The Bachrach Motor Co v.

Espiritu
G.R. No. L-28497

November 6, 1928

Facts:
1.
This is a consolidated case(Cases no. 28497 and 28948) involving two
separate sale transactions. One made in Feb. 18, 1925 (case 28498), when
the defendant earlier bought a truck on instalment from the petitioner and
said truck was mortgaged together with the two others (no. 77197 & 92744
in the the subsequent sale transaction dated July 28, 1925. The said two of
the other trucks were also purchased (but already paid previously) from the
plaintiff. The defendant failed to pay the balance. In July 1925, defendant
again purchased another truck from Bachrach. The said truck, together with
the 3 other vehicles were mortgaged to the plaintiff to secure the remaining
balance. The defendant failed to pay the balance for the latest truck
obtained.

2.
It was agreed in both sales that 12% interest will be paid on the unpaid
price, and in case of the non-payment of the total debt at maturity, 25% shall
be the penalty. The defendant also signed a promissory note solidarily with
his brother Rosario (acting as intervenor), the sums secured by the
mortgages. Rosario is alleged to be the owner of the two white trucks no.
77197 & 92744 mortgaged.

3.
While these two cases were pending in the lower court the mortgaged
trucks were sold by virtue of the mortgage, all of them together bringing in,
after deducting the sheriff's fees and transportation charges to Manila, the
net sum of P3,269.58.

4.
The lower court ordered the defendants and the intervenor to pay
plaintiff in case 28497 the sum of P7,732.09 with interest at the rate of 12
per cent per annum from May 1, 1926 until fully paid, and 25 per cent
thereof in addition as penalty. In case 28498, the trial court ordered the
defendant and the intervenor to pay plaintiff the sum of P4,208.28 with
interest at 12 per cent per annum from December 1, 1925 until fully paid,
and 25 per cent thereon as penalty.

5.
The appellants contend that trucks 77197 and 92744 were not
mortgaged, because, when the defendant signed the mortgage deeds these
trucks were not included in those documents, and were only put in later,
without defendant's knowledge. Appellants also alleged that on February 4,
1925, the defendant sold his rights in said trucks Nos. 77197 and 92744 to
the intervenor, and that as the latter did not sign the mortgage deeds, such
trucks cannot be considered as mortgaged.

6.
But there is positive proof that they were included at the time the
defendant signed these documents. Besides, there were presented two of
defendant's letters to Hidalgo, an employee of the plaintiff's written a few
days before the transaction, acquiescing in the inclusion of all his White
trucks already paid for, in the mortgage (Exhibit H-I).

Issue: W/N the 25% penalty upon the debt in addition to the 25% p.a. is
usurious

Ruling:
No, Article 1152 of the Civil Code permits the agreement upon a penalty
apart from the interest. Should there be such an agreement, the penalty, as
was held in the case of Lopez vs. Hernaez (32 Phil., 631), does not include
the interest, and which may be demanded separately. The penalty is not to
be added to the interest for the determination of whether the interest
exceeds the rate fixed by the law, since said rate was fixed only for the
interest. But considering that the obligation was partly performed, and
making use of the power given to the court by article 1154 of the Civil Code,
this penalty is reduced to 10 per cent of the unpaid debt. The penalty is
however reduced from 25 % upon the sum owed, the defendants need pay
only 10 % thereon as penalty. (Judgment appealed from is affirmed in all
other respects).

Robes-Francisco Realty & Devt Corp v. CFI-Rizal and Lolita Millan (1978)
Munoz Palma, J.

Robes Realty agreed to sell to Millan a parcel of land in Caloocan City.

 Millan complied with her obligation and paid the installments. She made a
total payment, including interests and expenses for registration of title.
After which, she made repeated demands for the execution of the final
deed of sale and the issuance of the TCT over the lot.
The parties executed a deed of absolute sale. The deed had the provision:
o The seller warrants that the TCT shall be transferred in the name of the
buyer within 6 months from full payment.
o In case the seller fails to issue the TCT, the seller bears the obligation to
refund the total amount already paid, plus 4% per annum interest.
After 6 months, seller corporation failed to cause the issuance of the TCT.
So, buyer Millan filed a complaint for specific performance and damages
against the seller corporation. The complaint prays:
o Judgment ordering the reformation of the deed of absolute sale;
o Judgment ordering the seller corporation to deliver the TCT; or, if not
possible, pay buyer Millan the value of the lot o Judgment ordering the
seller corp to pay damages, corrective and actual (P15k)
Seller corp answered. They:
Want the complaint to be dismissed because the deed of absolute sale was
voluntarily executed between them and the interest of the buyer Millan was
protected by the provision of interest at 4% per annum
TC awarded nominal damages of P20k.

Issue: Was award of nominal damages proper?

Held: Yes.

Ratio:

Seller corporation was in delay, amounting to non-performance of

obligation to buyer Millan who had fully paid up her instalments.

 NCC170 provides that those who in the performance of their obligations

are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
Unfortunately, the buyer Millan submitted her case without presenting
evidence on the actual damages suffered.
STILL, the facts show that the right of the buyer MIillan to acquire title was
violated by seller corp and this entitles her at the very least to nominal
damages.
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation
arising from any source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where
any property right has been invaded.

Pamintuan v. CA (G. R. No. L-26339),

December 14, 1979

FACTS:
This is about the recovery compensatory, damages of breach of a contract of
sale in addition to the liquidated damages.

Pamintuan and Yu Ping Kun were business partners. Pamintuan was a license
barter who export corn flakes to Japan in exchange of plastic sheetings. Yu
Ping Kun complains in violation of their contract because although plastic

sheetings were delivered on the proper time and place. The quality of
materials and overpricing the same violates their agreement.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Pamintuan is guilty of fraud?

HELD:
Yes. Pamintuan is guilty of fraud because he change the manner of paying
that resulted to overpricing, he controlled disposal of goods in the warehouse
and manipulated receipts. There is no justification for the Civil Code to make
an apparent distinction between penalty and liquidated damages because
the settled rule is that there is no difference between penalty and liquidated
damages insofar as legal results are concerned and that either maybe
recovered without the necessary of proving actual damages and both maybe
reduced when proper. The CA ordered him to deliver to Yu Ping Kun plastic
sheetings if he could not do so, to pay P100 559.28 as damages with 6%
interest. With the modification of the judgment the CA is affirmed with all
respects. No cost in this instance.