Professional Documents
Culture Documents
149004
The Facts
The CA summarized the facts of the case in
this wise:
"The present controversy arose from a case
for collection of money, filed by Alex A.
Jaucian against Restituta Imperial, on
October 26, 1989. The complaint alleges,
inter alia, that defendant obtained from
plaintiff six (6) separate loans for which the
former executed in favor of the latter six (6)
separate promissory notes and issued
several checks as guarantee for payment.
Page 1 of 109
Rate of Interest
Petitioner raises the following arguments for
our consideration:
"1. That the petitioner has fully paid her
obligations even before filing of this case.
"2. That the charging of interest of twentyeight (28%) per centum per annum without
any writing is illegal.
"3. That charging of excessive attorneys
fees is hemorrhagic.
"4. Charging of excessive penalties per
month is in the guise of hidden interest.
"5. The non-inclusion of the husband of the
petitioner at the time the case was filed
should have dismissed this case."8
The Courts Ruling
The Petition has no merit.
First Issue:
Computation of Outstanding Obligation
Arguing that she had already fully paid the
loan before the filing of the case, petitioner
alleges that the two lower courts
misappreciated the facts when they ruled
that she still had an outstanding balance of
P208,430.
This issue involves a question of fact. Such
question exists when a doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or the falsehood of
alleged facts; and when there is need for a
calibration of the evidence, considering
mainly the credibility of witnesses and the
existence and the relevancy of specific
surrounding circumstances, their relation to
each other and to the whole, and the
probabilities of the situation.9
It is a well-entrenched rule that pure
questions of fact may not be the subject of
an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, as this remedy is generally
confined to questions of law.10 The
jurisdiction of this Court over cases brought
to it is limited to the review and rectification
of errors of law allegedly committed by the
lower court. As a rule, the latters factual
findings, when adopted and affirmed by the
CA, are final and conclusive and may not be
reviewed on appeal.11
Generally, this Court is not required to
analyze and weigh all over again the
evidence already considered in the
proceedings below.12 In the present case,
we find no compelling reason to overturn
the factual findings of the RTC -- that the
total amount of the loans extended to
petitioner was P320,000, and that she paid
a total of only P116,540 on twenty-nine
We are not persuaded. The husbands nonjoinder does not warrant dismissal, as it is
merely a formal requirement that may be
cured by amendment.20 Since petitioner
alleges that her husband has already
passed away, such an amendment has thus
become moot.
Page 2 of 109
December 8,
TOTAL P 35,725.00
After honoring Check Nos. 0010494,
0010495 and 0010496, Jocelyn ordered the
stop payment on the remaining checks and
on October 27, 1998, filed with the RTC of
Cebu City a complaint6 against Marilou for
Declaration of Nullity and Payment,
Annulment, Sum of Money, Injunction and
Damages.
Jocelyn averred that Marilou forced,
threatened and intimidated her into signing
the "Acknowledgment of Debt" and at the
same time forced her to issue the seven
postdated checks. She claimed that Marilou
even threatened to sue her for violation of
Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 or the
Bouncing Checks Law if she will not sign
the said document and draw the abovementioned checks. Jocelyn further claimed
that the application of her total payment of
P528,550.00 to interest alone is illegal,
unfounded, unjust, oppressive and contrary
to law because there was no written
agreement to pay interest.
On November 23, 1998, Marilou filed an
Answer7 with Special Affirmative Defenses
and Counterclaim alleging that Jocelyn
voluntarily obtained the said loans knowing
fully well that the interest rate was at 6% to
7% per month. In fact, a 6% to 7% advance
interest was already deducted from the loan
amount given to Jocelyn.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The court a quo did not find any showing
that Jocelyn was forced, threatened, or
intimidated in signing the document referred
to as "Acknowledgment of Debt" and in
issuing the postdated checks. Thus, in its
March 10, 2003 Decision the trial court ruled
in favor of Marilou, viz:
WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing,
the Court hereby declares the document
"Acknowledgment of Debt" valid and
binding. PLAINTIFF is indebted to
DEFENDANT [for] the amount of TWO
HUNDRED
NINETY
THOUSAND
(P290,000.00) PESOS since December 25,
1998 less the amount of EIGHTEEN
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED (P18,900.00)
PESOS, equivalent to the three checks
made good (P6,625.00 dated 07-02-1998;
P6,300.00
dated
08-02-1998;
and
P5,975.00 dated 09-02-1998).
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.8
Respondents Arguments
Consequently, PLAINTIFF
is
hereby
ordered to pay DEFENDANT the amount of
TWO
HUNDRED
SEVENTY
ONE
THOUSAND
ONE
HUNDRED
(P271,100.00) PESOS due on December
25, 1998 with a 12% interest per annum or
1% interest per month until such time that
the said amount shall have been fully paid.
Page 3 of 109
Page 4 of 109
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 171925
SOLIDBANK
CORPORATION,
(now
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company),
Petitioner,
vs.
PERMANENT HOMES, INCORPORATED,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 171925 is a petition for review1
assailing the Decision2 promulgated on 29
June 2005 by the Court of Appeals
(appellate court) as well as the Resolution3
promulgated on 14 March 2006 in CA-G.R.
CV No. 75926. The appellate court granted
the petition filed by Permanent Homes,
Incorporated (Permanent) and reversed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch 58 (trial court) dated 5
July 2002 in Civil Case No. 98-654. The
appellate
court
ordered
Solidbank
Corporation (Solidbank) and Permanent to
enter into an express agreement about the
applicable interest rates on Permanents
loan. Solidbank was also ordered to render
an accounting of Permanents payments,
not to impose interest on interest upon
Permanents loans, and to release the
remaining
amount
available
under
Permanents omnibus credit line.
The Facts
The appellate court narrated the facts as
follows:
The records disclose that PERMANENT
HOMES is a real estate development
company, and to finance its housing project
known as the "Buena Vida Townhomes"
located
within
Merville
Subdivision,
Paraaque City, it applied and was
subsequently granted by SOLIDBANK with
an "Omnibus Line" credit facility in the total
amount of SIXTY MILLION PESOS. Of the
entire loan, FIFTY NINE MILLION as [sic]
time loan for a term of up to three hundred
sixty (360) days, with interest thereon at
prevailing market rates, and subject to
monthly repricing. The remaining ONE
Page 5 of 109
xxxx
Page 6 of 109
Page 7 of 109
FELIPE
Page 8 of 109
Page 9 of 109
Page 10 of 109
on
the
the
the
No.
Page 11 of 109
Page 12 of 109
July 5, 1996
Page 13 of 109
Page 14 of 109
COURT:
COURT:
Talk to you?
A To discuss the matter of sale to me at
Dimsum Sir
ATTY. BORRES:
Q And you really did go to Bataan.
Q And so you really met at Dimsum.
A Yes, I did.
A Yes, Ma'am.
xxxxxx
xxx
xxx
Page 15 of 109
Page 16 of 109
October 7, 1996
P1,190,000.00 Balance
Received from Miss Ramona Patricia
Alcaraz of 146 Timog, Quezon City, the sum
of Fifty Thousand Pesos purchase price of
our inherited house and lot, covered by TCT
No. 119627 of the Registry of Deeds of
Quezon City, in the total amount of
P1,240,000.00.
We bind ourselves to effect the transfer in
our names from our deceased father,
Constancio P. Coronel, the transfer
certificate of title immediately upon receipt
of the down payment above-stated.
On our presentation of the TCT already in or
name, We will immediately execute the
deed of absolute sale of said property and
Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz shall
immediately pay the balance of the
P1,190,000.00.
Clearly, the conditions appurtenant to the
sale are the following:
1. Ramona will make a down payment of
Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos upon
execution of the document aforestated;
2. The Coronels will cause the transfer in
their names of the title of the property
registered in the name of their deceased
father upon receipt of the Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00) Pesos down payment;
3. Upon the transfer in their names of the
subject property, the Coronels will execute
the deed of absolute sale in favor of
Ramona and the latter will pay the former
the whole balance of One Million One
Hundred Ninety Thousand (P1,190,000.00)
Pesos.
On the same date (January 15, 1985),
plaintiff-appellee Concepcion D. Alcaraz
(hereinafter referred to as Concepcion),
mother of Ramona, paid the down payment
of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos (Exh.
"B", Exh. "2").
On February 6, 1985, the property originally
registered in the name of the Coronels'
father was transferred in their names under
TCT
No. 327043 (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4")
On February 18, 1985, the Coronels sold
the property covered by TCT No. 327043 to
intervenor-appellant Catalina B. Mabanag
(hereinafter referred to as Catalina) for One
Million Five Hundred Eighty Thousand
(P1,580,000.00) Pesos after the latter has
paid
Three
Hundred
Thousand
(P300,000.00) Pesos (Exhs. "F-3"; Exh. "6C")
For this reason, Coronels canceled and
rescinded the contract (Exh. "A") with
Ramona by depositing the down payment
paid by Concepcion in the bank in trust for
Ramona Patricia Alcaraz.
On February 22, 1985, Concepcion, et al.,
filed a complaint for specific performance
against the Coronels and caused the
annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the
back of TCT No. 327403 (Exh. "E"; Exh.
"5").
Page 17 of 109
No pronouncement as to costs.
So Ordered.
Macabebe, Pampanga for Quezon City,
March 1, 1989.
(Rollo, p. 106)
A motion for reconsideration was filed by
petitioner before the new presiding judge of
the Quezon City RTC but the same was
denied by Judge Estrella T. Estrada, thusly:
The prayer contained in the instant motion,
i.e., to annul the decision and to render
anew decision by the undersigned Presiding
Judge should be denied for the following
reasons: (1) The instant case became
submitted for decision as of April 14, 1988
when
the
parties
terminated
the
presentation
of
their
respective
documentary evidence and when the
Presiding Judge at that time was Judge
Reynaldo Roura. The fact that they were
allowed to file memoranda at some future
date did not change the fact that the hearing
of the case was terminated before Judge
Roura and therefore the same should be
submitted to him for decision; (2) When the
defendants and intervenor did not object to
the authority of Judge Reynaldo Roura to
decide the case prior to the rendition of the
decision, when they met for the first time
before the undersigned Presiding Judge at
the hearing of a pending incident in Civil
Case No. Q-46145 on November 11, 1988,
they were deemed to have acquiesced
thereto and they are now estopped from
questioning said authority of Judge Roura
after they received the decision in question
which happens to be adverse to them; (3)
While it is true that Judge Reynaldo Roura
was merely a Judge-on-detail at this Branch
of the Court, he was in all respects the
Presiding Judge with full authority to act on
any pending incident submitted before this
Court during his incumbency. When he
returned to his Official Station at Macabebe,
Pampanga, he did not lose his authority to
decide or resolve such cases submitted to
him for decision or resolution because he
continued as Judge of the Regional Trial
Court and is of co-equal rank with the
undersigned Presiding Judge. The standing
rule and supported by jurisprudence is that
a Judge to whom a case is submitted for
decision has the authority to decide the
case notwithstanding his transfer to another
branch or region of the same court (Sec. 9,
Rule 135, Rule of Court).
Coming now to the twin prayer for
reconsideration of the Decision dated March
1, 1989 rendered in the instant case,
resolution of which now pertains to the
undersigned Presiding Judge, after a
meticulous examination of the documentary
evidence presented by the parties, she is
convinced that the Decision of March 1,
1989 is supported by evidence and,
therefore, should not be disturbed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
"Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Annul
Decision and Render Anew Decision by the
Incumbent Presiding Judge" dated March
20, 1989 is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Page 18 of 109
Page 19 of 109
Page 20 of 109
xxx
30 June 1989
April 9, 2003
Page 21 of 109
RECEIPT
RECEIVED from MR. TOMAS K. CHUA
PBCom Check No. 206011 in the amount of
ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
ONLY (P100,000.00) as EARNEST MONEY
for the sale of the property located at 40
Tampingco cor. Hidalgo, San Lorenzo
Village, Makati, Metro Manila (Area : 718 sq.
meters).
CONFORME:
ENCARNACION VALDES
Seller
TOMAS K. CHUA
Buyer
x x x.7
In the morning of 13 July 1989, Chua
secured from Philippine Bank of Commerce
("PBCom") a manager's check for
P480,000.00. Strangely, after securing the
manager's check, Chua immediately gave
PBCom a verbal stop payment order
claiming that this manager's check for
P480,000.00 "was lost and/or misplaced."8
On the same day, after receipt of Chua's
verbal order, PBCom Assistant Vice
President Julie C. Pe notified in writing9 the
PBCom Operations Group of Chua's stop
payment order.
In the afternoon of 13 July 1989, Chua and
Valdes-Choy met with their respective
counsels to execute the necessary
documents and arrange the payments.10
Valdes-Choy as vendor and Chua as
vendee signed two Deeds of Absolute Sale
("Deeds of Sale"). The first Deed of Sale
covered the house and lot for the purchase
price of P8,000,000.00.11 The second Deed
of Sale covered the furnishings, fixtures and
movable properties contained in the house
for the purchase price of P2,800,000.00.12
The parties also computed the capital gains
tax to amount to P485,000.00.
On 14 July 1989, the parties met again at
the office of Valdes-Choy's counsel. Chua
handed to Valdes-Choy the PBCom
manager's check for P485,000.00 so
Valdes-Choy could pay the capital gains tax
as she did not have sufficient funds to pay
the tax. Valdes-Choy issued a receipt
showing that Chua had a remaining balance
of P10,215,000.00 after deducting the
advances made by Chua. This receipt
reads:
July 14, 1989
Received from MR. TOMAS K. CHUA
PBCom. Check No. 325851 in the amount
P10,800,000.00
EARNEST MONEY
P100,000.00
PARTIAL PAYMENT
485,000.00
585,000.00
BALANCE DUE TO
ENCARNACION VALDEZ-CHOY
P10,215,000.00
PLUS P80,000.00 for documentary stamps
paid in advance by seller
80,000.00
P10,295,000.00
x x x.13
On the same day, 14 July 1989, ValdesChoy, accompanied by Chua, deposited the
P485,000.00 manager's check to her
account with Traders Royal Bank. She then
purchased a Traders Royal Bank manager's
check for P480,000.00 payable to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the
capital gains tax. Valdes-Choy and Chua
returned to the office of Valdes-Choy's
counsel and handed the Traders Royal
Bank check to the counsel who undertook to
pay the capital gains tax. It was then also
that Chua showed to Valdes-Choy a
PBCom
manager's
check
for
P10,215,000.00 representing the balance of
the purchase price. Chua, however, did not
give this PBCom manager's check to
Valdes-Choy because the TCT was still
registered in the name of Valdes-Choy.
Chua required that the Property be
registered first in his name before he would
turn over the check to Valdes-Choy. This
angered Valdes-Choy who tore up the
Deeds of Sale, claiming that what Chua
required was not part of their agreement.14
On the same day, 14 July 1989, Chua
confirmed his stop payment order by
submitting to PBCom an affidavit of loss15
of the PBCom Manager's Check for
Page 22 of 109
The trial court held that Chua's nonpayment of the balance of P10,215,000.00
on the agreed date was due to ValdesChoy's fault.
Page 23 of 109
Page 24 of 109
x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Prior to the existence of the contract of sale,
the seller is not obligated to transfer
ownership to the buyer, even if there is a
contract to sell between them. It is also
upon the existence of the contract of sale
that the buyer is obligated to pay the
purchase price to the seller. Since the
transfer of ownership is in exchange for the
purchase price, these obligations must be
simultaneously fulfilled at the time of the
execution of the contract of sale, in the
absence of a contrary stipulation.
In a contract of sale, the obligations of the
seller are specified in Article 1495 of the
Civil Code, as follows:
Art. 1495. The vendor is bound to transfer
the ownership of and deliver, as well as
warrant the thing which is the object of the
sale. (Emphasis supplied)
The obligation of the seller is to transfer to
the buyer ownership of the thing sold. In the
sale of real property, the seller is not
obligated to transfer in the name of the
buyer a new certificate of title, but rather to
transfer ownership of the real property.
There is a difference between transfer of the
certificate of title in the name of the buyer,
and transfer of ownership to the buyer. The
buyer may become the owner of the real
property even if the certificate of title is still
registered in the name of the seller. As
between the seller and buyer, ownership is
transferred not by the issuance of a new
certificate of title in the name of the buyer
but by the execution of the instrument of
sale in a public document.
In a contract of sale, ownership is
transferred upon delivery of the thing sold.
As the noted civil law commentator Arturo
M. Tolentino explains it, Delivery is not only a necessary condition
for the enjoyment of the thing, but is a mode
of acquiring dominion and determines the
transmission of ownership, the birth of the
Page 25 of 109
Sale
covering
the
xxx
For and in consideration of the sum of TWO
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS
(P2,800,000.00),
Philippine
Currency, receipt of which in full is hereby
acknowledged by the VENDOR from the
VENDEE, the VENDOR sells, transfers and
conveys unto the VENDEE, his heirs,
successors and assigns, the said furnitures,
fixtures and other movable properties
thereon,
free
from
all liens
and
encumbrances.35 (Emphasis supplied)
However, on the agreed date, Chua refused
to pay the balance of the purchase price as
required by the contract to sell, the signed
Deeds of Sale, and Article 1582 of the Civil
Code. Chua was therefore in default and
has only himself to blame for the rescission
by Valdes-Choy of the contract to sell.
Even if measured under existing usage or
custom, Valdes-Choy had all her papers "in
proper order." Article 1376 of the Civil Code
provides that:
Art. 1376. The usage or custom of the place
shall be borne in mind in the interpretation
of the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill
the omission of stipulations which are
ordinarily established.
Customarily, in the absence of a contrary
agreement, the submission by an individual
seller to the buyer of the following papers
would complete a sale of real estate: (1)
owner's duplicate copy of the Torrens
title;36 (2) signed deed of absolute sale; (3)
tax declaration; and (3) latest realty tax
receipt. The buyer can retain the amount for
the capital gains tax and pay it upon
Page 26 of 109
Page 27 of 109
Separate Opinions
Page 28 of 109
NAZARIO
TRILLANA,
administratorappellee,
vs.
QUEZON COLLEGE, INC., claimantappellant.
Singson, Barnes, Yap and Blanco for
appellant.
Delgado, Flores & Macapagal for
appellee.
Damasa Crisostomo sent the following letter
to the Board of Trustees of the Quezon
College:
June 1, 1948
The BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Quezon College
Manila
Gentlemen:
Please enter my subscription to dalawang
daan (200) shares of your capital stock with
a par value of P100 each. Enclosed you will
find (Babayaran kong lahat pagkatapos na
ako ay makapag-pahuli ng isda) pesos as
my initial payment and the balance payable
in accordance with law and the rules and
regulations of the Quezon College. I hereby
agree to shoulder the expenses connected
with said shares of stock. I further submit
myself to all lawful demands, decisions or
Page 29 of 109
Page 30 of 109
That
xxxxxx
VIRGILIO R. ROMERO
CHUA VDA.
xxx
(Sgd.)
(Sgd.)
ENRIQUETA
DE ONGSIONG
Vendee
Vendor
(Sgd.)
(Sgd.)
Rowena C. Ongsiong
1
Jack M. Cruz
Page 31 of 109
Page 32 of 109
Page 33 of 109
Page 34 of 109
Page 35 of 109
in
the
amount
of
VI
VII
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT
DISMISSING OF (SIC) THE CASE ON THE
GROUNDS OF IMPROPER VENUE AND
LACK OF JURISDICTION.
II
IV
Page 36 of 109
Page 37 of 109
Page 38 of 109
of those whose
interpret."70
language
he
is
to
Page 39 of 109
September 5,
On November 28, 1991, the trial court
ordered:9
Page 40 of 109
The Issues
Severina's heirs submit that the Court of
Appeals erred and committed grave abuse
of discretion: First, when it held that the
kasunduan had no effect on the "kasulatan
sa bilihan ng lupa." Second, when it ordered
them to surrender the certificate of title to
Dominador, et al., despite non-compliance
with their prior obligations stipulated under
the kasunduan. Third, when it did not find
that the kasunduan was null and void for
having been entered into by Dominador, et
al. fraudulently and in bad faith.31
We find the above issues raised by
Severina's heirs to be factual. The question
whether the prerequisites to justify release
of the certificate of title to Dominador, et al.
have been complied with is a question of
fact.32
However, we sift through the arguments and
identify the main legal issue, which is
whether Dominador, et al. may be
compelled to pay the three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) as agreed
upon in the kasunduan (as a pre-requisite
for the release of the certificate of title),
despite Severina's heirs' lack of evidence of
ownership over the parcel of land covered
by LRC Psu-1312.
The Court's Ruling
We resolve the issue in the negative, and
find the petition without merit.
Severina's heirs anchor their claim on the
kasunduan, stressing on their freedom to
stipulate and the binding effect of contracts.
This argument is misplaced.33 The Civil
Code provides:
ARTICLE 1306.
The
contracting
parties may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may
deem convenient provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy (italics ours).
It is basic that the law is deemed written into
every contract.34 Although a contract is the
law between the parties, the provisions of
positive law which regulate contracts are
deemed written therein and shall limit and
govern the relations between the parties.35
The Civil Code provisions on "sales" state:
Page 41 of 109
ARTICLE 1458.
By the contract of sale
one of the contracting parties obligates
himself to transfer the ownership of and to
deliver a determinate thing, and the other to
pay a price certain in money or its
equivalent. . . .
ARTICLE 1459.
The thing must be licit
and the vendor must have a right to transfer
the ownership thereof at the time it is
delivered.
ARTICLE 1495.
The vendor is bound
to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as
well as warrant the thing which is the object
of sale (emphasis ours).
True, in contracts of sale, the vendor need
not possess title to the thing sold at the
perfection of the contract.36 However, the
vendor must possess title and must be able
to transfer title at the time of delivery. In a
contract of sale, title only passes to the
vendee upon full payment of the stipulated
consideration, or upon delivery of the thing
sold.37
Under the facts of the case, Severina's heirs
are not in a position to transfer title. Without
passing on the question of who actually
owned the land covered by LRC Psu -1312,
we note that there is no proof of ownership
in favor of Severina's heirs. In fact, it is a
certain Emiliano Eugenio, who holds a tax
declaration over the said land in his
name.38 Though tax declarations do not
prove ownership of the property of the
declarant, tax declarations and receipts can
be strong evidence of ownership of land
when accompanied by possession for a
period
sufficient
for
prescription.39
Severina's heirs have nothing to counter this
document.
Therefore, to insist that Dominador, et al.
pay the price under such circumstances
would result in Severina's heirs' unjust
enrichment.40 Basic is the principle in law,
"Niguno
non
deue
enriquecerse
tortizamente condano de otro."41 The
essence of a sale is the transfer of title or an
agreement to transfer it for a price actually
paid or promised.42 In Nool v. Court of
Appeals,43 we held that if the sellers cannot
deliver the object of the sale to the buyers,
such contract may be deemed to be
inoperative. By analogy, such a contract
may fall under Article 1405, No. 5 of the
Civil Code, to wit:
ARTICLE 1405.
The
following
contracts are inexistent and void from the
beginning: . . .
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible
service.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Page 42 of 109
Page 43 of 109
Page 44 of 109
eminent
domain
and
discontinued its activities.
the
airport
M. D. TAYLOR, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
UY TIENG PIAO and TAN LIUAN, doing
business under the firm name and style
of Tan Liuan & Company, defendants.
Uy TIENG PIAO, defendant-appellant.
October 2, 1922
Page 45 of 109
Page 46 of 109
In
their
Answer
with
Compulsory
Counterclaim,9 the spouses Bonrostro
averred that they were willing to pay their
total balance of P630,000.00 to the spouses
Luna after they sought from them a 60-day
extension to pay the same.10 However,
during the time that they were ready to pay
the said amount in the last week of October
1993, Constancia and her lawyer, Atty.
Arlene Carbon (Atty. Carbon), did not show
up at their rendezvous. On November 24,
1993, Lourdes sent Atty. Carbon a letter11
expressing her desire to pay the balance,
but received no response from the latter.
Claiming that they are still willing to settle
their obligation, the spouses Bonrostro
prayed that the court fix the period within
which they can pay the spouses Luna.
The spouses Bonrostro likewise belied that
they were not paying the monthly
amortization to New Capitol Estates and
asserted that on November 18, 1993, they
paid Bliss, the developer of New Capitol
Estates, the amount of P46,303.44. Later
during
trial,
Lourdes
testified
that
Constancia instructed Bliss not to accept
amortization payments from anyone as
evidenced by her March 4, 1993 letter12 to
Bliss.
Page 47 of 109
SO ORDERED.14
As their Motion for Reconsideration15 was
likewise denied in an Order16 dated July
15, 1997, the spouses Luna appealed to the
CA.17
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision18 of April 15, 2005, the CA
concluded that since the contract entered
into by and between the parties is a
Contract to Sell, rescission is not the proper
remedy. Moreover, the subject contract
being specifically a contract to sell a real
property on installment basis, it is governed
by Republic Act No. 655219 or the Maceda
Law, Section 4 of which states:
Sec. 4. In case where less than two years of
installment were paid, the seller shall give
the buyer a grace period of not less than
sixty days from the date the installment
became due.
If the buyer fails to pay the installments due
at the expiration of the grace period, the
seller may cancel the contract after thirty
days from receipt by the buyer of the notice
of cancellation or the demand for rescission
SO ORDERED.22
The spouses Luna no longer assailed the
ruling. On the other hand, the spouses
Bonrostro filed a Partial Motion for
Reconsideration23 questioning the abovementioned modifications. The CA, however,
denied for lack of merit the said motion in a
Resolution24 dated April 17, 2006.
Hence, this
Certiorari.
Petition
for
Review
on
Our Ruling
The Petition lacks merit.
The spouses Bonrostros reliance on the
RTCs factual finding that Lourdes was
willing and ready to pay on November 24,
1993 is misplaced.
Issue
The basic issue in this case is whether the
CA correctly modified the RTC Decision with
respect to interests.
The Parties Arguments
Page 48 of 109
Page 49 of 109
Principal
P 40,000.00
Regular Interest
5,046.97
Additional Interest
92,113.56
Penalty Charges
39,915.46
Total claims as of January 31, 1989
P
177,075.99 19
Claiming to have already paid P902,800.00,
Edmundo requested for an amended
statement of account.20
Page 50 of 109
On May 4, 1990, Edmundo made a followup on the request for recomputation of the
two accounts.21 On May 17, 1990, DBPs
General Santos Branch informed Edmundo
that the Diamond L Ranch Account
amounted to P2,542,285.60 as of May 31,
199022 and that the mortgaged properties
located at San Isidro, Lagao, General
Santos City, had been subjected to
Operation Land Transfer under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) of the government.23 Edmundo
was also advised to discuss with the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and
the Main Office of DBP24 the matter of the
expropriated properties.
xxxx
Failure on your part to comply with these
conditions, the Bank will undertake
appropriate legal measures to protect its
interest.
Please give this matter your preferential
attention.61
On November 8, 1993, Edmundo sent
Tamayo a telegram, which reads:
Acknowledge receipt of your Sept. 27 letter.
I would like to finalize documentation of
restructuring Diamond L Ranch and Carlos
Lim Accounts. However, we would need
clarification on amortizations due on NTFI
means [sic]. I will call x x x your Legal
Department at DBP Head Office by Nov. 11.
Pls. advise who[m] I should contact. Thank
you.62
Receiving
no
response,
Edmundo
scheduled a meeting with Tamayo in
Manila.63 During their meeting, Tamayo told
Page 51 of 109
the
matter
your
utmost
answered
Edmundos
[Respondent] Banks
hereby DISMISSED.
counterclaims
are
considered,
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.97
Issues
Page 52 of 109
Page 53 of 109
Page 54 of 109
Q:
A:
The same paragraph as stated.
Q:
Can you please read the portion referring to
penalty?
A:
All unpaid amortization shall bear interest at
the rate of 11% per annum.
Q:
The additional interest is based on 11% per
annum and the penalty is likewise based on
the same rate?
A:
Yes, it is combined (TSN, 28 May 1996, pp.
39-40.)
With respect to the Diamond L. Ranch
account in the amount of P960,000.00, Mr.
Ancheta testified as follows:
Q:
Going back to Exhibit 14 Statement of
Accounts. Out of the principal of
P939,973.33 you imposed an additional
interest of P1,233,893.79 plus P859,966.83
plus P27,206.45. Can you tell us what is the
basis of the imposition?
A:
As earlier stated, it is only the Promissory
Note as well as the Mortgage Contract.
Q:
Please point to us where in the Promissory
Note is the specific portion?
A:
In Exhibit 1: "in case of failure to pay in full
any amortization when due, a penalty
charge of 1/3% per month on the overdue
amortization shall be paid."
Q:
What is the rate?
A:
Page 55 of 109
for
Ruben
F.
Balane
respondent/petitioner.
for
Bautista
is
hereby
is
hereby
Page 56 of 109
Page 57 of 109
Page 58 of 109
Page 59 of 109
xxx
Page 60 of 109
Page 61 of 109
July 6, 1993
VERMEN
REALTY
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and SENECA
HARDWARE CO., INC., respondents.
Ramon P. Gutierrez for petitioner.
Page 62 of 109
Page 63 of 109
VITUG, J.:
The parties pose this question: May the
vendor demand the rescission of a contract
for the sale of a parcel of land for a cause
traceable to his own failure to have the
squatters on the subject property evicted
within the contractually-stipulated period?
Petitioner Virgilio R. Romero, a civil
engineer, was engaged in the business of
production, manufacture and exportation of
perlite filter aids, permalite insulation and
processed perlite ore. In 1988, petitioner
and his foreign partners decided to put up a
central warehouse in Metro Manila on a
land area of approximately 2,000 square
meters. The project was made known to
several freelance real estate brokers.
A day or so after the announcement,
Alfonso Flores and his wife, accompanied
by a broker, offered a parcel of land
measuring 1,952 square meters. Located in
Barangay San Dionisio, Paraaque, Metro
Manila, the lot was covered by TCT No.
361402 in the name of private respondent
Enriqueta Chua vda. de Ongsiong.
Petitioner visited the property and, except
for the presence of squatters in the area, he
found the place suitable for a central
warehouse.
Later, the Flores spouses called on
petitioner with a proposal that should he
advance the amount of P50,000.00 which
could be used in taking up an ejectment
case against the squatters, private
respondent would agree to sell the property
for only P800.00 per square meter.
Petitioner expressed his concurrence. On
09 June 1988, a contract, denominated
"Deed of Conditional Sale," was executed
between petitioner and private respondent.
The simply-drawn contract read:
DEED OF CONDITIONAL SALE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This Contract, made and executed in the
Municipality of Makati, Philippines this 9th
day of June, 1988 by and between:
Page 64 of 109
That
xxx
(Sgd.)
VIRGILIO R. ROMERO
CHUA VDA.
ENRIQUETA
Vendor
(Sgd.)
Rowena C. Ongsiong
1
DE ONGSIONG
Vendee
Jack M. Cruz
Page 65 of 109
Page 66 of 109
xxx
xxxxxx
10/24/89
xxx
Bulacan
plus C. G. T. etc.
Check # 470393
Genato
(SGD.)
Ramon
B.
10/24/89 9
On October 25, 1989, Genato deposited
Cheng's check. On the same day, Cheng
called up Genato reminding him to register
the affidavit to annul the contract to sell. 10
Page 67 of 109
judgment
is
hereby
xxx
Page 68 of 109
Page 69 of 109
Page 70 of 109
xxx
P2,758,968.49
P558,110.44
2. Comm'l loan
P1,393,974.20
P835,863.76
c) MERCATOR
1,846,012.96
FINANCE
CORP.
TOTAL
P5,998,955.65
Page 71 of 109
Aug. 23,
3504 14 Victoria
P100,000.00
b) A.G. Asuncion
1984
c) V.M. de Vera
Aug. 29,
3547 15 Victoria
P100,000.00
Gregorio
Gregorio
1984
Total
P500,000.00
Respondent
Date of
Payment
Paid
Voucher No.
(Sgd.)
of the Money
(Sgd.)
Aug. 8,
3224 18 PAIC
P200,000.00 19
1984
Savings
&
Mortgage Bank
Aug. 27,
3310 20 PAIC
P100,000.00 21
(Sgd.)
M.
xxx 11
Payment
Paid
Voucher No.
Aug. 15,
3468 13 Victoria
P100,000.00
1984
1984
Savings
Private
25
Private
1984.
Aside from paying the aforesaid amount of
three
hundred
thousand
pesos
(P300,000.00) to PAIC Savings & Mortgage
Bank in compliance with paragraph 5 of the
Memorandum of Agreement requiring
petitioner to assume the loan obligations of
private respondent, petitioner also paid four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) in
favor of Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings and
Loan Association for the restructuring of
private respondent's 26 loan and one
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) 27
for the restructuring of his loan with
Mercator Finance Corporation.
In substantial compliance with paragraph 11
wherein petitioner was further obligated to
provide credit in the amount of two hundred
fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) to be
exclusively spent for the operations of the
piggery but payable to him within one (1)
year from the grant thereof with stated
interest of 24% per annum, petitioner made
available two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00). 28
Under paragraph 13, petitioner paid one
hundred forty four thousand nine hundred
forty one pesos and eighty eight centavos
(P144,941.88) for feed ingredients, mixed
feeds and veterinary supplies included in
the inventory turned over by private
respondent to petitioner. Petitioner made
the payment in the following tranches:
and
Date of
Recipient
Disbursement/
Amount
Actual
Payment
Paid
Cash Voucher
of the Money
Mortgage Bank
of the Money
Gregorio
24
1984
Oct. 16,
DV No. 3878
Respondent P100,000.00
Sept. 26,
3765 16 Private
P200,000.00
Sept. 26,
DV No. 3770
Respondent P30,000.00
d) E. LI. Umali
1984
1984
Payment
Paid
Voucher No.
Sept. 19,
Gregorio
of the Money
Page 72 of 109
Tamaliga
R.
Tamaliga
Aug. 23,
DV No. 411 33
P17,941.88
1985
(for
TOTAL
R.
Aug. 16,
DV No. 379 32
P30,000.00
1985
Date of
private
private
P144,941.88
R.
Tamaliga
respondent)
xxx
(1) P32,644,420.55
as
actual
or
compensatory damages arising from the
rescission of the Memorandum of
Agreement with legal rate of interest at 6%
per annum until fully paid;
xxx
Page 73 of 109
documents
of
conveyance
for
the
mortgaged parcels of land and to deliver the
certificates of stock in Embassy Farms in
favor of petitioner. He stated on the witness
stand, thus:
ATTY. MECIAS:
xxxxxx
xxx
xxx 40
Page 74 of 109
Page 75 of 109
Value of Land
Mortgaged to and
Foreclosed
P2,726,100.00
by
Mercator
Less: Mortgage
as of 8/2/84 1,846,012.96
P880,087.04
Value of Land
Mortgaged to and
Foreclosed by PAIC 6,736,180.00
Less: Mortgage
as of 8/2/84 2,758,968.49
P3,977,211.04
II. STOCKS AND FACILITIES
Livestock
P2,889,998.00
Feedmill
Machinery 70,000.00
Feed Ingredients
144,941.88
Less: Payments
made
103,941.88
41,000.00
35,258.00
III. EARNINGS OF
EMBASSY FARMS 27,748,738.00
P35,644,420.55
From the aforesaid aggregate amount of
P35,644,420.55 should be deducted the
payments made by [petitioner] totaling
P3,000,000.00. Thus, the net effect is that
[private respondent] is entitled to the
amount of P32,644,420.55, with interest at
the legal rate of 6% until fully paid.
In addition, [private respondent] is entitled to
be paid the amount of P500,000.00 which
he granted as a loan to [petitioner] outside
of the Memorandum of Agreement. What is
due to [private respondent] after deducting
the payments made by [petitioner] and
adding the interest is as follows:
Loan of [private respondent]
to [petitioner]
P500,000.00
270,000.00
540,000.00
P887,300.00
117,300.00
(1) P32,644,420.55
as
actual
or
compensatory damages arising from the
rescission of the Memorandum of
Agreement with legal rate of interest at 6%
per annum until fully paid;
(2) P887,300.00 for the repayment of the
loan granted by the defendant to the
plaintiff, with interest at the stipulated rate of
36% per annum until fully paid; and
(3) P100,000.00 as attorney's fees.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 48
We, therefore, strike down the foregoing
award of actual or compensatory damages
and attorney's fees.
Petitioner was further ordered to pay twenty
seven million seven hundred forty-eight
thousand seven hundred thirty eight pesos
(P27,718,738.00) representing earnings of
Embassy Farms, Inc. as additional
compensatory damages. The only piece of
evidence supporting the award is private
respondent's Exh. "29" 49 which was signed
as certified correct by no one else but
private respondent. It bore no reference to
any receipt, voucher or any other document
signed by petitioner or anyone in his behalf,
and it even states that it was Vicky
Gregorio, not private respondent, who was
present during the alleged sales of hogs at
the piggery. Exh. "29" was duly objected to
Page 76 of 109
Page 77 of 109
with
the
RTC Ruling
After the case was submitted for decision,
the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. It held
that when Luis executed the second deed of
sale in favor of Meridian, he was no longer
the owner of Lot Nos. 19, 22 and 23 as he
had already sold them to his children by his
first marriage. In fact, the subject properties
had already been delivered to the vendees
who had been living there since birth and so
had been in actual possession of the said
properties. The trial court stated that
although the deed of sale was not
registered, this fact was not prejudicial to
their interest. It was of the view that the
actual registration of the deed of sale was
not necessary to render a contract valid and
effective because where the vendor
delivered the possession of the parcel of
land to the vendee and no superior rights of
third persons had intervened, the efficacy of
said deed was not destroyed. In other
words, Luis lost his right to dispose of the
said properties to Meridian from the time he
executed the first deed of sale in favor of
petitioners. The same held true with his
alleged sale of Lot 8 to Lucila Soria.14
Specifically, the dispositive portion of the
RTC decision reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court
finds that a preponderance of evidence
exists in favor of the plaintiffs and against
the defendants. Judgment is hereby
rendered:
a. Declaring that the Special Power of
Attorney, Exhibit "K," for the plaintiffs and
Exhibit "3" for the defendants null and void
including all transactions subsequent
thereto and all proceedings arising
therefrom;
b. Declaring the Deed of Sale marked as
Exhibit "E" valid and binding;
c. Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale of
Three (3) Parcels of Residential Land
marked as Exhibit "F" null and void from the
beginning;
d. Declaring the Deed of Sale, Exhibit "16"
(Solutan) or Exhibit "FF," null and void from
the beginning;
e. Declaring the vendees named in the
Deed of Sale marked as Exhibit "E" to be
the lawful, exclusive and absolute owners
and possessors of Lots Nos. 8, 19, 22, and
23;
f. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and
severally each plaintiff P50,000.00 as moral
damages; and
g. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiffs
P50,000.00 as attorneys fees; and
P20,000.00 as litigation expenses.
The crossclaim made by defendant
Meridian
Realty Corporation
against
defendants Soria and Solutan is ordered
dismissed for lack of sufficient evidentiary
basis.
SO ORDERED."15
Page 78 of 109
Petitioners
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration, but it was denied in the CA
Resolution,22 dated November 18, 2010.
Consequently, they filed the present petition
with the following ASSIGNMENT OF
ERRORS
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
(19TH DIVISION) GRAVELY ERRED
WHEN IT DECLARED AS VOID THE FIRST
SALE EXECUTED BY THE LATE LUIS
ROSAROSO IN FAVOR OF HIS CHILDREN
OF HIS FIRST MARRIAGE.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING
AND AFFIRMING THE RULING OF THE
TRIAL
COURT
DECLARING
THE
MERIDIAN REALTY CORPORATION A
BUYER IN BAD FAITH, DESPITE THE
TRIAL COURTS FINDINGS THAT THE
DEED OF SALE (First Sale), IS GENUINE
AND HAD FULLY COMPLIED WITH ALL
THE LEGAL FORMALITIES.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
FURTHER ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE
SALE (DATED 27 SEPTEMBER 1994),
NULL AND VOID FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING SINCE LUIS ROSAROSO ON
NOVEMBER 4, 1991 WAS NO LONGER
THE OWNER OF LOTS 8, 19, 22 AND 23
AS HE HAD EARLIER DISPOSED SAID
LOTS IN FAVOR OF THE CHILDREN OF
HIS
(LUIS
ROSAROSO)
FIRST
MARRIAGE.23
Petitioners argue that the second deed of
sale was null and void because Luis could
not have validly transferred the ownership of
the subject properties to Meridian, he being
no longer the owner after selling them to his
children. No less than Atty. William Boco,
the lawyer who notarized the first deed of
sale, appeared and testified in court that the
said deed was the one he notarized and
that Luis and his second wife, Lourdes,
Page 79 of 109
Page 80 of 109
RULING OF THE CA
of
the
Corporation
Code
Page 81 of 109
In
their
Answer
with
Compulsory
Counterclaim,9 the spouses Bonrostro
averred that they were willing to pay their
total balance of P630,000.00 to the spouses
Luna after they sought from them a 60-day
extension to pay the same.10 However,
during the time that they were ready to pay
the said amount in the last week of October
1993, Constancia and her lawyer, Atty.
Arlene Carbon (Atty. Carbon), did not show
up at their rendezvous. On November 24,
1993, Lourdes sent Atty. Carbon a letter11
expressing her desire to pay the balance,
but received no response from the latter.
Claiming that they are still willing to settle
their obligation, the spouses Bonrostro
prayed that the court fix the period within
which they can pay the spouses Luna.
SO ORDERED.14
As their Motion for Reconsideration15 was
likewise denied in an Order16 dated July
15, 1997, the spouses Luna appealed to the
CA.17
Page 82 of 109
Petition
for
Review
on
Issue
The basic issue in this case is whether the
CA correctly modified the RTC Decision with
respect to interests.
The Parties Arguments
As may be recalled, the RTC under
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the dispositive
portion of its Decision ordered the spouses
Bonrostro to pay the spouses Luna the
sums of P300,000.00 plus interest of 2%
per month from April 1993 to November
1993 and P330,000.00 plus interest of 2%
per month from July 1993 to November
1993, respectively. The CA modified these
by reckoning the payment of the 2% interest
on the P300,000.00 from May 1, 1993 until
fully paid and by imposing interest at the
legal rate on the P330,000.00 reckoned
from August 1, 1993 until fully paid.
The spouses Bonrostro harp on the factual
finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA,
that Lourdes was willing and ready to pay
her obligation as evidenced by her
November 24, 1993 letter to Atty. Carbon.
They also assert that the sending of the said
letter constitutes a valid tender of payment
on their part. Hence, they argue that they
should not be assessed any interest
subsequent to the date of the said letter.
Neither should they be ordered to pay
interest on the amount of P214,492.62
which covers the amortizations paid by the
spouses Luna to Bliss. They point out that it
was Constancia who prevented them from
fulfilling their obligation to pay the
amortizations when she instructed Bliss not
to accept payment from them.25
The spouses Luna, on the other hand, aver
that the November 24, 1993 letter of
Lourdes is not equivalent to tender of
payment since the mere sending of a letter
expressing the intention to pay, without the
accompanying
payment,
cannot
be
considered a valid tender of payment. Also,
if the spouses Bonrostro were really willing
and ready to pay at that time and assuming
that the spouses Luna indeed refused to
accept payment, the former should have
resorted to consignation. Anent the payment
of amortization, the spouses Luna explain
that under the parties Contract to Sell,
Lourdes was to assume Constancias
Page 83 of 109
Page 84 of 109
59446,
terms
and
and
Page 85 of 109
Page 86 of 109
TCTS
in
the
name
of
Page 87 of 109
Page 88 of 109
I.
A.
II.
THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE OFFICE BELOW
ORDERING PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS
TO PAY RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
THE SUM OF P100,000.00 AS MORAL
DAMAGES
AND
P50,000.00
AS
ATTORNEYS FEES CONSIDERING THE
ABSENCE OF ANY FACTUAL OR LEGAL
BASIS THEREFOR.
III.
Page 89 of 109
B.
GRANTING
FOR
THE
SAKE
OF
ARGUMENT THAT THE PETITIONERS
ARE LIABLE UNDER THE PREMISES,
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE HUGE
AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF TWELVE
PERCENT (12%).
C.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
LIKEWISE ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED IN
TOTO THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT INCLUDING THE
PAYMENT OF P100,000.00 AS MORAL
DAMAGES, P50,000.00 AS ATTORNEYS
FEES
AND
P10,000.00
AS
ADMINISTRATIVE FINE IN THE ABSENCE
OF ANY FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS TO
SUPPORT SUCH CONCLUSIONS.11
Petitioners insist that the complaint states
no cause of action because they allegedly
have
not
committed
any
act
of
misrepresentation amounting to bad faith
Page 90 of 109
xxxxxx
Page 91 of 109
SO ORDERED. 5
The facts as found by the trial court are as
follows:
xxxxxx
xxx
xxx
Page 92 of 109
xxx
Page 93 of 109
March 9, 1922
Government
regulations,
railroad
embargoes, lack of vessel space, the
exigencies of the requirement of the United
States Government, or a number of causes
may act to entirely vitiate the indication of
shipment as stated. In other words, the
order is accepted on the basis of shipment
at Mill's convenience, time of shipment
being merely an indication of what we hope
to accomplish.
Page 94 of 109
Page 95 of 109
October 2, 1922
FILOMENA
SARMIENTO
and
her
husband EUSEBIO M. VILLASEOR,
plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
GLICERIO
JAVELLANA,
defendantappellant.
On August 28, 1991, the defendant loaned
the plaintiffs the sum of P1,500 with interest
at the rate of 25 per cent per annum for the
term of one year. To guarantee this loan, the
plaintiffs pledged a large medal with a
diamond in the center and surrounded with
ten diamonds, a pair of diamond earrings, a
small comb with twenty-two diamonds, and
two diamond rings, which the contracting
parties appraised at P4,000. This loan is
evidenced by two documents (Exhibits A
and 1) wherein the amount appears to be
P1,875, which includes the 25 per cent
interest on the sum of P1,500 for the term of
one year.
The plaintiffs allege that at the maturity of
this loan, August 31, 1912, the plaintiff
Eusebio M. Villaseor, being unable to pay
the loan, obtained from the defendant an
extension, with the condition that the loan
was to continue, drawing interest at the rate
of 25 per cent per annum, so long as the
security given was sufficient to cover the
capital and the accrued interest. In the
month of August, 1919, the plaintiff Eusebio
M. Villaseor, in company with Carlos M.
Dreyfus, went to the house of the defendant
and offered to pay the loan and redeem the
jewels, taking with him, for this purpose, the
sum of P11,000, but the defendant then
informed them that the time for the
redemption had already elapsed. The
plaintiffs renewed their offer to redeem the
jewelry by paying the loan, but met with the
same reply. These facts are proven by the
testimony of the plaintiffs, corroborated by
Carlos M. Dreyfus.
The plaintiffs now bring this action to
compel the defendant to return the jewels
pledged, or their value, upon the payment
by them of the sum they owe the defendant,
with the interest thereon.
The defendant alleges, in his defense, that
upon the maturity of the loan, August 31,
1912, he requested the plaintiff, Eusebio M.
Villaseor, to secure the money, pay the
loan and redeem the jewels, as he needed
money to purchase a certain piece of land;
that one month thereafter, the plaintiff,
Filomena Sarmiento, went to his house and
offered to sell him the jewels pledged for
P3,000; that the defendant then told her to
come back on the next day, as he was to
Page 96 of 109
May 5, 1989
xxx
Page 97 of 109
with
petitioners
Page 98 of 109
Page 99 of 109
in
the
amount
of
August 7, 1918
JOSE ALANO.
(Sgd.)
ANASTASIO ALANO.
(Sgd.)
FLORENCIO ALANO.
February 6, 1924