is that compensation may transpire by operation of law, as when all the requisites therefor, set out in Article 1279, are present. Nonetheless, these legal provisions can not apply to PNB's advantage under the circumstances of the case at bar. The insuperable obstacle to the success of PNB's cause is the factual finding of the IAC, by which upon firmly established rules even this Court is bound, 12 that it has not proven by competent evidence that it is a creditor of ISABELA. The only evidence present by PNB towards this end consists of two (2) documents marked in its behalf as Exhibits 1 and 2, But as the IAC has cogently observed, these documents do not prove any indebtedness of ISABELA to PNB. All they do prove is that a letter of credit might have been opened for ISABELA by PNB, but not that the credit was ever availed of (by ISABELA's foreign correspondent MAN, or that the goods thereby covered were in fact shipped, and received by ISABELA. Quite obviously, as the IAC has further observed, the most persuasive evidence of these facts i.e., ISABELA's availment of the credit, as well as the actual delivery of the goods covered by and shipped pursuant to the letter of credit-assuming these facts to have occurred, would naturally and logically have been in PNB's possession and could have been readily submitted to the Court, to wit: 1. The document of availment by the foreign creditor of the letter of credit. 2. The document of release of the amounts mentioned in the agreement. 3. The documents showing that the trucks (transported to the Philippines by the foreign creditor [MAN] were shipped to ** and received by Isabela. 4. The trust receipts by which possession was given to Isabela of the 35 (Imported) trucks.

91
5. The chattel mortgages over the trucks required under No. 3 of II Collaterals of the Credit Agreement (Exhibit 1). 6. The receipt by Isabela of the standing accounts sent by PNB. 7. There receipt of the letter of demand by Isabela Wood. 13 It bears stressing that PNB did not at all lack want for opportunity to produce these documents, if it does indeed have them. Judge Solano, it should be recalled, specifically allowed PNB to introduce evidence in relation to its Motion for Reconsideration filed on August 26, 1980, 14 and thus furnished the occasion for PNB to prove, among others, ISABELA's debt to it. PNB unaccountably failed to do so. Moreover, PNB never even attempted to offer or exhibit such evidence, in the course of the appellate proceedings before the IAC, which is a certain indication, in that Court's view, that PNB does not really have these proofs at ala For this singular omission PNB offers no explanation except that it saw no necessity to submit the Documents in evidence, because sometime on March 14, 1980, the ACEROS's attorney had been shown those precise documents setting forth ISABELA's loan obligations, such as the import bills and the sight draft covering drawings on the L/C for ISABELA's account and after all, the ACEROS had not really put this indebtedness in issue. 15The explanation cannot be taken seriously. In the picturesque but forceful language of the Appellate Court, the explanation "is silly as you do not prove a fact in issue by showing evidence in support thereof to the opposing counsel; you prove it by submitting evidence to the proper court." The fact is that the record does not disclose that the ACEROS have ever admitted the asserted theory of ISABELA's indebtedness to PNB. At any rate, not being privies to whatever transactions might have generated that indebtedness, they were clearly not in a position to make any declaration on the matter. The fact is, too, that the avowed indebtedness of ISABELA was an essential element of PNB's claim to the former's P2 million deposit and hence, it was incumbent on the latter to demonstrate it by competent evidence if it wished its claim to be judicially recognized and enforced. This, it has failed to do. The failure is fatal to its claim. PNB has however deposited an alternative theory, which is that the P2M deposit had been assigned to it by ISABELA as "collateral," although not by way of pledge; that ISABELA had explicitly authorized it to apply the P2M deposit in payment of its indebtedness; and that PNB had in fact applied the deposit to the payment of ISABELA's debt on February 26, 1980, in concept of voluntary compensation. 16 This second, alternative theory, is as untenable as the first. In the first place, there being no indebtedness to PNB on ISABELA's part, there is in consequence no occasion to speak of any mutual set-off, or compensation, whether it be legal, i.e., which automatically occurs by operation of law, or voluntary, i.e., which can only take place by agreement of the parties. 17 In the second place, the documents indicated by PNB as constitutive of the claimed assignment do not in truth make out any such transaction. While the Credit Agreement of October 13, 1977 (Exh. 1) declares it to be ISABELA's intention to "assign to the BANK the proceeds of its contract with the Department of Public Works for the construction of Nagapit Suspension Bridge (Substructure) in Cagayan," 18 it does not appear that that intention was adhered to, much less carried out. The letter of ISABELA's president dated February 21, 1979 (Exh. 2) would on the contrary seem to indicate the abandonment of that intention, in the light of the statements therein that the amount of P2M (representing the bulk of the proceeds of its contract referred to) "shall be placed in a savings account" and that "said amount shall remain in the savings account until ** (ISABELA is) able to comply with" specified commitments these being: the constitution and registration of a mortgage in PNB's favor over its "Paranaque property," and the obtention from the first mortgage thereof of consent for the creation of a second lien on the property. 19 These statements are to be sure inconsistent with the notion of an assignment of the money. In addition, there is yet another circumstance militating against the actuality of such an assignment-the "most telling argument" against it, in fact, in the line of the Appellate Court-and that is, that PNB itself, through its International Department, deposited the whole amount of ?2 million, not in its name, but in the name of ISABELA, 20 without any accompanying statement even remotely intimating that it (PNB) was the owner of the deposit, or that an assignment thereof was intended, or that some condition or lien was meant to burden it. Even if it be assumed that such an assignment had indeed been made, and PNB had been really authorized to apply the P2M deposit to the satisfaction of ISABELA's indebtedness to it, nevertheless, since the record reveals that the application was attempted to be made by PNB only on February 26, 1980, that essayed application was ineffectual and futile because at that time, the deposit was already in custodia legis, notice of garnishment thereof having been served on PNB on January 9, 1980 (pursuant to the writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance on December 23, 1979 for the enforcement of the partial judgment in the ACEROS' favor rendered on November 18,1979). One final factor precludes according validity to PNB's arguments. On the assumption that the P 2M deposit was in truth assigned as some sort of "collateral" to PNB although as PNB insists, it was not in the form of a pledge the agreement postulated by PNB that it had been authorized to assume ownership of the fund upon the coming into being of ISABELA s indebtedness is void ab initio, it being in the nature of a pactum commisoruim proscribed as contrary to public policy. 21 WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Intermediate Appellate Court subject of the instant appeal, being fully in accord with the facts and the law, is hereby affirmed in toto. Costs against petitioner.

92
G.R. No. L-67649 June 28, 1988 ENGRACIO FRANCIA, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HO FERNANDEZ, respondents. favor of the defendant Ho Fernandez over the parcel of land including the improvements thereon, subject to whatever encumbrances appearing at the back of TCT No. 4739 (37795) and ordering the same TCT No. 4739 (37795) cancelled. (b) The plaintiff to pay defendant Ho Fernandez the sum of P1,000.00 as attorney's fees. (p. 30, Record on Appeal) The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto. Hence, this petition for review. Francia prefaced his arguments with the following assignments of grave errors of law: I RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN NOT HOLDING PETITIONER'S OBLIGATION TO PAY P2,400.00 FOR SUPPOSED TAX DELINQUENCY WAS SET-OFF BY THE AMOUNT OF P4,116.00 WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS INDEBTED TO THE FORMER. II RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A GRAVE AND SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT PROPERLY AND DULY NOTIFIED THAT AN AUCTION SALE OF HIS PROPERTY WAS TO TAKE PLACE ON DECEMBER 5, 1977 TO SATISFY AN ALLEGED TAX DELINQUENCY OF P2,400.00. III On March 3, 1979, Francia received a notice of hearing of LRC Case No. 1593-P "In re: Petition for Entry of New Certificate of Title" filed by Ho Fernandez, seeking the cancellation of TCT No. 4739 (37795) and the issuance in his name of a new certificate of title. Upon verification through his lawyer, Francia discovered that a Final Bill of Sale had been issued in favor of Ho Fernandez by the City Treasurer on December 11, 1978. The auction sale and the final bill of sale were both annotated at the back of TCT No. 4739 (37795) by the Register of Deeds. On March 20, 1979, Francia filed a complaint to annul the auction sale. He later amended his complaint on January 24, 1980. On April 23, 1981, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the amended complaint and ordering: (a) The Register of Deeds of Pasay City to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title in RESPONDENT INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PRICE OF P2,400.00 PAID BY RESPONTDENT HO FERNANDEZ WAS GROSSLY INADEQUATE AS TO SHOCK ONE'S CONSCIENCE AMOUNTING TO FRAUD AND A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE AUCTION SALE MADE THEREOF IS VOID. (pp. 10, 17, 20-21, Rollo) We gave due course to the petition for a more thorough inquiry into the petitioner's allegations that his property was sold at public auction without notice to him and that the price paid for the property was shockingly inadequate, amounting to fraud and deprivation without due process of law. A careful review of the case, however, discloses that Mr. Francia brought the problems raised in his petition upon himself. While we commiserate with him at the loss of his property, the law and the facts militate against the grant of his petition. We are constrained to dismiss it. Francia contends that his tax delinquency of P2,400.00 has been extinguished by legal compensation. He claims that the government

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The petitioner invokes legal and equitable grounds to reverse the questioned decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, to set aside the auction sale of his property which took place on December 5, 1977, and to allow him to recover a 203 square meter lot which was, sold at public auction to Ho Fernandez and ordered titled in the latter's name. The antecedent facts are as follows: Engracio Francia is the registered owner of a residential lot and a twostory house built upon it situated at Barrio San Isidro, now District of Sta. Clara, Pasay City, Metro Manila. The lot, with an area of about 328 square meters, is described and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4739 (37795) of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. On October 15, 1977, a 125 square meter portion of Francia's property was expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines for the sum of P4,116.00 representing the estimated amount equivalent to the assessed value of the aforesaid portion. Since 1963 up to 1977 inclusive, Francia failed to pay his real estate taxes. Thus, on December 5, 1977, his property was sold at public auction by the City Treasurer of Pasay City pursuant to Section 73 of Presidential Decree No. 464 known as the Real Property Tax Code in order to satisfy a tax delinquency of P2,400.00. Ho Fernandez was the highest bidder for the property. Francia was not present during the auction sale since he was in Iligan City at that time helping his uncle ship bananas.

93
owed him P4,116.00 when a portion of his land was expropriated on October 15, 1977. Hence, his tax obligation had been set-off by operation of law as of October 15, 1977. There is no legal basis for the contention. By legal compensation, obligations of persons, who in their own right are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other, are extinguished (Art. 1278, Civil Code). The circumstances of the case do not satisfy the requirements provided by Article 1279, to wit: (1) that each one of the obligors be bound principally and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; xxx xxx xxx (3) that the two debts be due. xxx xxx xxx This principal contention of the petitioner has no merit. We have consistently ruled that there can be no off-setting of taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government. A person cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes him an amount equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the results of a lawsuit against the government. In the case of Republic v. Mambulao Lumber Co. (4 SCRA 622), this Court ruled that Internal Revenue Taxes can not be the subject of set-off or compensation. We stated that: A claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off under the statutes of set-off, which are construed uniformly, in the light of public policy, to exclude the remedy in an action or any indebtedness of the state or municipality to one who is liable to the state or municipality for taxes. Neither are they a proper subject of recoupment since they do not arise out of the contract or transaction sued on. ... (80 C.J.S., 7374). "The general rule based on grounds of public policy is well-settled that no set-off admissible against demands for taxes levied for general or local governmental purposes. The reason on which the general rule is based, is that taxes are not in the nature of contracts between the party and party but grow out of duty to, and are the positive acts of the government to the making and enforcing of which, the personal consent of individual taxpayers is not required. ..." We stated that a taxpayer cannot refuse to pay his tax when called upon by the collector because he has a claim against the governmental body not included in the tax levy. This rule was reiterated in the case of Corders v. Gonda (18 SCRA 331) where we stated that: "... internal revenue taxes can not be the subject of compensation: Reason: government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other' under Article 1278 of the Civil Code and a "claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off." There are other factors which compel us to rule against the petitioner. The tax was due to the city government while the expropriation was effected by the national government. Moreover, the amount of P4,116.00 paid by the national government for the 125 square meter portion of his lot was deposited with the Philippine National Bank long before the sale at public auction of his remaining property. Notice of the deposit dated September 28, 1977 was received by the petitioner on September 30, 1977. The petitioner admitted in his testimony that he knew about the P4,116.00 deposited with the bank but he did not withdraw it. It would have been an easy matter to withdraw P2,400.00 from the deposit so that he could pay the tax obligation thus aborting the sale at public auction. Petitioner had one year within which to redeem his property although, as well be shown later, he claimed that he pocketed the notice of the auction sale without reading it. Petitioner contends that "the auction sale in question was made without complying with the mandatory provisions of the statute governing tax sale. No evidence, oral or otherwise, was presented that the procedure outlined by law on sales of property for tax delinquency was followed. ... Since defendant Ho Fernandez has the affirmative of this issue, the burden of proof therefore rests upon him to show that plaintiff was duly and properly notified ... .(Petition for Review, Rollo p. 18; emphasis supplied) We agree with the petitioner's claim that Ho Fernandez, the purchaser at the auction sale, has the burden of proof to show that there was compliance with all the prescribed requisites for a tax sale. The case of Valencia v. Jimenez (11 Phil. 492) laid down the doctrine that: ... [D]ue process of law to be followed in tax proceedings must be established by proof and the general rule is that the purchaser of a tax title is bound to take upon himself the burden of showing the regularity of all proceedings leading up to the sale. (emphasis supplied) There is no presumption of the regularity of any administrative action which results in depriving a taxpayer of his property through a tax sale. (Camo v. Riosa Boyco, 29 Phil. 437); Denoga v. Insular Government, 19 Phil. 261). This is actually an exception to the rule that administrative proceedings are presumed to be regular. But even if the burden of proof lies with the purchaser to show that all legal prerequisites have been complied with, the petitioner can not, however, deny that he did receive the notice for the auction sale. The records sustain the lower court's finding that: [T]he plaintiff claimed that it was illegal and irregular. He insisted that he was not properly notified of the auction sale. Surprisingly, however, he admitted in his testimony that he received the letter dated November 21, 1977 (Exhibit "I") as shown by his signature (Exhibit "I-A") thereof. He claimed further that he was not present on December 5, 1977 the date of the auction sale because he went to Iligan City. As long as there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the notice, the validity of the auction sale can not be assailed ... .

94
We quote the following testimony of the petitioner on crossexamination, to wit: Q. My question to you is this letter marked as Exhibit I for Ho Fernandez notified you that the property in question shall be sold at public auction to the highest bidder on December 5, 1977 pursuant to Sec. 74 of PD 464. Will you tell the Court whether you received the original of this letter? A. I just signed it because I was not able to read the same. It was just sent by mail carrier. Q. So you admit that you received the original of Exhibit I and you signed upon receipt thereof but you did not read the contents of it? A. Yes, sir, as I was in a hurry. Q. After you received that original where did you place it? A. I placed it in the usual place where I place my mails. Petitioner, therefore, was notified about the auction sale. It was negligence on his part when he ignored such notice. By his very own admission that he received the notice, his now coming to court assailing the validity of the auction sale loses its force. Petitioner's third assignment of grave error likewise lacks merit. As a general rule, gross inadequacy of price is not material (De Leon v. Salvador, 36 SCRA 567; Ponce de Leon v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, 36 SCRA 289; Tolentino v. Agcaoili, 91 Phil. 917 Unrep.). See also Barrozo Vda. de Gordon v. Court of Appeals (109 SCRA 388) we held that "alleged gross inadequacy of price is not material when the law gives the owner the right to redeem as when a sale is made at public auction, upon the theory that the lesser the price, the easier it is for the owner to effect redemption." In Velasquez v. Coronel (5 SCRA 985), this Court held: ... [R]espondent treasurer now claims that the prices for which the lands were sold are unconscionable considering the wide divergence between their assessed values and the amounts for which they had been actually sold. However, while in ordinary sales for reasons of equity a transaction may be invalidated on the ground of inadequacy of price, or when such inadequacy shocks one's conscience as to justify the courts to interfere, such does not follow when the law gives to the owner the right to redeem, as when a sale is made at public auction, upon the theory that the lesser the price the easier it is for the owner to effect the redemption. And so it was aptly said: "When there is the right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material, because the judgment debtor may reacquire the property or also sell his right to redeem and thus recover the loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price obtained at the auction sale." The reason behind the above rulings is well enunciated in the case of Hilton et. ux. v. De Long, et al. (188 Wash. 162, 61 P. 2d, 1290): If mere inadequacy of price is held to be a valid objection to a sale for taxes, the collection of taxes in this manner would be greatly embarrassed, if not rendered altogether impracticable. In Black on Tax Titles (2nd Ed.) 238, the correct rule is stated as follows: "where land is sold for taxes, the inadequacy of the price given is not a valid objection to the sale." This rule arises from necessity, for, if a fair price for the land were essential to the sale, it would be useless to offer the property. Indeed, it is notorious that the prices habitually paid by purchasers at tax sales are grossly out of proportion to the value of the land. (Rothchild Bros. v. Rollinger, 32 Wash. 307, 73 P. 367, 369). In this case now before us, we can aptly use the language of McGuire, et al. v. Bean, et al. (267 P. 555): Like most cases of this character there is here a certain element of hardship from which we would be glad to relieve, but do so would unsettle longestablished rules and lead to uncertainty and difficulty in the collection of taxes which are the life blood of the state. We are convinced that the present rules are just, and that they bring hardship only to those who have invited it by their own neglect. We are inclined to believe the petitioner's claim that the value of the lot has greatly appreciated in value. Precisely because of the widening of Buendia Avenue in Pasay City, which necessitated the expropriation of adjoining areas, real estate values have gone up in the area. However, the price quoted by the petitioner for a 203 square meter lot appears quite exaggerated. At any rate, the foregoing reasons which answer the petitioner's claims lead us to deny the petition. And finally, even if we are inclined to give relief to the petitioner on equitable grounds, there are no strong considerations of substantial justice in his favor. Mr. Francia failed to pay his taxes for 14 years from 1963 up to the date of the auction sale. He claims to have pocketed the notice of sale without reading it which, if true, is still an act of inexplicable negligence. He did not withdraw from the expropriation payment deposited with the Philippine National Bank an amount sufficient to pay for the back taxes. The petitioner did not pay attention to another notice sent by the City Treasurer on November 3, 1978, during the period of redemption, regarding his tax delinquency. There is furthermore no showing of bad faith or collusion in the purchase of the property by Mr. Fernandez. The petitioner has no standing to invoke equity in his attempt to regain the property by belatedly asking for the annulment of the sale. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review is DISMISSED. The decision of the respondent court is affirme

95
Republic v. de los Angeles, 98 SCRA 1063, G.R. No. L-26112 April 27, 1973 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., vs. HON. JAIME DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL. RESOLUTION* For lack of necessary votes, the second motion for reconsideration of petitioner Tolentino dated May 11, 1972 and the supplement thereto dated May 15, 1972, including the prayer that the vote of Justice Barredo be declared null and void, are deemed denied. (Teehankee and Esguerra, JJ., dissent in a separate opinion; Barredo, Makasiar and Antonio, JJ., took no part.) This was documented in the Court's resolution of July 22, 1968, wherein the Court (then composed of nine members with two vacancies) resolved "to defer the resolution of said second petition (of Tolentino) for resolution and said motion (of Ayala and Zobel) for immediate resolution for lack of consensus thereon" 6* as well as in the Court's resolution of November 8, 1968 (still with the same two vacancies) whereby "action on the pending matters in L-26112 ... (was deferred in the meantime.)" 3. Motions for reconsideration and setting aside of the Court's resolution of 4 October 1971 were presented by then Solicitor General Antonio, now a member of this Court, on behalf of petitioner Republic 7 as well as by petitioner Tolentino. The motions for reconsideration were denied by the same six-three-two vote, as per the Court's resolution of 11 April 1972. 8 The vote was the same, save that Justice Fernando this time qualified his concurring vote as "in the result" and that Justice Antonio had been appointed to the Court and qualified on April 10, 1972 but like his predecessor, Justice Dizon (who had retired on October 5, 1971), abstained (with Justice Makasiar) from taking part in the case. 4. With the appointment on June 29, 1972 of Justice Esguerra as a member of the Court vice Justice Villamor who retired on April 12, 1972, the preliminary vote taken on petitioner Tolentino's pending second motion for reconsideration was a close five-four-two. The bare majority six had been reduced to five with Justice Villamor's retirement. Justice Esguerra joined Chief Justice Concepcion, Justice Reyes and the writer, increasing from three to four the number in favor of granting reconsideration and reinstating the original decision at bar of 30 June 1967. Justices Makasiar and Antonio, as former Solicitors General who had represented petitioner Republic in the case at bar, abstained from taking part. The Court took no conclusive action on the proposal then urged by the writer that section 9 of the Judiciary Act be availed of and representations be made with the President for the appointment of two appellate court justices to sit temporarily with the Court vice the two abstaining regular justices (Makasiar and Antonio) since with the tentative vote of five to four resulting in failure to arrive at an absolute majority of six required to render judgment in any given case, it seemed a matter of fairness that the admittedly crucial and highly controversial, if not transcendental, issues involved in the case be decided by a full vote without abstentions which definitely prejudiced petitioner-movant, because the two votes could decisively tilt the scales in his favor and restore the original decision of 30 June 1967 granting mandamus for execution of the Batangas court of first instance's 1962 judgment in petitioner's favor as affirmed with modification on May 31, 1965 by this Court. 9 5. At any rate, the pending questions have been overtaken by events. With the implementation of the 1973 revised Constitution 10 the full court membership has been thereby increased from eleven to fifteen, with a corresponding increase of the required majority to render judgment from six to eight. It is submitted that resolution of the pending motions, considering the importance of the issues and the precedents herein followed of likewise deferring for a number of years resolution of respondent Ayala's second motion for reconsideration of 19 September 1967 until completion of the membership of the Court, writer. Justice Dizon, who took no part ab initio maintained his abstention from the case while Justice Makasiar chose to abstain by virtue of his having been Solicitor General (succeeding Justice Barredo) and having represented petitioner Republic in some pleadings filed in the case at bar. It was noted at the time that "this is one of the matters that have been purposely deferred to await the completion of the membership of the Court." 6

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: 1. Pending resolution by the Court are petitioner Tolentino's second motion for reconsideration dated May 11, 1972 (filed with prior leave as per the Courts resolution of April 25, 1972) and the supplement thereto dated May 15,1972. The motion prays "that the Resolution of 4 October 1971 and the Resolution of 11 April 1972, reached by a divided court, be set aside and that the unanimous decision of this Court on 30 June 1967, be reaffirmed in toto." The supplement recalls that petitioner "raised in his first motion for reconsideration the question of Mr. Justice Barredo's competency to participate in the case at bar. However, the majority resolution on the motion for reconsideration did not make a ruling thereon. Since the case at bar is the first case in this jurisdiction which calls for a definite ruling on the automatic disqualification of a judge or judicial officer under provisions of sec. 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, we respectfully pray that this Honorable Court decide the issue squarely so that both the bench and the bar may be properly guided on the application of the said rule. Besides, the issue presents a question of law which this Honorable Court is duty bound to decide; the issue is of such importance that, without going into the other aspects of the case, it could set to naught the Resolution of this Honorable Court dated October 4, 1971 and revive the Decision of June 30, 1967." 1 The supplement accordingly prays that the Court "rule on the issue of Mr. Justice Barredo's disqualification; that he be declared disqualified and that his vote in the Resolution of October 4, 1971 be declared null and void; and that the Decision of June 30, 1967 be revived. " 2 2. It will be recalled that it was also upon a second motion for reconsideration and supplements thereto of respondent Ayala that the Court's unanimous decision of 30 June 1967 penned by Chief Justice Concepcion 3 granting mandamus and directing respondent judge "to order the issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of the decision in question" 4 as prayed for by co-petitioners Republic and Tolentino, that said decision at bar was "set aside and the petition for certiorari and mandamus in this case (is) dismissed" by a six-three-two vote as per the Court's resolution of 4 October 1971. 5 The new majority of six was composed of Justices Villamor (ponente), Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Barredo. The three dissenting votes were cast by Chief Justice Concepcion, Justice Reyes and the

96
(supra, paragraph 2), should await the composition of the full Court, so that this case may finally be decisively resolved. 11 The Court, over the writer's dissent, has now opted, however, to deny the pending motions for reconsideration, for lack of necessary votes to grant the same. 6. A word as to petitioner's motion incorporated in his pending second motion for reconsideration of May 11, 1972 to strike out the remarks of Justice Makalintal in his concurring opinion of 11 April 1972 with reference to my dissenting opinion of the same date that "... The undisguised bitterness of the dissent, it would seem, proceeds from the fact that Tolentino has failed to collect this huge and, in our view, undeserved largesse." 12 As per the Court's resolution of 2 August 1972, the Court unanimously denied the motion to strike out. The writer himself was first to vote for such denial, in view of his conviction that every member of this Court should be perfectly free to express his views in any manner he deems fit when he chooses to write a separate personal opinion, accountable to no one except to himself, his conscience and his own sense of propriety and decorum. Hence, the incident was disposed of much earlier on 2 August 1972, without the Court as yet having deliberated upon the merits of petitioner's second motion for reconsideration, contrary to respondents' erroneous conjecture in their urgent motion for resolution dated January 16, 1973 that the Court then already took up the merits of said motion for reconsideration. 7. From the writer's own viewpoint, he strove, as has been his norm, to state the grounds of his dissent forcefully, but objectively and with due regard for the contrary views of his colleagues. He was solely concerned with upholding the views shared by him with Chief Justice Concepcion (who had penned the original decision at bar of 30 June 1967 overturned by the resolution of 4 October 1971 and who filed the main dissenting opinion thereto 13) against usurpations of the public domain and violating the settled rules on finality and conclusiveness of the law of the case and the accepted norms of due process and fair play. These were the very views expounded and amplified by him when he wrote the main dissenting opinion against the resolution of 11 April 1972 denying the State's and Tolentino's motions for reconsideration. 14 8. Notwithstanding the denial now of the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner Republic for execution of that portion of the Batangas court of first instance's 1962 judgment in its favor and affirmed without modification by the May 31, 1965 judgment of this Court in L-20950, annulling the expanded title and other subdivision titles to an estimated 2,500 hectares of the public domain wrongfully appropriated by respondent Ayala, including over 400 hectares of the public beach, foreshore and territorial sea, the writer reiterated with gratification, as stated in his dissenting opinion of April 11, 1972, that in some small measure the dissents had contributed to the clarification. that the majority's position although it denies reconsideration and maintains reversal of the June 30, 1967 decision at bar is that the Government may now finally effect reversion and recover possession of all usurped areas of the public domain "outside (Ayala's) private land covered by TCT No. 722, which including the lots in T-9550 (Lots 360, 362, 363 and 182) are hereby reverted to public dominion." (Paragraph (a) of 1965 judgment.) 9. On petitioner Tolentino's second motion for reconsideration: (a) The Batangas court of first instance's 1962 judgment ordered all the defendants to jointly and severally pay intervenor Miguel Tolentino compensatory damages in the sum of P3,000.00 a year per hectare of Lot 360 from March 11, 1954, until he is placed in lawful possession of the said area." 15 (b) On appeal to this Court in case L-20950, this Court affirmed in its decision of 31 May 1965 the Batangas court of first instance's judgment with the sole modification that private respondents Dizons (purchasers from Ayala of Lot 360, a thirty-hectare lot of the public domain wrongfully titled by Ayala and without right sold by it to the Dizons but actually granted in lease by the Republic to Tolentino) were excluded from liability for the damages awarded to Tolentino, "there being no showing that defendants Dizons are not purchasers in good faith and for value." (c) This Court's 1965 judgment in Case L-20950 affirming the Batangas court of first instance's 1962 judgment awarding the proven compensatory damages of approximately P90,000 a year to Tolentino, with the sole modification of exempting the Dizons, clearly left the remaining defendants, herein respondents Ayala and Alfonso Zobel, jointly and severally liable for the damages so awarded. Manifestly, if the exclusion of the Dizons likewise exempted Ayala and Zobel from joint and several liability for the awarded damages, then this Court would not have affirmed the judgment for damages exempting only the Dizons but would have set aside this important portion of the judgment which was in favor of intervenor Tolentino. (d) But respondents Ayala and Zobel (as defendants therein) had themselves acknowledged that they had been so held jointly and severally liable for the damages awarded Tolentino, expressly assigned this in their brief as an error of the trial court's judgment and alternatively prayed for and secured from this Court the modification on behalf of the Dizons that the Dizons be held entitled to retain possession of their illegally titled public fishponds wrongfully and without right sold to them by Ayala until reimbursed for their necessary expenses. 16 (e) Respondents Ayala and Zobel, apparently satisfied with this modification of the trial court's judgment, no longer moved for reconsideration thereof insofar as the Dizons were excluded from the damages they were jointly and severally sentenced to pay Tolentino (since they were the vendors and source of the illegally titled foreshore lots). They concentrated their motion for reconsideration on this Court's affirmance of the trial court's judgment ordering the cancellation of their wrongfully expanded titles to lands and waters of the public domain which motion was denied by this Court on December 6, 1965 and judgment thereafter entered on December 11, 1965. (f) The judgment for damages against respondents Ayala and Zobel in favor of Tolentino thus became final and executory and res judicata. When the present special civil action for mandamus to compel execution of the judgment was filed, respondents' contention was that "the extinction of the Dizons' liability carried with the extinction of the liability of Ayala and Zobel, because of their joint and several nature." This contention was rejected in the original decision of 30 June 1967 as "absolutely devoid of merit." And respondents in their first motion for reconsideration of 3 August 1967 entitled "motion for partial reconsideration" expressly abided by the Court's rejection of their contention and manifested that "we do not now insist upon it." (g) What respondents stressed in their said first motion for reconsideration was that their liability for the damages awarded amounted as of that date to over P12 million "and may reach a million pesos more," and prayed for setting aside of the decision ordering execution of the judgment for damages "because, although that interpretation of the judgment of this Honorable Court in G. R. No. L-

97
20950 might be correct literally, it is erroneous in law, it violates the intent of that judgment, and makes that judgment violate basic canons of justice and fair play." This first motion for reconsideration was denied as per this Court's resolution of September 13, 1967 "because the points stressed therein are dependent upon a question settled by a former judgment that is admittedly final and executory." (h) Where there is such a specific former judgment for damages in favor of Tolentino against respondents Ayala and Zobel long final and executory since entry on December 11, 1965 of the Court's judgment in L- 20950, the writer regretfully states that he cannot but register his dissent from the majority view that "(T)he real question of substantive law which has a material and persuasive bearing on the interpretation of the judgment of the trial court insofar as Ayala is concerned is not who should pay damages to Tolentino but rather whether or not he is entitled to damages at all. His right thereto being inexistent, his claim should not be entertained, against whichever party he may address it." 17 (i) The growing amount of the damages awarded Tolentino could in no way be faulted against him. As the late Justice Ozaeta stated on Tolentino's behalf at the rehearing on August 11, 1970, "defendants Ayala and Zobel are the ones to blame. Had they abided by the final judgment of the trial court as slightly modified by this Court in the Barrera decision, instead of prolonging the case up to now, the amount they would have had to pay then would have been only less than half a million pesos. The respondents themselves have brought upon their heads the evil consequences of their obstinacy in trying to reopen a final judgment." 18 (j) Respondents Ayala and Zobel had in their motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration dated September 19, 1967 explicitly acknowledged their responsibility and readiness to answer for the growing amount of the damages awarded Tolentino stating therein that (1) This case is of vital importance to them, imposing upon them a liability in excess of ONE MILLION PESOS. (2) On the other hand, to grant leave to file a second motion for reconsideration does not cause petitioners any irreparable damage, because if the second motion be denied, petitioner Tolentino would be paid for the time it is under consideration at the rate of P3,000.00 per hectare per year, or approximately P8.00 per hectare or P240.00 per day; on the other hand, if the second motion be granted, then petitioner Tolentino would not be entitled to anything, so in either case, he suffers no irreparable damage. (k) On the other hand, Tolentino filed his "Offer to pay Reimbursement" dated May 20, 1968 stating that he "would like to take immediate possession of Lot 360 involved herein so that he may proceed to its profitable development" and "offers to reimburse the Dizons for the necessary expenses they have incurred in Lot 360, after the same have been "established and determined," (G.R. No. L-20950), as the same have been established and determined by the Commissioner of Fisheries, pursuant to a directive by the Honorable, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources." Respondents Ayala and Zobel washed their hands of the matter in their comments dated June 14, 1968 stating that "this matter (was) solely within the discretion of the petitioners and the Dizons, respondents not being privy to said matter." As indicated above, the Court as per its resolution of July 22, 1968 and November 8, 1968 "for lack of consensus" deferred resolution on all pending matters and Ayala's then pending second motion for reconsideration until there was a full court. (l) The writer can only reiterate simply that Ayala (and its co-respondent Zobel), as shown above, were expressly adjudged liable jointly and severally to pay the damages awarded to Tolentino under the trial court's 1962 judgment as affirmed by this Court in L-20950, which rejected their specific assignment of error in their brief on appeal that they should not have been held so liable. Tolentino, as intervenor, being the awardee of the damages is therefore entitled, in law, to the damages awarded him in the judgment. The judgment being concededly res judicata may no longer be reopened, reviewed or revised, much less reversed, without violating the accepted norms of due process and fair play and the universal principles of finality and conclusiveness of judgments as the law of the case. Rather than this unprecedented nullification by interpretation of the 1965 judgment for proven compensatory damages under the Court's divided resolution of 4 October 1971 overturning the original unanimous judgment at bar of 30 June 1967, mandamus for execution of the said 1965 judgment for damages should therefore issue, as decreed in the original decision at bar of 30 June 1967. ESGUERRA, J., concurring: I concur in the above dissent. With the majority resolution denying execution against Ayala and Zobel of the Batangas court's judgment awarding damages against them jointly and severally in favor of Tolentino, as affirmed by this Court in L-20950 (May 31, 1965) exempting only the Dizons from liability thereunder, the said judgment which is res judicata has been rendered nugatory, enforceable against no one. Barredo, Makasiar and Antonio, JJ., took no part.

Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: 1. Pending resolution by the Court are petitioner Tolentino's second motion for reconsideration dated May 11, 1972 (filed with prior leave as per the Courts resolution of April 25, 1972) and the supplement thereto dated May 15,1972. The motion prays "that the Resolution of 4 October 1971 and the Resolution of 11 April 1972, reached by a divided court, be set aside and that the unanimous decision of this Court on 30 June 1967, be reaffirmed in toto." The supplement recalls that petitioner "raised in his first motion for reconsideration the question of Mr. Justice Barredo's competency to participate in the case at bar. However, the majority resolution on the motion for reconsideration did not make a ruling thereon. Since the case at bar is the first case in this jurisdiction which calls for a definite ruling on the automatic disqualification of a judge or judicial officer under provisions of sec. 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, we respectfully pray that this Honorable Court decide the issue squarely so that both the bench and the bar may be properly guided on the application of the said rule. Besides, the issue presents a question of law which this Honorable Court is duty bound to decide; the issue is of such importance that, without going into the other aspects of the case, it could set to naught the Resolution of this Honorable Court dated October 4, 1971 and revive the Decision of June 30, 1967." 1

98
The supplement accordingly prays that the Court "rule on the issue of Mr. Justice Barredo's disqualification; that he be declared disqualified and that his vote in the Resolution of October 4, 1971 be declared null and void; and that the Decision of June 30, 1967 be revived. " 2 2. It will be recalled that it was also upon a second motion for reconsideration and supplements thereto of respondent Ayala that the Court's unanimous decision of 30 June 1967 penned by Chief Justice Concepcion 3 granting mandamus and directing respondent judge "to order the issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of the decision in question" 4 as prayed for by co-petitioners Republic and Tolentino, that said decision at bar was "set aside and the petition for certiorari and mandamus in this case (is) dismissed" by a six-three-two vote as per the Court's resolution of 4 October 1971. 5 The new majority of six was composed of Justices Villamor (ponente), Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Barredo. The three dissenting votes were cast by Chief Justice Concepcion, Justice Reyes and the writer. Justice Dizon, who took no part ab initio maintained his abstention from the case while Justice Makasiar chose to abstain by virtue of his having been Solicitor General (succeeding Justice Barredo) and having represented petitioner Republic in some pleadings filed in the case at bar. It was noted at the time that "this is one of the matters that have been purposely deferred to await the completion of the membership of the Court." 6 This was documented in the Court's resolution of July 22, 1968, wherein the Court (then composed of nine members with two vacancies) resolved "to defer the resolution of said second petition (of Tolentino) for resolution and said motion (of Ayala and Zobel) for immediate resolution for lack of consensus thereon" 6* as well as in the Court's resolution of November 8, 1968 (still with the same two vacancies) whereby "action on the pending matters in L-26112 ... (was deferred in the meantime.)" 3. Motions for reconsideration and setting aside of the Court's resolution of 4 October 1971 were presented by then Solicitor General Antonio, now a member of this Court, on behalf of petitioner Republic 7 as well as by petitioner Tolentino. The motions for reconsideration were denied by the same six-three-two vote, as per the Court's resolution of 11 April 1972. 8 The vote was the same, save that Justice Fernando this time qualified his concurring vote as "in the result" and that Justice Antonio had been appointed to the Court and qualified on April 10, 1972 but like his predecessor, Justice Dizon (who had retired on October 5, 1971), abstained (with Justice Makasiar) from taking part in the case. 4. With the appointment on June 29, 1972 of Justice Esguerra as a member of the Court vice Justice Villamor who retired on April 12, 1972, the preliminary vote taken on petitioner Tolentino's pending second motion for reconsideration was a close five-four-two. The bare majority six had been reduced to five with Justice Villamor's retirement. Justice Esguerra joined Chief Justice Concepcion, Justice Reyes and the writer, increasing from three to four the number in favor of granting reconsideration and reinstating the original decision at bar of 30 June 1967. Justices Makasiar and Antonio, as former Solicitors General who had represented petitioner Republic in the case at bar, abstained from taking part. The Court took no conclusive action on the proposal then urged by the writer that section 9 of the Judiciary Act be availed of and representations be made with the President for the appointment of two appellate court justices to sit temporarily with the Court vice the two abstaining regular justices (Makasiar and Antonio) since with the tentative vote of five to four resulting in failure to arrive at an absolute majority of six required to render judgment in any given case, it seemed a matter of fairness that the admittedly crucial and highly controversial, if not transcendental, issues involved in the case be decided by a full vote without abstentions which definitely prejudiced petitioner-movant, because the two votes could decisively tilt the scales in his favor and restore the original decision of 30 June 1967 granting mandamus for execution of the Batangas court of first instance's 1962 judgment in petitioner's favor as affirmed with modification on May 31, 1965 by this Court. 9 5. At any rate, the pending questions have been overtaken by events. With the implementation of the 1973 revised Constitution 10 the full court membership has been thereby increased from eleven to fifteen, with a corresponding increase of the required majority to render judgment from six to eight. It is submitted that resolution of the pending motions, considering the importance of the issues and the precedents herein followed of likewise deferring for a number of years resolution of respondent Ayala's second motion for reconsideration of 19 September 1967 until completion of the membership of the Court, (supra, paragraph 2), should await the composition of the full Court, so that this case may finally be decisively resolved. 11 The Court, over the writer's dissent, has now opted, however, to deny the pending motions for reconsideration, for lack of necessary votes to grant the same. 6. A word as to petitioner's motion incorporated in his pending second motion for reconsideration of May 11, 1972 to strike out the remarks of Justice Makalintal in his concurring opinion of 11 April 1972 with reference to my dissenting opinion of the same date that "... The undisguised bitterness of the dissent, it would seem, proceeds from the fact that Tolentino has failed to collect this huge and, in our view, undeserved largesse." 12 As per the Court's resolution of 2 August 1972, the Court unanimously denied the motion to strike out. The writer himself was first to vote for such denial, in view of his conviction that every member of this Court should be perfectly free to express his views in any manner he deems fit when he chooses to write a separate personal opinion, accountable to no one except to himself, his conscience and his own sense of propriety and decorum. Hence, the incident was disposed of much earlier on 2 August 1972, without the Court as yet having deliberated upon the merits of petitioner's second motion for reconsideration, contrary to respondents' erroneous conjecture in their urgent motion for resolution dated January 16, 1973 that the Court then already took up the merits of said motion for reconsideration. 7. From the writer's own viewpoint, he strove, as has been his norm, to state the grounds of his dissent forcefully, but objectively and with due regard for the contrary views of his colleagues. He was solely concerned with upholding the views shared by him with Chief Justice Concepcion (who had penned the original decision at bar of 30 June 1967 overturned by the resolution of 4 October 1971 and who filed the main dissenting opinion thereto 13) against usurpations of the public domain and violating the settled rules on finality and conclusiveness of the law of the case and the accepted norms of due process and fair play. These were the very views expounded and amplified by him when he wrote the main dissenting opinion against the resolution of 11 April 1972 denying the State's and Tolentino's motions for reconsideration. 14 8. Notwithstanding the denial now of the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner Republic for execution of that portion of the Batangas court of first instance's 1962 judgment in its favor and affirmed without modification by the May 31, 1965 judgment of this Court in L-20950, annulling the expanded title and other subdivision titles to an estimated 2,500 hectares of the public domain wrongfully appropriated by

99
respondent Ayala, including over 400 hectares of the public beach, foreshore and territorial sea, the writer reiterated with gratification, as stated in his dissenting opinion of April 11, 1972, that in some small measure the dissents had contributed to the clarification. that the majority's position although it denies reconsideration and maintains reversal of the June 30, 1967 decision at bar is that the Government may now finally effect reversion and recover possession of all usurped areas of the public domain "outside (Ayala's) private land covered by TCT No. 722, which including the lots in T-9550 (Lots 360, 362, 363 and 182) are hereby reverted to public dominion." (Paragraph (a) of 1965 judgment.) 9. On petitioner Tolentino's second motion for reconsideration: (a) The Batangas court of first instance's 1962 judgment ordered all the defendants to jointly and severally pay intervenor Miguel Tolentino compensatory damages in the sum of P3,000.00 a year per hectare of Lot 360 from March 11, 1954, until he is placed in lawful possession of the said area." 15 (b) On appeal to this Court in case L-20950, this Court affirmed in its decision of 31 May 1965 the Batangas court of first instance's judgment with the sole modification that private respondents Dizons (purchasers from Ayala of Lot 360, a thirty-hectare lot of the public domain wrongfully titled by Ayala and without right sold by it to the Dizons but actually granted in lease by the Republic to Tolentino) were excluded from liability for the damages awarded to Tolentino, "there being no showing that defendants Dizons are not purchasers in good faith and for value." (c) This Court's 1965 judgment in Case L-20950 affirming the Batangas court of first instance's 1962 judgment awarding the proven compensatory damages of approximately P90,000 a year to Tolentino, with the sole modification of exempting the Dizons, clearly left the remaining defendants, herein respondents Ayala and Alfonso Zobel, jointly and severally liable for the damages so awarded. Manifestly, if the exclusion of the Dizons likewise exempted Ayala and Zobel from joint and several liability for the awarded damages, then this Court would not have affirmed the judgment for damages exempting only the Dizons but would have set aside this important portion of the judgment which was in favor of intervenor Tolentino. (d) But respondents Ayala and Zobel (as defendants therein) had themselves acknowledged that they had been so held jointly and severally liable for the damages awarded Tolentino, expressly assigned this in their brief as an error of the trial court's judgment and alternatively prayed for and secured from this Court the modification on behalf of the Dizons that the Dizons be held entitled to retain possession of their illegally titled public fishponds wrongfully and without right sold to them by Ayala until reimbursed for their necessary expenses. 16 (e) Respondents Ayala and Zobel, apparently satisfied with this modification of the trial court's judgment, no longer moved for reconsideration thereof insofar as the Dizons were excluded from the damages they were jointly and severally sentenced to pay Tolentino (since they were the vendors and source of the illegally titled foreshore lots). They concentrated their motion for reconsideration on this Court's affirmance of the trial court's judgment ordering the cancellation of their wrongfully expanded titles to lands and waters of the public domain which motion was denied by this Court on December 6, 1965 and judgment thereafter entered on December 11, 1965. (f) The judgment for damages against respondents Ayala and Zobel in favor of Tolentino thus became final and executory and res judicata. When the present special civil action for mandamus to compel execution of the judgment was filed, respondents' contention was that "the extinction of the Dizons' liability carried with the extinction of the liability of Ayala and Zobel, because of their joint and several nature." This contention was rejected in the original decision of 30 June 1967 as "absolutely devoid of merit." And respondents in their first motion for reconsideration of 3 August 1967 entitled "motion for partial reconsideration" expressly abided by the Court's rejection of their contention and manifested that "we do not now insist upon it." (g) What respondents stressed in their said first motion for reconsideration was that their liability for the damages awarded amounted as of that date to over P12 million "and may reach a million pesos more," and prayed for setting aside of the decision ordering execution of the judgment for damages "because, although that interpretation of the judgment of this Honorable Court in G. R. No. L20950 might be correct literally, it is erroneous in law, it violates the intent of that judgment, and makes that judgment violate basic canons of justice and fair play." This first motion for reconsideration was denied as per this Court's resolution of September 13, 1967 "because the points stressed therein are dependent upon a question settled by a former judgment that is admittedly final and executory." (h) Where there is such a specific former judgment for damages in favor of Tolentino against respondents Ayala and Zobel long final and executory since entry on December 11, 1965 of the Court's judgment in L- 20950, the writer regretfully states that he cannot but register his dissent from the majority view that "(T)he real question of substantive law which has a material and persuasive bearing on the interpretation of the judgment of the trial court insofar as Ayala is concerned is not who should pay damages to Tolentino but rather whether or not he is entitled to damages at all. His right thereto being inexistent, his claim should not be entertained, against whichever party he may address it." 17 (i) The growing amount of the damages awarded Tolentino could in no way be faulted against him. As the late Justice Ozaeta stated on Tolentino's behalf at the rehearing on August 11, 1970, "defendants Ayala and Zobel are the ones to blame. Had they abided by the final judgment of the trial court as slightly modified by this Court in the Barrera decision, instead of prolonging the case up to now, the amount they would have had to pay then would have been only less than half a million pesos. The respondents themselves have brought upon their heads the evil consequences of their obstinacy in trying to reopen a final judgment." 18 (j) Respondents Ayala and Zobel had in their motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration dated September 19, 1967 explicitly acknowledged their responsibility and readiness to answer for the growing amount of the damages awarded Tolentino stating therein that (1) This case is of vital importance to them, imposing upon them a liability in excess of ONE MILLION PESOS. (2) On the other hand, to grant leave to file a second motion for reconsideration does not cause petitioners any irreparable damage, because if the second motion be denied, petitioner Tolentino would be paid for the time it is under consideration at the rate of P3,000.00 per hectare per year, or approximately P8.00 per hectare or P240.00 per day; on the other hand, if the second motion be granted, then

100
petitioner Tolentino would not be entitled to anything, so in either case, he suffers no irreparable damage. (k) On the other hand, Tolentino filed his "Offer to pay Reimbursement" dated May 20, 1968 stating that he "would like to take immediate possession of Lot 360 involved herein so that he may proceed to its profitable development" and "offers to reimburse the Dizons for the necessary expenses they have incurred in Lot 360, after the same have been "established and determined," (G.R. No. L-20950), as the same have been established and determined by the Commissioner of Fisheries, pursuant to a directive by the Honorable, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources." Respondents Ayala and Zobel washed their hands of the matter in their comments dated June 14, 1968 stating that "this matter (was) solely within the discretion of the petitioners and the Dizons, respondents not being privy to said matter." As indicated above, the Court as per its resolution of July 22, 1968 and November 8, 1968 "for lack of consensus" deferred resolution on all pending matters and Ayala's then pending second motion for reconsideration until there was a full court. (l) The writer can only reiterate simply that Ayala (and its co-respondent Zobel), as shown above, were expressly adjudged liable jointly and severally to pay the damages awarded to Tolentino under the trial court's 1962 judgment as affirmed by this Court in L-20950, which rejected their specific assignment of error in their brief on appeal that they should not have been held so liable. Tolentino, as intervenor, being the awardee of the damages is therefore entitled, in law, to the damages awarded him in the judgment. The judgment being concededly res judicata may no longer be reopened, reviewed or revised, much less reversed, without violating the accepted norms of due process and fair play and the universal principles of finality and conclusiveness of judgments as the law of the case. Rather than this unprecedented nullification by interpretation of the 1965 judgment for proven compensatory damages under the Court's divided resolution of 4 October 1971 overturning the original unanimous judgment at bar of 30 June 1967, mandamus for execution of the said 1965 judgment for damages should therefore issue, as decreed in the original decision at bar of 30 June 1967. ESGUERRA, J., concurring: I concur in the above dissent. With the majority resolution denying execution against Ayala and Zobel of the Batangas court's judgment awarding damages against them jointly and severally in favor of Tolentino, as affirmed by this Court in L-20950 (May 31, 1965) exempting only the Dizons from liability thereunder, the said judgment which is res judicata has been rendered nugatory, enforceable against no one. Barredo, Makasiar and Antonio, JJ., took no part.

101
G.R. No. L-50638 July 25, 1983 LORETO J. SOLINAP, petitioner, vs. HON. AMELIA K. DEL ROSARIO, as Presiding Judge of Branch IV, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, SPOUSES JUANITO and HARDEVI R. LUTERO, and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, respondents. Espeleta & Orleans Law Office for petitioner. Simplicia Magahum, Offemaria & Sixto Demaisip Law Office for private respondents. In their answer, the respondents Lutero traversed the material averments of the complaint and set up legal and factual defenses. They further pleaded a counterclaim against petitioners for the total sum of P 125,000.00 representing unpaid rentals on Hacienda Tambal. Basis of the counterclaim is the allegation that they had purchased one-half [1/2] of Hacienda Tambal, which their predecessors, the spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona, leased to the plaintiff for a rental of P50,000.00 a year; and that plaintiffs had failed to pay said rentals despite demands. At the pre-trial, the parties defined the issues in that case as follows: (1) Whether or not the defendants [Luteros] are indebted to the plaintiff and, if so, the amount thereof; ESCOLIN; J.: Posed for resolution in this petition is the issue of whether or not the obligation of petitioners to private respondents may be compensated or set- off against the amount sought to be recovered in an action for a sum of money filed by the former against the latter. The facts are not disputed. On June 2, 1970, the spouses Tiburcio Lutero and Asuncion Magalona, owners of the Hacienda Tambal, leased the said hacienda to petitioner Loreto Solinap for a period of ten [10] years for the stipulated rental of P50,000.00 a year. It was further agreed in the lease contract that out of the aforesaid annual rental, the sum of P25,000.00 should be paid by Solinap to the Philippine National Bank to amortize the indebtedness of the spouses Lutero with the said bank. Tiburcio Lutero died on January 21, 1971. Soon after, his heirs instituted the testate estate proceedings of the deceased, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 1870 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, presided by respondent Judge Amelia K. del Rosario. In the course of the proceedings, the respondent judge, upon being apprized of the mounting interest on the unpaid account of the estate, issued an order, stating, among others, "that in order to protect the estate, the administrator, Judge Nicolas Lutero, is hereby authorized to scout among the testamentary heirs who is financially in a position to pay all the unpaid obligations of the estate, including interest, with the right of subrogation in accordance with existing laws." On the basis of this order, respondents Juanito Lutero [grandson and heir of the late Tiburcio] and his wife Hardivi R. Lutero paid the Philippine National Bank the sum of P25,000.00 as partial settlement of the deceased's obligations. Whereupon the respondents Lutero filed a motion in the testate court for reimbursement from the petitioner of the amount thus paid. They argued that the said amount should have been paid by petitioner to the PNB, as stipulated in the lease contract he had entered into with the deceased Tiburcio Lutero; and that such reimbursement to them was proper, they being subrogees of the PNB. Before the motion could be resolved by the court, petitioner on April 28, 1978 filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a separate action against the spouses Juanito Lutero and Hardivi R. Lutero for collection of the total amount of P71,000.00, docketed as Civil Case No. 12397. Petitioner alleged in the complaint that on April 25, 1974 the defendants Lutero borrowed from him the sum of P45,000.00 for which they executed a deed of real estate mortgage; that on July 2, 1974, defendants obtained an additional loan of P3,000.00, evidenced by a receipt issued by them; that defendants are further liable to him for the sum of P23,000.00, representing the value of certain dishonored checks issued by them to the plaintiff; and that defendants refused and failed to settle said accounts despite demands. (2) Whether or not the defendants are the owners of one-half [1/2] of that parcel of land known as 'Hacienda Tambal' presently leased to the plaintiff and, therefore, entitled to collect from the latter one-half [1/2] of its lease rentals; and in the affirmative, the amount representing the unpaid rental by plaintiff in favor of the defendant. 1 On June 14, 1978, the respondent judge issued an order in Sp. Proc. No. 1870, granting the respondent Lutero's motion for reimbursement from petitioner of the sum of P25,000.00 plus interest, as follows: WHEREFORE, Mr. Loreto Solinap is hereby directed to pay spouses Juanito Lutero and Hardivi R. Lutero the sum of P25,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from June 17, 1975 until the same shall have been duly paid. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. L-48776, assailing the above order. This Court, however, in a resolution dated January 4, 1979 dismissed the petition thus: L-48776 [Loreto Solinap vs. CFI etc., et al.]- Acting on the petition in this case as well as the comment thereon of respondents and the reply of petitioner to said comment, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit, anyway, the P25,000.00 to be paid by the petitioner to the private respondent Luteros may well be taken up in the final liquidation of the account between petitioner as and the subject estate as lessor. Thereafter the respondent Luteros filed with the respondent court a "Motion to Reiterate Motion for Execution of the Order dated June 14, 1978." Petitioner filed a rejoinder to said motion, raising for the first time the thesis that the amount payable to private respondents should be compensated against the latter's indebtedness to him amounting to P71,000.00. Petitioner attached to his rejoinder copies of the pleadings filed in Civil Case No. 12397, then pending before Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. This motion was denied by respondent judge on the ground that "the claim of Loreto Solinap against Juanito Lutero in Civil Case No. 12397 is yet to be liquidated and determined in the said case, such that the requirement in Article 1279 of the New Civil Code that both debts are liquidated for compensation to take place has not been established by the oppositor Loreto Solinap." Petition filed a motion for reconsideration of this order, but the same was denied. Hence, this petition. The petition is devoid of merit. Petitioner contends that respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in not declaring the mutual obligations of the parties extinguished to the extent of their respective amounts. He relies on Article 1278 of the Civil Code to the effect that

102
compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. The argument fails to consider Article 1279 of the Civil Code which provides that compensation can take place only if both obligations are liquidated. In the case at bar, the petitioner's claim against the respondent Luteros in Civil Case No. 12379 is still pending determination by the court. While it is not for Us to pass upon the merits of the plaintiffs' cause of action in that case, it appears that the claim asserted therein is disputed by the Luteros on both factual and legal grounds. More, the counterclaim interposed by them, if ultimately found to be meritorious, can defeat petitioner's demand. Upon this premise, his claim in that case cannot be categorized as liquidated credit which may properly be set-off against his obligation. As this Court ruled in Mialhe vs. Halili, 2 " compensation cannot take place where one's claim against the other is still the subject of court litigation. It is a requirement, for compensation to take place, that the amount involved be certain and liquidated." WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur. De Castro, Guerrero, J., are on leave.

103
Sycip v. CA, 134 SCRA 317, G.R. No. L-38711, January 31, 1985 Sycip v. CA, 134 SCRA 317, G.R. No. L-38711, January 31, 1985 FRANCISCO SYCIP, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. RELOVA, J.: On August 25, 1970, the then Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision convicting the herein petitioner Francisco Sycip of the crime of estafa and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum; to indemnify complainant Jose K. Lapuz the sum of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. The then Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but deleted that part of the sentence imposing subsidiary imprisonment. The facts of the case as found by respondent appellate court read: ... [I]n April 1961, Jose K. Lapuz received from Albert Smith in Manila 2,000 shares of stock of the Republic Flour Mills, Inc., covered by Certificate No. 57 in the name of Dwight Dill who had left for Honolulu. Jose K. Lapuz "was supposed to sell his (the shares) at present market value out of which I (he) was supposed to get certain commission." According to Jose K. Lapuz, the accused-appellant approached him and told him that he had good connections in the Stock Exchange, assuring him that he could sent them at a good price. Before accepting the offer of the accused-appellant to sent the shares of stock, Jose K. Lapuz made it clear to him that the shares of stock did not belong to him and were shortly entrusted to him for sale. He then gave the shares of stock to the accused-appellant who put them in the market. Thereafter, Jose K. Lapuz received a letter from the accused-appellant, dated April 25, 1961 (Exhibit "A"), the latter informing him that "1,758 shares has been sold for a net amount of P29,000.00," but that the transaction could not be concluded until they received the Power of Attorney duly executed by Dwight Dill, appointing a person to endorse the certificate of stock, and a resolution from the Biochemical Research Laboratory, Inc., authorizing the transfer of the certificate. Jose K. Lapuz signed his conformity to the contents of the letter. Jose K. Lapuz declared that he "was able to secure a power of attorney of Dr. Dwight Dill, and gave it to the accused-appellant." The power of attorney authorized the sale of 1,758 shares only; the difference of 242 shares were given back to Biochemical Research Laboratory, Inc. Of the 1,758 shares of stock, the accused-appellant sold 758 shares for P12,128.00 at P16.00 a share, for which Jose K. Lapuz issued a receipt, dated May 23, 1961 (Exhibit "C"). On the same day, Jose K. Lapuz turned over to Albert Smith the sum of P9,981.40 in payment of 758 shares of P14.00 a share (Exhibits "D" and "E"). On May 30, 1961, Jose K. Lapuz received a letter from the accusedappellant (Exhibit "F"), the latter informing him that "although the deal (relative to the 1,000 shares) has been closed, actual delivery has been withheld pending receipt of payment ..., I have chose(n) to return the shares ...," enclosing Certificate No. 955 for 500 shares, Certificate No. 952 for 50 shares in name of Felix Gonzales, and the photostat of Certificate No. 953 for 208 shares, which had been sold to Trans Oceanic Factors and Company, for which a check would be issued "within the next few days." He promised to deliver the 242 shares as soon as he would have received them from one Vicente Chua. "The next day (May 31, 1961), Jose K. Lapuz wrote a letter to the accused-appellant (Exhibit "C"), stating therein, "Per our conversation this morning, I hereby authorize you to sell 1,000 shares of Republic Flour Mills." Later, the accused-appellant wrote a letter to Jose K. Lapuz, dated June 1, 1961 (Exhibit "I"), confirming their conversation on that date that "500 shares out of the 1,000 shares of the Republic Flour ... has been sold," and stating further that "pending receipt of the payment, expected next week, we are enclosing herewith our draft to cover the full value of 500 shares." He asked in that letter, "Please give me the 50 shares in the name of Mr. Felix Gonzales and the photostat of 208 shares in the name of Trans Oceanic Factors and Company." The date of the letter (Exhibit "I") is disputed, the prosecution contending that it should be July 1, 1961, not June 1, 1961. The contention of the prosecution has the support of the date of the draft (Exhibit "J") mentioned in the letter. The accused-appellant sold and paid for the other 500 shares of stock, for the payment of which Jose K. Lapuz issued in his favor a receipt, dated June 9, 1961 (Exhibit "H"). The draft (Exhibit "J") for P8,000.00, "the full value of the 500 shares' mentioned in the letter of the accused-appellant (Exhibit "I"), was dishonored by the bank, for lack of funds. Jose K. Lapuz then "discovered from the bookkeeper that he got the money and he pocketed it already, so I (he) started hunting for Mr. Sycip" (accusedappellant). When he found the accused-appellant, the latter gave him a check in the amount of P5,000.00, issued by his daughter on July 12, 1961 (Exhibit "K"). This also was dishonored by the bank for lack of sufficient funds to cover it (Exhibits "K-l" and "K-2"). When Jose K. Lapuz sent a wire to him, telling him that he would "file estafa case (in the) fiscals office ... against him' unless he raise [the] balance left eight thousand" (Exhibit "L"), the accused-appellant answered him by sending a wire, "P5,000 remitted ask boy check Equitable (Exhibit "M"). But "the check was never made good," so Jose K. Lapuz testified. He had to pay Albert Smith the value of the 500 shares of stock." (Petitioner's brief, pp. 58-62) Coming to this Court on a petition for review on certiorari, petitioner claims that respondent appellate court erred (1) in denying petitioner of a hearing, as provided under Section 9, Rule 124, Rules of Court; (2) in not upholding due process of law (Sections 1 and 17), Article IV, Bill of Rights, Constitution; (3) in refusing to uphold the provisions on compensation, Articles 1278 and 1279, Civil Code; (4) in not dismissing the complaint, even granting arguendo, that compensation does not apply; (5) in not ruling that a consummated contract (Deed of Sale, Exhibit '10') is not covered by the Statute of Frauds and that its decision is not in accordance with Section 4, Rule 51, Rules of Court; and, (6) in ignoring the ruling case promulgated by this Honorable Supreme Court in People vs. Benitez, G.R. No. L-15923, June 29, 1960, in its applicability to offenses under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Penal Code. Petitioner in his first and second assigned errors argues that respondent Court of Appeals erred in denying him his day in court notwithstanding his motion praying that the appealed case be heard. He invokes Section 9 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court and relates it to Sections 1 and 17 of Article IV of the New Constitution. This contention is devoid of merit. Petitioner was afforded the right to be present during every step in the trial before the Court of First Instance, that is, from the arraignment until the sentence was promulgated. On appeal, he cannot assert as a matter of right to be present and to be heard in connection

104
with his case. It is the procedure in respondent court that within 30 days from receipt of the notice that the evidence is already attached to the record, the appellant shall file 40 copies of his brief with the clerk accompanied by proof of service of 5 copies upon the appellee (Section 3, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court). Within 30 days from receipt of appellant's brief, the appellee shall file 40 copies of his brief with the clerk accompanied by proof of service of 5 copies upon the appellant (Section 4, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court). Each party may be allowed extensions of time to file brief for good and sufficient cause. Thereafter, the appellate court may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment, increase or reduce the penalty imposed, remand the case for new trial or re-trial or dismiss the case (Section 11, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court). It is discretionary on its part whether or not to set a case for oral argument. If it desires to hear the parties on the issues involved, motu propio or upon petition of the parties, it may require contending parties to be heard on oral arguments. Stated differently, if the Court of Appeals chooses not to hear the case, the Justices composing the division may just deliberate on the case, evaluate the recorded evidence on hand and then decide it. Accusedappellant need not be present in the court during its deliberation or even during the hearing of the appeal before the appellate court; it will not be heard in the manner or type of hearing contemplated by the rules for inferior or trial courts. In his third and fourth assigned errors, petitioner contends that respondent Court of Appeals erred in not applying the provisions on compensation or setting-off debts under Articles 1278 and 1279 of the New Civil Code, despite evidence showing that Jose K. Lapuz still owed him an amount of more than P5,000.00 and in not dismissing the appeal considering that the latter is not legally the aggrieved party. This contention is untenable. Compensation cannot take place in this case since the evidence shows that Jose K. Lapuz is only an agent of Albert Smith and/or Dr. Dwight Dill. Compensation takes place only when two persons in their own right are creditors and debtors of each other, and that each one of the obligors is bound principally and is at the same time a principal creditor of the other. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the trial court, Lapuz did not consent to the off-setting of his obligation with petitioner's obligation to pay for the 500 shares. Anent the fifth assigned error, petitioner argues that the appellate court erred in not ruling that the deed of sale is a consummated contract and, therefore, not covered by the Statute of Frauds. It must be pointed out that the issue on whether or not the alleged contract of sale is covered by the Statute of Frauds has not been raised in the trial court or with the Court of Appeals. It cannot now be raised for the first time in this petition. Thus, there is no need for respondent court to make findings of fact on this matter. With respect to the sixth assigned error, petitioner points out that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court convicting him of the crime charged. Petitioner mentions that in People vs. Benitez, G.R. No. L-15923, June 30, 1960 (108 Phil. 920), We have ruled that to secure conviction under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b), Revised Penal Code, it is essential that the following requirements be present: (a) existence of fraud; (b) failure to return the goods on demand; and (c) failure to give any reason or explanation to the foregoing. He claims that nowhere in the decision was he found to have any particular malice or intent to commit fraud, or, that he failed to return the shares on any formal demand made by Jose K. Lapuz to him, and/or was he unable to make any explanation thereto. On this score, We only have to quote from the decision of the respondent court, as follows: The "malice or intent to commit fraud" is indicated in that part of the decision herein before quoted, that is, the accused- appellant "received from Jose K. Lapuz the 500 shares in question (a part of 1,758 shares) for sale, and that, although the same had already been sold, the accused ... failed to turn over the proceeds thereof to Jose K. Lapuz." The abuse of confidence in misappropriating the funds or property after they have come to the hands of the offender may be said to be a fraud upon the person injured thereby (U.S. vs. Pascual, 10 Phil. 621). xxx xxx xxx The accused-appellant having informed Jose K. Lapuz that the "500 shares out of the 1000 shares ... has been sold" (Exhibit "I"), for which he issued a draft for P8,000.00 (Exhibit "J"), the latter cannot be expected to make a demand for the return of the 500 shares. His demand was for the payment of the shares when the draft was dishonored by the bank. The delivery of a worthless check in the amount of P5,000.00 by the accused-appellant to Jose K, Lapuz, after the latter's "hunting" for him is even a circumstance indicating intent to commit fraud. (pp. 48-49, Rollo) xxx xxx xxx His explanation of his inability to return the 500 shares of stock is not satisfactory. ... If it is true that he gave the 500 shares of stock to his creditor, Tony Lim, he is nonetheless liable for the crane of estafa, he having received the 500 shares of stock to be sold on commission. By giving the shares to his creditor, he thereby committed estafa by conversion. (pp. 49-50, Rollo) Indeed, Jose K. Lapuz demanded from petitioner the amount of P5,000.00 with a notice that in the event he (petitioner) would fail to pay the amount, Lapuz would file an estafa case against him. By and large, respondent Court of Appeals has not overlooked facts of substance and value that, if considered, would alter the result of the judgment. WHEREFORE, for lack of merit the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

105
G.R. No. L-31379 August 29, 1988 COMPAIA MARITIMA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE CONCEPCION, respondents. Rafael Dinglasan for petitioner. Benjamin J. Molina for private respondent. petitioner denied the claim for damages of Consolidated Construction in its letter dated October 7, 1964, contending that had Vicente E. Concepcion declared the actual weight of the payloader, damage to 6 their ship as well as to his payloader could have been prevented. To replace the damaged payloader, Consolidated Construction in the meantime bought a new one at P45,000.00 from Bormaheco Inc. on December 3, 1964, and on July 6, 1965., Vicente E. Concepcion filed an action for damages against petitioner with the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII, docketed as Civil Case No. 61551, seeking to recover damages in the amount of P41,225.00 allegedly suffered for the period of 97 days that he was not able to employ a payloader in the construction job at the rate of P450.00 a day; P34,000.00 representing the cost of the damaged payloader; Pl 1, 000. 00 representing the difference between the cost of the damaged payloader and that of the new payloader; P20,000.00 representing the losses suffered by him due to the diversion of funds to enable him to buy a new payloader; P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; P5,000.00 as exemplary damages; and 7 cost of the suit. After trial, the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII, dismissed on April 24, 1968 the complaint with costs against therein plaintiff, herein private respondent Vicente E. Concepcion, stating that the proximate cause of the fall of the payloader was Vicente E. Concepcion's act or omission in having misrepresented the weight of the payloader as 2.5 tons instead of its true weight of 7.5 tons, which underdeclaration was intended to defraud Compaia Maritima of the payment of the freight charges and which likewise led the Chief Officer of the vessel to use the heel block of hatch No. 2 in unloading the 8 payloader. From the adverse decision against him, Vicente E. Concepcion appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on December 5, 1965 rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW WHEREOF, judgment must have to be as it is hereby reversed; defendant is condemned to pay unto plaintiff the sum in damages of P24,652.07 with legal interest from the date the present decision shall have become final; the payloader is declared abandoned to defendant; costs against the 9 latter. Hence, the instant petition. The principal issue in the instant case is whether or not the act of private respondent Vicente E. Concepcion in furnishing petitioner Compaia Maritima with an inaccurate weight of 2.5 tons instead of the payloader's actual weight of 7.5 tons was the proximate and only cause of the damage on the Oliver Payloader OC-12 when it fell while being unloaded by petitioner's crew, as would absolutely exempt petitioner from liability for damages under paragraph 3 of Article 1734 of the Civil Code, which provides: Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: xxx xxx xxx Meanwhile, petitioner shipped the payloader to Manila where it was weighed at the San Miguel Corporation. Finding that the payloader weighed 7.5 tons and not 2.5 tons as declared in the B-111 of Lading, (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods.

FERNAN, C.J.: Petitioner Compaia Maritima seeks to set aside through this petition 1 for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 5, 1965, adjudging petitioner liable to private respondent Vicente E. Concepcion for damages in the amount of P24,652.97 with legal interest from the date said decision shall have become final, for petitioner's failure to deliver safely private respondent's payloader, and for costs of suit. The payloader was declared abandoned in favor of petitioner. The facts of the case are as follows: Private respondent Vicente E. Concepcion, a civil engineer doing business under the name and style of Consolidated Construction with office address at Room 412, Don Santiago Bldg., Taft Avenue, Manila, had a contract with the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) sometime in 1964 for the construction of the airport in Cagayan de Oro City Misamis Oriental. Being a Manila based contractor, Vicente E. Concepcion had to ship his construction equipment to Cagayan de Oro City. Having shipped some of his equipment through petitioner and having settled the balance of P2,628.77 with respect to said shipment, Concepcion negotiated anew with petitioner, thru its collector, Pacifico Fernandez, on August 28, 1964 for the shipment to Cagayan de Oro City of one (1) unit payloader, four (4) units 6x6 Reo trucks and two (2) pieces of water tanks. He was issued Bill of Lading 113 on the same date upon delivery 2 of the equipment at the Manila North Harbor. These equipment were loaded aboard the MV Cebu in its Voyage No. 316, which left Manila on August 30, 1964 and arrived at Cagayan de Oro City in the afternoon of September 1, 1964. The Reo trucks and water tanks were safely unloaded within a few hours after arrival, but while the payloader was about two (2) meters above the pier in the course of unloading, the swivel pin of the heel block of the port block of 3 Hatch No. 2 gave way, causing the payloader to fall. The payloader was damaged and was thereafter taken to petitioner's compound in Cagayan de Oro City. On September 7, 1964, Consolidated Construction, thru Vicente E. Concepcion, wrote Compaia Maritima to demand a replacement of the payloader which it was considering as a complete loss because of the 4 extent of damage. Consolidated Construction likewise notified petitioner of its claim for damages. Unable to elicit response, the 5 demand was repeated in a letter dated October 2, 1964.

106
Petitioner claims absolute exemption under this provision upon the reasoning that private respondent's act of furnishing it with an inaccurate weight of the payloader constitutes misrepresentation within the meaning of "act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods" under the above- quoted article. It likewise faults the respondent Court of Appeals for reversing the decision of the trial court notwithstanding that said appellate court also found that by representing the weight of the payloader to be only 2.5 tons, private respondent had led petitioner's officer to believe that the same was within the 5 tons capacity of the heel block of Hatch No. 2. Petitioner would thus insist that the proximate and only cause of the damage to the payloader was private respondent's alleged misrepresentation of the weight of the machinery in question; hence, any resultant damage to it must be borne by private respondent Vicente E. Concepcion. The general rule under Articles 1735 and 1752 of the Civil Code is that common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently in case the goods transported by them are lost, destroyed or had deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of liability for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods under Article 1735, the common carriers must prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733 of the Civil Code. The responsibility of observing extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Article 1734 of the same Code, the article invoked by petitioner to avoid liability for damages. Corollary is the rule that mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in bad order, makes out prima facie case against the common carrier, so that if no explanation is given as to how the loss, deterioration or destruction of the goods occurred, the common carrier 10 must be held responsible. Otherwise stated, it is incumbent upon the common carrier to prove that the loss, deterioration or destruction was due to accident or some other circumstances inconsistent with its liability. In the instant case, We are not persuaded by the proferred explanation of petitioner alleged to be the proximate cause of the fall of the payloader while it was being unloaded at the Cagayan de Oro City pier. Petitioner seems to have overlooked the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers in the vigilance over the goods transported by them by virtue of the nature of their business, which is impressed with a special public duty. Thus, Article 1733 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reason of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them according to all the circumstances of each case. Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed in Articles 1734, 1735 and 1745, Nos. 5, 6 and 7, ... The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered for shipment requires the common carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to, or destruction of the goods entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery. It requires common carriers to render service with the greatest skill and foresight and "to use all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling 11 and stowage including such methods as their nature requires." Under Article 1736 of the Civil Code, the responsibility to observe extraordinary diligence commences and lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has the right to receive them without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1738. Where, as in the instant case, petitioner, upon the testimonies of its own crew, failed to take the necessary and adequate precautions for avoiding damage to, or destruction of, the payloader entrusted to it for safe carriage and delivery to Cagayan de Oro City, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the damage caused to the payloader was due to the alleged misrepresentation of private respondent Concepcion as to the correct and accurate weight of the payloader. As found by the respondent Court of Appeals, the fact is that petitioner used a 5-ton capacity lifting apparatus to lift and unload a visibly heavy cargo like a payloader. Private respondent has, likewise, sufficiently established the laxity and carelessness of petitioner's crew in their methods of ascertaining the weight of heavy cargoes offered for shipment before loading and unloading them, as is customary among careful persons. It must be noted that the weight submitted by private respondent 12 Concepcion appearing at the left-hand portion of Exhibit 8 as an addendum to the original enumeration of equipment to be shipped was entered into the bill of lading by petitioner, thru Pacifico Fernandez, a 13 company collector, without seeing the equipment to be shipped. Mr. Mariano Gupana, assistant traffic manager of petitioner, confirmed in his testimony that the company never checked the information entered 14 in the bill of lading. Worse, the weight of the payloader as entered in the bill of lading was assumed to be correct by Mr. Felix Pisang, Chief 15 Officer of MV Cebu. The weights stated in a bill of lading are prima facie evidence of the amount received and the fact that the weighing was done by another will not relieve the common carrier where it accepted such weight and 16 entered it on the bill of lading. Besides, common carriers can protect themselves against mistakes in the bill of lading as to weight by 17 exercising diligence before issuing the same. While petitioner has proven that private respondent Concepcion did furnish it with an inaccurate weight of the payloader, petitioner is nonetheless liable, for the damage caused to the machinery could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable skill and attention on its part in overseeing the unloading of such a heavy equipment. And circumstances clearly show that the fall of the payloader could have been avoided by petitioner's crew. Evidence on record sufficiently show that the crew of petitioner had been negligent in the performance of its obligation by reason of their having failed to take the necessary precaution under the circumstances which usage has established among careful persons, more particularly its Chief Officer, Mr. Felix Pisang, who is tasked with the over-all supervision of loading and unloading heavy cargoes and upon whom rests the burden of deciding as to what particular winch the unloading of the payloader should be undertaken. 18 While it was his duty to determine the weight of heavy cargoes before accepting them. Mr. Felix Pisang took the bill of lading on its face value 19 and presumed the same to be correct by merely "seeing" it. Acknowledging that there was a "jumbo" in the MV Cebu which has the capacity of lifting 20 to 25 ton cargoes, Mr. Felix Pisang chose not to use it, because according to him, since the ordinary boom has a capacity of 5 tons while the payloader was only 2.5 tons, he did not bother to use 20 the "jumbo" anymore.

107
In that sense, therefore, private respondent's act of furnishing petitioner with an inaccurate weight of the payloader upon being asked by petitioner's collector, cannot be used by said petitioner as an excuse to avoid liability for the damage caused, as the same could have been avoided had petitioner utilized the "jumbo" lifting apparatus which has a capacity of lifting 20 to 25 tons of heavy cargoes. It is a fact known to the Chief Officer of MV Cebu that the payloader was loaded aboard the MV Cebu at the Manila North Harbor on August 28, 1964 by means of a 21 terminal crane. Even if petitioner chose not to take the necessary precaution to avoid damage by checking the correct weight of the payloader, extraordinary care and diligence compel the use of the "jumbo" lifting apparatus as the most prudent course for petitioner. While the act of private respondent in furnishing petitioner with an inaccurate weight of the payloader cannot successfully be used as an excuse by petitioner to avoid liability to the damage thus caused, said act constitutes a contributory circumstance to the damage caused on the payloader, which mitigates the liability for damages of petitioner in accordance with Article 1741 of the Civil Code, to wit: Art. 1741. If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the common carrier, the latter shall be liable in damages, which however, shall be equitably reduced. We find equitable the conclusion of the Court of Appeals reducing the recoverable amount of damages by 20% or 1/5 of the value of the payloader, which at the time the instant case arose, was valued at P34,000. 00, thereby reducing the recoverable amount at 80% or 4/5 of P34,000.00 or the sum of P27,200.00. Considering that the freight charges for the entire cargoes shipped by private respondent amounting to P2,318.40 remained unpaid.. the same would be deducted from the P27,000.00 plus an additional deduction of P228.63 representing the freight charges for the undeclared weight of 5 tons (difference between 7.5 and 2.5 tons) leaving, therefore, a final recoverable amount of damages of P24,652.97 due to private respondent Concepcion. Notwithstanding the favorable judgment in his favor, private respondent assailed the Court of Appeals' decision insofar as it limited the damages due him to only P24,652.97 and the cost of the suit. Invoking the provisions on damages under the Civil Code, more particularly Articles 2200 and 2208, private respondent further seeks additional damages allegedly because the construction project was delayed and that in spite of his demands, petitioner failed to take any steps to settle his valid, just and demandable claim for damages. We find private respondent's submission erroneous. It is well- settled that an appellee, who is not an appellant, may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he may not do so if his purpose is to have the judgment modified or 22 reversed, for, in such case, he must appeal. Since private respondent did not appeal from the judgment insofar as it limited the award of damages due him, the reduction of 20% or 1/5 of the value of the payloader stands. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects with costs against petitioner. In view of the length of time this case has been pending, this decision is immediately executory.

108
G.R. No. L-62169 February 28, 1983 MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PACWELD STEEL CORPORATION and ATTY. CASIANO P. LAQUIHON respondents. Tolentino, Garcia, Cruz Reyes Law Office for petitioner. Casiano P. Laquihon for respondents. This appeal calls for the application of Arts. 1278, 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code, as urged by the appellant. Another question is: The judgment in Civil Case No. 75179 being already final at the time the motion under consideration was filed, does not the order of June 26, 1976 constitute a change or alteration of the said judgment, though issued by the very same court that rendered the judgment? WHEREFORE, since only questions of law are involved and there is no factual issue left for us to determine, let the records of the appeal in this case be certified to the Honorable Supreme Court for determination. After considering the briefs of the parties in the appellate court and the additional pleadings required of them by this Court, the Court finds merit in the appeal and sets aside the appealed orders of June 26 and August 28, 1978 of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila, Branch XX. It is clear from the record that both corporations, petitioner Mindanao Portland Cement Corporation (appellant) and respondent Pacweld Steel Corporation (appellee), were creditors and debtors of each other, their debts to each other consisting in final and executory judgments of the Court of First Instance in two (2) separate cases, ordering the payment to each other of the sum of P10,000.00 by way of attorney's fees. The two (2) obligations, therefore, respectively offset each other, compensation having taken effect by operation of law and extinguished both debts to the concurrent amount of P10,000.00, pursuant to the provisions of Arts. 1278, 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code, since all the requisites provided in Art. 1279 of the said Code for automatic compensation "even though the creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation" were duly present.** Necessarily, the appealed order of June 26, 1978 granting Atty. Laquihon's motion for amendment of the judgment of September 14, 1976 against Mindanao Portland Cement Corporation so as to make the award therein of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees payable directly to himself as counsel of Pacweld Steel Corporation instead of payable directly to said corporation as provided in the judgment, which had become final and executory long before the issuance of said "amendatory" order was a void alteration of judgment. It was a substantial change or amendment beyond the trial court's jurisdiction and authority and it could not defeat the compensation or set-off of the two (2) obligations of the corporations to each other which had already extinguished both debts by operation of law. pp. 24-25) and from the Order dated August 28, 1978 denying appellant's motion for reconsideration (Record on Appeal, p. 37). There was no trial or submission of documentary evidence. Against the orders of June 26. 1978, and August 28, 1978, appellant has brought this appeal to this Court, contending that: The lower court erred in not holding that the two obligations are extinguished reciprocally by operation of law.' (p. 6, Appellant's Brief)

TEEHANKEE, J.: The Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) certified petitioner's appeal therein as defendant-appellant, docketed as C.A.G.R. No. 65102 thereof, to this Court as involving only questions of law in its Resolution of August 31, 1982, reading as follows: The 'Statement of the Case and the Statement of Facts' contained in appellant's brief follow: STATEMENT OF FACTS On January 3, 1978, one Atty. Casiano P. Laquihon, in behalf of thirdparty defendant Pacweld Steel Corporation (Pacweld for short) as the latter's attorney, filed a pleading addressed to the defendant & ThirdParty Plaintiff Mindanao Portland Cement Corporation (MPCC) for short), herein appellant, entitled 'motion to direct payment of attorney's fee to counsel' (himself ), invoking in his motion the fact that in the decision of the court of Sept. 14, 1976, MPCC was adjudged to pay Pacweld the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees (Record on Appeal, pp. 1, 6-9). On March 14, 1978, MPCC filed an opposition to Atty. Laquihon's motion, stating, as grounds therefor, that said amount is set-off by a like sum of P10,000.00 which it MPCC has collectible in its favor from Pacweld also by way of attorney's fees which MPCC recovered from the same Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XX) in Civil Case No. 68346, entitled Pacweld Steel Corporation, et al. writ of execution to this effect having been issued by said court (Record on Appeal, pp, 2,1014). On June 26, 1978 the court issued the order appealed from (Record on Appeal, pp. 24-25) and despite MPCCs motion for reconsideration of said order, citing the law applicable and Supreme Court decisions (Record on Appeal, pp. 26-33), denied the same in its order of August 28, 1978 (Record on Appeal, p. 37), also subject matter of this appeal. The writ of execution referred to above which MPCC has invoked to setoff the amount sought to be collected by Pacweld through the latter's lawyer, Atty. Casiano P. Laquihon, is hereunder quoted in full. In his brief, appellee comments that the statements in appellant's brief are 'substantially correct,' as follows: STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch X dated June 26, 1978 ordering the appellant (MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORPORATION) to pay the amount of P10,000.00 attorney's fees directly to Atty. Casiano B. Laquihon (Record on Appeal,