Rare Periodicals

17. Supreme Court Report Decisions, Lao Lian Su v. Republic - Justice J.B.L. Reyes.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text

The Board 11liw ccntonds that a g no renewal of the bond re<1uired was filed for the extension of the contract, it ceased to have any force :rnd effect; and, as the steel mattings were recovl'rNI during the extended period of the contract, Mnlabanan did not acquire any rights thereto. The pert inent portion or the contract 111·ovides: "J2, • J f'intly with the ex<'cution of this contract, the CONTHACTOR SHALL file :i. bcmd in the amount of TEN THOUSAND <PI0,000.00) PES08 to b''uarantee his faithful com pliance with the terms and conditions herein ; Provided, t hat this contract shall not be considered to have beC'n executed notwithsW.nding the signing hereof by the parties until said bond shall havt'.' been properly filed." Malabanan filed a bond dated J une 10, l!l52, effective for onC' ( l) year, or up to J une 10, 1953. The principal contract, executed 011 'June 14, 1952, was first extended to November 30, 1953, and finally, to August 3 1, 1954. A i can be seen, there was no longer ;11;y bond from June ti, 1953 tC! August 3 1, 1954. The iaps.:: of the bond did i1ot extinguish the contract between Malabanan snd the Board. The requirement that a bond be po<;terl was already complied with wl1PT~ Mah1bl\nan filed the bond date,~ June JO, 1952. A bond merely stands as guaranty for a principal obligation which may exist inde~ndently of said bond, the !atter being merely an accessory contract (Valencia v. RFC & C.A., L-10749, April 25, 1958). Significantly, its purpose, as per the terms of the contract, was "to guarantee his (Malabanan's) ftiithful compliance with the terms and conditions herein"; and, for • violaUon of the contract, the lioard m:1y decl:i.re "the bond for~ feite•J" (Jlar. 13). Being for its ben~fil, the Board could leg·ally Naive th~ bond requirement (Valencia v. RFC, et al., supn1) , :rnd it did so when, the bond already having expired, it extenchl the contract not only once, but twice. I n none of the resolutions C'Xtending the contract (Annexes "C" & •'E", pp. 108-112; Record on Appeal) was there a requirement that the bond be renewed, in the face of the first indor"Eement by the Executive Officer ·of the Board (Annex . " F", pp. 112-113, Record on Appeal) recommending that Malabanan's request for a second extension be ~ranted 'provided the bond he originally posted should continue." There is no merit to t he suggestion that there being a novation, A rticle 1299 of the Civil Code should govern. Novation is never presumed, it being requil'ed that the intent to Hovatc he expressed clearly and uneq11h•oca:ly, or that the lei ms of the rcw agreement be incompatible with the old contract (Article 1:!!12, N.C.C.; Martinez v. Cavives, 25 Phil. 581; Tiu Siuce v. H ab:i.na, 4i) Phil'. 707; Pablo v. Sapun8an, 71 Phil. 145; Young v. Vill:i, L-5331, May 13, 1953). Here there was neither express novation nor incompatibility from which it could be implied. Moi·eover, a mere extension of the term (period) for payment or perform:m:e is not nGvation (Inchausti v. Yulo, 34 Phil. 978; Zapanta v. De Rotaeche, 21 Phil. 154; Pablo v. Sapungan, supra); and, while the extension covered only some of the areas originally agreed upon, this change did not alter the essence Of the contract (cf. Romas v. Gibbon, 67 Phil. 371; Bank of P.I. v. Herridge, 47 Phil. 57). It is next contended that the ;;ale by Flol'O to Legaspi on August 4, 1954 (within 30 days priOJ' to petition for insolvency) wns void as a fraudulent transfer under Section 70 of the Inso!n.1~c)' Law. The court below hP-ld that the sale to I .eguspi was valid and not violative of Section 70; but there having been no p1·oceedings to determine whether the sale was fraudulent, we think it was premature for the court ht-low to <!ecide the !Joint, espetially because under section 36, No. 8, of the Insolvency Act, alt proceed in~s to set aside fraudulent t ransfers should be brought and prosecuted by the assignee, who can legally represent all the creditors of the insolvent (Maceda, et al, v. Hernandez, et al., 70 Phil. 261). To allow a single creditor to bring such a proceeding would invite a multiplicity of suits, since the resolution of his case would not bind the other creditors, who may refile the same c\:1im independently, with diverse proofs, and possibly give rise to contradictory rulings by the courts. The order appealed from is hereby affirmed in so far as it Jeclares the disputed goocls to be the property of the insolvent ; but without prejudice t.o the right of the assignee in insolvency to take whatever action may be proper to attack the alleged fraudulent transfer of the stee-1 matting lo Eu!alio Legaspi, and to make the proper parties account for t he difference between the r:umber of pieces of steel matting stated in the insolvent's recovery report, Annex " B" (13,107), and that stat~ in his inventory (11,167) . Costs against appellant. Para~, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Lab1·ador, llarrero, Gntierrez Davfrl, Paredes, wn<l Dizon, JJ., c0?1curred. Padilla, J., took no part. Xlll LaQ &frrn Sit alias Lorenzo Ting, Petit1·oner-a,ppellant, t>s. Rt1p1tblic of the Philippines, Oppositoi--appef/ee, G.R. N o. D-1554$, September 29, 1961, Reyes, J.8 .L., J. NATURALIZATION; EVASION IN PAYMENT OF TAXES AS GROUND FOR DENIAL OF APPLICATION.- In the case al bar, it appears that in the ,·e1·ified income tax 1-eturns filed by petitioner and that of his wife for t he years fro1 n 1951 to 1957, the contents of which he ·ratified under oath while on the witnes3 stand', the spouses appear to have claim exemption for a f ourth child by the name of Ting Kock King, supposedly born on 10 Oct'obe1· 1948. or the inconsistency between the sworn statements, petitiom'1· profcrred no explanation whut.c;oever, although <'Ounscl for a ppellant insinuates in the brief that Ting Kock King could be an adopted child of the spouses ; but the insinuation is totally devoid of p1·oof, which the applicant was duty bound to submit to the Courl. He/cl: Tha contradictory statements under oath can only leact to the conclusion either that petitioner tried to evade lawful taxes due from him or that he has concealed the t ruth in his application. E ither alterna tive would be sufficient to disqualify him for admission to Philippine citizenship. DEC I S IO N A1 >peal from a decree of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, denying the application of petitioner-appellant Lao Lian Su aliaa Lorenzo Ting for achnission to Philippine citizenship, because of applicant's failure to observe irreproachable conduct in his relations with constituted a uthoi·ities dut·ing the entire period o{ his residence in the Philippines. We s~ no merit in the ap1>eal. In his sworn petition for naturn!ization as well a s in his testimony, petitioner stated that he t>as only tht-e(. children with his wife Chua Kim T ia, namely: B~-;ic Ting, born 11/ 25/39 E steban Ting, born 4/ 11/ 46 Betty T ing, born ~/16/51. Ye:t in the v~rificd income tax retu rns filed in his name and tha'' of his wife for the years from 1951 tr:. H.157, the ('Ontent~ of wt1ich he rntifird under oath while on the witness 8hmd, the spouses apvea!· 10 have claim exemption for a fourth child by the nam') nf Ting Koc!t King, su11posedly' bGn 1 on 10 October 194.8. Of the incc.nsist'!ncy between the sworn statements, petitioner proferred no explanation whatsoever, although counsel for appellant insinuate;; in the brief that Ting Kock Ki ng could be a n adopted child of thcr.pouse:,i; but the insinuation is totally devoid of proof, which the applicant was duty bound to stibmit to the Court. As the rc..-:u"d now s:a1Hls, I.he <'ontradictory st:ltements under oath can only lea,~ to the conclusion either that the petitil'.'ncr tried to evade Ja,• t-!111 taxes due fr<>m him or that he has conce:aled the t r.ith in his .<lO· plic::ition. E ither alternative would be sufficient to disqualify him for :idrnission to l'hilippine citizenship. For all the fo1 ·egoing consiJcrations, the. deeisit'.'n ap;>enled fr()nt is affirmed, with costs against the appC'llant. IJcnyzon, C.J., Pmlilln, Labrrulor, Cflncepcion, Paredes anrl De ! ~eon, JJ., co11c1wred. Hauti8ta Angelo, J., took no part. November 30, 1961 LA WYERS O'OURNAL Page 347

Date

1961

Rights