Rare Periodicals

Supreme Court Decisions, Quizana vs. Redugerio et al - Justice Labrador.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text

the obscurity <Article 1288, Old Civil Code.> 5. One of the documents turned over by Sauco t'o defendant Gonzales Lloret is Exhibit D-1 which represents <;he resale by the plaintiff tc the latter of one of the parcels of land originally included in the sale contained in the document Exhibit D, and, according to Sauco, said document Exhibit D-1 was deliver<::d tO defendant Gonzales Lloret for ratification before a notary public. An examination of said document Exhibit D-1 will reveal that it contains many blank spaces intended to be fjlled out later an, and the same does not bear the signature of the plaintiff. This indicates that said document Exhibit D-1 was but a mere draft and corroborates the stat'ement of Grmzales Lloret that it was given to him, together with the document Exhibit D, merely for his p~ rusnl and possible amendment or alteration. And 6. II! should be noted that the lands subjt.'Ct of negotiation were ·owned pro-indiviso by Maria Lloret and the !!State of Fran· cisco A. Gonzales, and in that negotiation defendant Gonzales Lloret was merely acting in his capacity as judicial administra\.-Or. Being a co-owner of the lands, the consent of Maria Llo1'et to the "terms of the sale is evidently indispensable, and yet there is nothing in the evidence to show that she has ever been contacted in connection with the sale, nor is there any proof that Gonzales Lloret had been authorized to conduct negot'iations in her behalf. What the record shows was that Gonzaler. Lloret would tii.ke up the matte1 '{ith Maria Lloret' on the date subsequent to that when tne two documents were delivered by Sauco to him {June 17, 1944), but this never materialized because of the unexprcted sickness of Tt0ofi10 Suuco. ht:re is that: which refen to the delivery by Sauco to Gonzales Lloret of the check in the amount of !"100,000 drawn against the l'hilippine National Bank which Lloret deposited in his current account - with i'hat institution. According to the evidence, when the transaction was called off because of the failu»e of Sauco to appear on the date set for his isst conference with Lbret, t'he latter attempted to rdurn t'he said amount to Sauco on August 2, 1944 who declined lo accept it on the pretext t'hat he had another buyer who war. willing to purchu~E. the lands for the !IUm of 1'300,000 and that if that sale w~re carried out: Lloret could just deduct that amount from the purchase price. That offer to return, in our opinion, cannot have the effect of r£lieving Lloret from liability. His duty was to consign it in coul't as rt!quired hy law, His failure to do so makes him answerable therefor to tht> plaintiff which he is now on duty bound t'o pay subject to adjustment under the Ballentyne Scale of Values. Wherefore, th1~ decision appeal(ld from ls reversed, without pronouncement as to costs. Defendant Ricudo Gonzales Lloret is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of !"100,000 which should be adjusted in accordance with the Ballentyne Scale of Values. Pards, Pablo, 801gzon, Jl.t.nter,1a11or, Reyes, Jugo, Labrado.and Conce7icion, J.J. concur. VI Marlit1a Qidzana~ Plai11t1'fl and Appellee, vs. Gaudencio Reduoerio and Jose/it Postrado, Defendante and Appellants, G. R. No. L-6220, May 7, 1954, Labrador, J. Let \lS now examine the terms of the authorization given by 1 . the court relative to the sale of the lands in qurdion, and see if OBLIGATION AND CONTRACTS; ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT; ABSENCE OF LEGAL PROVISIO'.N GOVERNING IT. - An ag"reement whereby the obligors bound themselves to pay their indebtedness on a day Stipulated, and to deliver a mortgage ,,;n a prope1·ty 0f theirs in case thl'y failed to pay t.'he debt on the day fixed, is valid and binding and effective upon the parties. lt is not contrary to law ~r public policy, and notwithstanding the absence of any legal provision at the time it was ent'ered into governing it, as the pa1·ties had freely and volunhnily entered into it, the1·e is no ;rr..:iund or reason why it should not be given effect. the same had been observed in lhc preparatfrm of the deed 11f sa.le Exhibit D. Let ' us note, at the outset, that the authorization of the court refers to the sale of certain parcels of land of an ares of 20 hectares situated in the barrio of Sabang, municipality of Ba.liuag, province of Bulo.can, for a price of not less than !"100,000, wit:h the exprcs::: condition that the encumbranr.e affecting tba.se lands would first be paid. Am:.Jyzing now the terms appearing in the docum~nt Exhibit D, we find that among the lands included in the sale are lands situated in the banio of San Roqm~. This is a variatfon of the terms of the judicial authorization. The document Exhibit D also stipulates that the sale would be free from 2• any encumbrance, with the exception of the s.um of !"30,000 which ID.: FACULTATIVE OBLIGATION, ENFORCEABLE IMMEDIATELY. - The obligations entered into by the pt.rt:if\,. is what is known as a facultative obligation. It is not provided by the old Spanish Civil Code; it is a new right which should be declared effective at once, in conso1iance with thu provisions of article 2258 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. is indebted to Ambrosio Valero, but: said document likewise stipulates that the possession of the lands sold should be delivered to the purchaser sometime in March of the next year and that' if this could not 00 done the lands would be substitutl!d by others of t.'he sa.me area and value, belonging to the estate of Francisco A. Gonzales. This is an onerous con<iition which does not appear in the authorization of the court. Of course, this is an eventuality which the plaintiff wanted t'o forestall in view of the fact that the lands subject of the sale were thEn pending Jitiiation between S<1mson and Amante for the defendants and appellan~s. Sabino Palomares for the plaintiff and appellee. DECISION the estate ind Ambrosio Valero, bul: this is no justification for departing from the p~ecise term;; contained in the authorization LABRADOR, J.: of the court. And we find, finally, that' the aut·horization calls This is an appeal to this Court from a decision rendered by for the sale of six parcels of land belonging to the estata, but in tho Court of First Instance or Marinduque, wherein the defendants.. the document as drawn up by Sauco it appears thal: only five upriellan~ are ordered to pay the plaintiff-appelll!e the sum of imrcels would be sold to the plaintiff, 1rnd the other parcel to Ri- rus0.00, with interest from the time of the filing c.f the complainr, cardo Gonze.les Lloret. Undoub1edlr, this cannot: legally h done und from an order of the same court denying a motion of the defor, a~ we know, the law prohibits that a land subject of adminis- fendants-appellants for thE: rcconsiderntfon of the judgment on tration be sold to its judicial administrator. the ~round that they wl!re- deprived of their day in court. The foregoing discrepancies hetwEen the conditions appearing in the document Exhibit D and the terms cont'ained in the authoriz&tion of the court, plus the incongruencies and unexplained circumstances we heve pointed out above, clearly give an idea tha~ all that had taken place between Sauco and defendant Gonzales Lloret was but mere planning or negotiation t'o be threshed out between them in the conference they expected to have on June 19, 1944 but which unfortunately was not: carried out in view of the illness of Teofilo Sauco. Such being the case, it 11.lgically follows that action of the plaintiff has no legal basis. Before closing, one circumstance which should be mentioned The action was originally instituted in the justice of the peace court of Sta. Cruz, Marinduq•Je, and the same is based on an actionable document at'tached to the complaint, signed by the defendant~-appellants on October 4, 1948 and cont'aining the following pertinent. provisions: Na alang-alang sa aming ?llahigpit na pangangails.ngan ay kaming magasawa ay lum:i.pit kay Ginling Martina. Quizana, balo, at naninirahan sa Hupi, Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, at kami ay umuta.ng sa kanya ng halagang Limang Daan at Limang Pung Piso (P550.00), Salaping-. umiiral dito ·sa Filipinas na a.min~ tinanggnp na husto at walnng kulang sa kanya sa condicion 412 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL August 31, 1954 na. ang ha.lagang aming inutang ay ibabalik o babayaran na .. min sa ka11ya sa katapusan ng buwan ng Encro, taong 1949. Pinagkasunduan din naming magasawa na saka.ling hlndi kami makabayad sa taning 11a panahon ay a.mbtg ipifrenda o isasangla sa kanya ang isa naming pafagay na niogan 1rn lugar nang Cororocho, barrio ng Ralogo, municipio ng Santa Cruz, lalawigang l\larinduque, kapu!uang Filipiuas at ito ay nalilibot ng · mga kahangauang summmnod: Sa Norte - Dalmacio Constantino Sa Est:~ - Catalina Reforma Sa Sur - Dionisio A,rioln. ~a Weste -- Reodoro Ric:unora na nat,;tala sa g-obierno ~a ilalin1 ng Dedaracion No. nasa pangabn ko, Josefa Postra.dv. The def~md&nts-appellants admit the execution of the documC'nt, but claim, as special defense, that since t'hc 31st of January, 1949 they offered to pledge the land specified in the ttgrecment and transfer possession the1·eof to the plaintiff-a.ppellee, but that the latter refused said offer. Judgment having been rendered by the justice of the peace court of Sta. Cruz, the de!endanl's-1:1.ppellarits appealed to the Court of First !ni;tance. Tr. that court they reil'erated the defense that they presE-nted in the justice of the peace court. Tht: case was set for hearing in the Court of First Instance on August 16, 1951. As ea.1·ly as J uly 30 counsel for the defendants-appellants presented an "Urgent Motion for Continu. ance," alleging t.'hat on the day set for the hearing <Augusi 16, 1951), they would appear in the hearing of two criminal cases previously set for trial before they i·eceived notice of the hearing on the aforesaid date. The motion was submitted on August 2, and was set for hearing on August 4. This m:>tiun was not act:ed upon until the day of the trial. {;n the date of the trial thP court denied the deiendants-appellants' motic..n for cont'inuancc, and aftc,. hearing the evidence for the plaintiff, in the abstnce of thr. de. frndants-a11pellar.ts and their ccunse1, nmdered the deci&ion appealed from. Defend.:mtS-appelb.nrs, upon receivinf copy 'Jf .the decision, fikd a motion for reconsideration, 1irayinJ that the dttl. sion be set aside on the ground that sufficient time in advnnce was given to the court to pass upon their motion tor c1,.ntinunnce, bot that the same W~'! not passed upon. This motion for reconsidera.. tion was denied. The main question 1·aised in this appeal is the nature and l'ffect of the actionable document ment.'ioned above. The trial court evidently ignored the i;erond part of defendants...appellants's writ.. ten obligation, and enforced its last first part, which fixed payment on January 31. 1949. The plaintiff-appellee, for his part, claims that this part of the written cbligatfon is uot binding upon him for the reason that he did not Eign the agreement, and that even if Jt were so the defendants...apy;ellants did not execute the document! as agrE'ed upon, but, according to their t..nswer, demanded the plaintiff-app.ellee to do so. This last contention of the plain. tiff-appellee is due tO a loose language in the answer filed with lht;i Court of First Inst'ance. But llpon careful scrutiny, it will bo seen that what the de!endants.appellants wanted to allege is that they l.'.hemtP]ve!I hud offered to execute the document oi mC'rtgagC' l'.nd deliver the Emme to the plaintiff. appellee, but that the latter refusl'!d to have it t!Xecute<i uuless an addit.~qnal security was furnished. Thus the answer 1·eads: 5. That immediatC'ly aftc1· the duE! date of the loan Annn "A" c;f thC' complaint, thP defcnrl(mts made ejforts to ezecut11 th,• neces.itlrv documcntl' ol morfyp1gP a ~rl io delive'f the sa'1'e to the plaintiff, in compl1'ance with the term.s and conditiom1 thereof, but the plaintiff refu~ed to execute the proper docu. ments and insisted on anol'her portion of de!(!ndants' J11nd RS additional flecurity for the eaid loan; <UnderscorinK ours> Jn our opinion it is not true that defendants..apJl(.llants hod not offered to execu\!e the dead of mLrtgaire. The other reason adduced by the plaintiff.appellee for claiming that the agreement was nut Oinding upon him also desenes Geant considerution. When plaintiff. appellee received the document, without any C'bjec.tion on his part to the paragraph thereof in which the obligors offered to delivsr a mortgage on a propert.'y of theirs in ca.<ie \!hey failed to pay the de.ht on the day stipulated, he thereby accepted the s:iid condition of the agreement. The accept.. ance by him of the written obligation without objection and pro. test, and the fact t'hat he kc>pt it and based his action then:on, are concrete and positive proof that he agreed and consented to all its terms. including the paragraph on the const'itution of the mortga~e. The decisive question at issue, therefore, is whether the recond (> Urt of the written obligation, i11 which t.'he obli-sors agreed &nd promised t'l deliver a mortgage over the parcel ,Jf land described therein, upon their failure to pay the debt on a date specified in i'he prf'ceding paragraph, is ve.Jid and binding and effective upon the plaintiff-appellee, the creditor. This second part of the obliga.. lion In {]Uestion is what is known in law as a facultativ~ obligation, defined in Articlr. 1206 of the Civil Code of the Philippinf's, which provides: Art. 1206. When only om:; pl'estation has been agreed upon, but the obligor may l't uder another in substitution, the obligation is c~lkd fa.cuh.'ative. This is a new provision and is not found in the vld Spanish Civil Code, which was the one· In force at the time of the execution of the agreemem'. There is nothing in the agreement which would argul! against it3 enforcement It is not l!ontrary to law or public morals c..r public policy, nn<l notwith~tanding t'1e abs!:!nce of any legal provision at the time it was entered into governing it, as the parties had freely and voluntarily entered into it, there is no ground or r£·asun why it sh<.1uld not bl' given effrct. It is a new right which should be declared effeetive at oncf', in consonance with t-he pr<.1· visions of Article 2253 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, t'hus: Art. 225S. x x x. But lf a right should be declared for the first time in this Code, it shall be effectivt: at once, even though t'he act or event wl1ich gives rise thereto may have been done or may have occurred under the prior legislation, . provided said new right does not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right, of the same origin. In view of our favorable resolution on the important question raised by the defendants-appellants on this appeal, it becomes un. necessary to consider the oth~1· qut:sti•m of pl'occdure raised by them. For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and in accordunce with the provisions of the writ~n obliga.tior., the ca~e is h~reby remanded to the Court of First Instance, iu which court the defendants-appellants shall prest=nt a duly executed deed of mortgage over the property described in thf' written oNigation, with a period af payment to be agreed upon by the parties with the approval of the court. Without cost.s. Paras. Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Concepcion, J,J., concur. Vil Cfotildc Mejia Vda. de Alfafara, Petitioner.Appellant, vs. P/,acido Mapa, in his capacity a.o; Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Rrsourccs, Benita Compana, et al., Respondents.Appellus, G. R. No. L-7042, May 28, 1954, Bautista An,r1elo, J. 1. PUBLIC LAND LAW, DISPUSl'l'ION OF Pt:'BLIC LANDS; DIRECT9R OF LANDS CAN NOT DISPOSE LAND WITHIN THE FOREST ZONE. - Whe:re the land covered by th11 homestead application of petitioner was still wit'hin the forest zone ~r uud.!r the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry, the Direct'lr of Lands h'.ld no jurisdiction t'o dispo~e of ::ia1d land under the provisions of the Public L·and Law and the peti. tioner acquired no right to the land. 2. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF CONTRACT OF LANDLOJtD AND TENANT EXECUTED IN GOOD FAITH. - l!:ven if the per. mit gram:cd to petitioner's dece~scd husband oy the Bureau of August 81, l954 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL 413

Date

1954

Rights