Kinds of Civil Obligations: As to perfection/extinguishment G.R. No.

L-17587 September 12, 1967

PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION, representing the estate of JUSTINA SANTOS Y CANON FAUSTINO, deceased, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LUI SHE in her own behalf and as administratrix of the intestate estate of Wong Heng, deceased, defendant-appellant. Nicanor S. Sison for plaintiff-appellant. Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta for defendant-appellant.

right to withdraw at any time from the agreement; the monthly rental was P3,120. The contract covered an area of 1,124 square meters. Ten days later (November 25), the contract was amended (Plff Exh. 4) so as to make it cover the entire property, including the portion on which the house of Justina Santos stood, at an additional monthly rental of P360. For his part Wong undertook to pay, out of the rental due from him, an amount not exceeding P1,000 a month for the food of her dogs and the salaries of her maids. On December 21 she executed another contract (Plff Exh. 7) giving Wong the option to buy the leased premises for P120,000, payable within ten years at a monthly installment of P1,000. The option, written in Tagalog, imposed on him the obligation to pay for the food of the dogs and the salaries of the maids in her household, the charge not to exceed P1,800 a month. The option was conditioned on his obtaining Philippine citizenship, a petition for which was then pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. It appears, however, that this application for naturalization was withdrawn when it was discovered that he was not a resident of Rizal. On October 28, 1958 she filed a petition to adopt him and his children on the erroneous belief that adoption would confer on them Philippine citizenship. The error was discovered and the proceedings were abandoned. On November 18, 1958 she executed two other contracts, one (Plff Exh. 5) extending the term of the lease to 99 years, and another (Plff Exh. 6) fixing the term of the option of 50 years. Both contracts are written in Tagalog. In two wills executed on August 24 and 29, 1959 (Def Exhs. 285 & 279), she bade her legatees to respect the contracts she had entered into with Wong, but in a codicil (Plff Exh. 17) of a later date (November 4, 1959) she appears to have a change of heart. Claiming that the various contracts were made by her because of machinations and inducements practiced by him, she now directed her executor to secure the annulment of the contracts. On November 18 the present action was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint alleged that the contracts were obtained by Wong "through fraud, misrepresentation, inequitable conduct, undue influence and abuse of confidence and trust of and (by) taking advantage of the helplessness of the plaintiff and were made to circumvent the constitutional provision prohibiting aliens from acquiring lands in the Philippines and also of the Philippine Naturalization Laws." The court was asked to direct the Register of Deeds of Manila to cancel the registration of the contracts and to order Wong to pay Justina Santos the additional rent of P3,120 a month from November 15, 1957 on the allegation that the reasonable rental of the leased premises was P6,240 a month. In his answer, Wong admitted that he enjoyed her trust and confidence as proof of which he volunteered the information that, in addition to the sum of P3,000 which he said she had delivered to him for safekeeping, another sum of P22,000 had been deposited in a

CASTRO, J.: Justina Santos y Canon Faustino and her sister Lorenzo were the owners in common of a piece of land in Manila. This parcel, with an area of 2,582.30 square meters, is located on Rizal Avenue and opens into Florentino Torres street at the back and Katubusan street on one side. In it are two residential houses with entrance on Florentino Torres street and the Hen Wah Restaurant with entrance on Rizal Avenue. The sisters lived in one of the houses, while Wong Heng, a Chinese, lived with his family in the restaurant. Wong had been a long-time lessee of a portion of the property, paying a monthly rental of P2,620. On September 22, 1957 Justina Santos became the owner of the entire property as her sister died with no other heir. Then already well advanced in years, being at the time 90 years old, blind, crippled and an invalid, she was left with no other relative to live with. Her only companions in the house were her 17 dogs and 8 maids. Her otherwise dreary existence was brightened now and then by the visits of Wong's four children who had become the joy of her life. Wong himself was the trusted man to whom she delivered various amounts for safekeeping, including rentals from her property at the corner of Ongpin and Salazar streets and the rentals which Wong himself paid as lessee of a part of the Rizal Avenue property. Wong also took care of the payment; in her behalf, of taxes, lawyers' fees, funeral expenses, masses, salaries of maids and security guard, and her household expenses. "In grateful acknowledgment of the personal services of the lessee to her," Justina Santos executed on November 15, 1957 a contract of lease (Plff Exh. 3) in favor of Wong, covering the portion then already leased to him and another portion fronting Florentino Torres street. The lease was for 50 years, although the lessee was given the

joint account which he had with one of her maids. But he denied having taken advantage of her trust in order to secure the execution of the contracts in question. As counterclaim he sought the recovery of P9,210.49 which he said she owed him for advances. Wong's admission of the receipt of P22,000 and P3,000 was the cue for the filing of an amended complaint. Thus on June 9, 1960, aside from the nullity of the contracts, the collection of various amounts allegedly delivered on different occasions was sought. These amounts and the dates of their delivery are P33,724.27 (Nov. 4, 1957); P7,344.42 (Dec. 1, 1957); P10,000 (Dec. 6, 1957); P22,000 and P3,000 (as admitted in his answer). An accounting of the rentals from the Ongpin and Rizal Avenue properties was also demanded. In the meantime as a result of a petition for guardianship filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the Security Bank & Trust Co. was appointed guardian of the properties of Justina Santos, while Ephraim G. Gochangco was appointed guardian of her person. In his answer, Wong insisted that the various contracts were freely and voluntarily entered into by the parties. He likewise disclaimed knowledge of the sum of P33,724.27, admitted receipt of P7,344.42 and P10,000, but contended that these amounts had been spent in accordance with the instructions of Justina Santos; he expressed readiness to comply with any order that the court might make with respect to the sums of P22,000 in the bank and P3,000 in his possession. The case was heard, after which the lower court rendered judgment as follows: [A]ll the documents mentioned in the first cause of action, with the exception of the first which is the lease contract of 15 November 1957, are declared null and void; Wong Heng is condemned to pay unto plaintiff thru guardian of her property the sum of P55,554.25 with legal interest from the date of the filing of the amended complaint; he is also ordered to pay the sum of P3,120.00 for every month of his occupation as lessee under the document of lease herein sustained, from 15 November 1959, and the moneys he has consigned since then shall be imputed to that; costs against Wong Heng. From this judgment both parties appealed directly to this Court. After the case was submitted for decision, both parties died, Wong Heng on October 21, 1962 and Justina Santos on December 28, 1964. Wong was substituted by his wife, Lui She, the other defendant in this case, while Justina Santos was substituted by the Philippine Banking Corporation.

Justina Santos maintained now reiterated by the Philippine Banking Corporation that the lease contract (Plff Exh. 3) should have been annulled along with the four other contracts (Plff Exhs. 4-7) because it lacks mutuality; because it included a portion which, at the time, was in custodia legis; because the contract was obtained in violation of the fiduciary relations of the parties; because her consent was obtained through undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation; and because the lease contract, like the rest of the contracts, is absolutely simulated. Paragraph 5 of the lease contract states that "The lessee may at any time withdraw from this agreement." It is claimed that this stipulation offends article 1308 of the Civil Code which provides that "the contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them." We have had occasion to delineate the scope and application of article 1308 in the early case of Taylor v. Uy Tieng Piao.1 We said in that case: Article 1256 [now art. 1308] of the Civil Code in our opinion creates no impediment to the insertion in a contract for personal service of a resolutory condition permitting the cancellation of the contract by one of the parties. Such a stipulation, as can be readily seen, does not make either the validity or the fulfillment of the contract dependent upon the will of the party to whom is conceded the privilege of cancellation; for where the contracting parties have agreed that such option shall exist, the exercise of the option is as much in the fulfillment of the contract as any other act which may have been the subject of agreement. Indeed, the cancellation of a contract in accordance with conditions agreed upon beforehand is fulfillment.2 And so it was held in Melencio v. Dy Tiao Lay 3 that a "provision in a lease contract that the lessee, at any time before he erected any building on the land, might rescind the lease, can hardly be regarded as a violation of article 1256 [now art. 1308] of the Civil Code." The case of Singson Encarnacion v. Baldomar 4 cannot be cited in support of the claim of want of mutuality, because of a difference in factual setting. In that case, the lessees argued that they could occupy the premises as long as they paid the rent. This is of course untenable, for as this Court said, "If this defense were to be allowed, so long as defendants elected to continue the lease by continuing the payment of the rentals, the owner would never be able to discontinue it; conversely, although the owner should desire the lease to continue the lessees could effectively thwart his purpose if they should prefer to terminate the contract by the simple expedient of stopping payment of the rentals." Here, in contrast, the right of the lessee to continue the lease or to terminate it is so circumscribed by the term of the contract that it cannot be said that the continuance of the lease depends upon his will. At any rate, even if no term had been fixed in the

agreement, this case would at most justify the fixing of a period5 but not the annulment of the contract. Nor is there merit in the claim that as the portion of the property formerly owned by the sister of Justina Santos was still in the process of settlement in the probate court at the time it was leased, the lease is invalid as to such portion. Justina Santos became the owner of the entire property upon the death of her sister Lorenzo on September 22, 1957 by force of article 777 of the Civil Code. Hence, when she leased the property on November 15, she did so already as owner thereof. As this Court explained in upholding the sale made by an heir of a property under judicial administration: That the land could not ordinarily be levied upon while in custodia legis does not mean that one of the heirs may not sell the right, interest or participation which he has or might have in the lands under administration. The ordinary execution of property in custodia legis is prohibited in order to avoid interference with the possession by the court. But the sale made by an heir of his share in an inheritance, subject to the result of the pending administration, in no wise stands in the way of such administration.6 It is next contended that the lease contract was obtained by Wong in violation of his fiduciary relationship with Justina Santos, contrary to article 1646, in relation to article 1941 of the Civil Code, which disqualifies "agents (from leasing) the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them." But Wong was never an agent of Justina Santos. The relationship of the parties, although admittedly close and confidential, did not amount to an agency so as to bring the case within the prohibition of the law. Just the same, it is argued that Wong so completely dominated her life and affairs that the contracts express not her will but only his. Counsel for Justina Santos cites the testimony of Atty. Tomas S. Yumol who said that he prepared the lease contract on the basis of data given to him by Wong and that she told him that "whatever Mr. Wong wants must be followed."7 The testimony of Atty. Yumol cannot be read out of context in order to warrant a finding that Wong practically dictated the terms of the contract. What this witness said was: Q Did you explain carefully to your client, Doa Justina, the contents of this document before she signed it? A I explained to her each and every one of these conditions and I also told her these conditions were quite onerous for her, I don't really know if I have

expressed my opinion, but I told her that we would rather not execute any contract anymore, but to hold it as it was before, on a verbal month to month contract of lease. Q But, she did not follow your advice, and she went with the contract just the same? A She agreed first . . . Q Agreed what? A Agreed with my objectives that it is really onerous and that I was really right, but after that, I was called again by her and she told me to follow the wishes of Mr. Wong Heng. xxx xxx xxx

Q So, as far as consent is concerned, you were satisfied that this document was perfectly proper? xxx xxx xxx

A Your Honor, if I have to express my personal opinion, I would say she is not, because, as I said before, she told me "Whatever Mr. Wong wants must be followed."8 Wong might indeed have supplied the data which Atty. Yumol embodied in the lease contract, but to say this is not to detract from the binding force of the contract. For the contract was fully explained to Justina Santos by her own lawyer. One incident, related by the same witness, makes clear that she voluntarily consented to the lease contract. This witness said that the original term fixed for the lease was 99 years but that as he doubted the validity of a lease to an alien for that length of time, he tried to persuade her to enter instead into a lease on a month-to-month basis. She was, however, firm and unyielding. Instead of heeding the advice of the lawyer, she ordered him, "Just follow Mr. Wong Heng."9 Recounting the incident, Atty. Yumol declared on cross examination: Considering her age, ninety (90) years old at the time and her condition, she is a wealthy woman, it is just natural when she said "This is what I want and this will be done." In particular reference to this contract of lease, when I said "This is not proper," she said "You just go ahead, you prepare that, I am

the owner, and if there is any illegality, I am the only one that can question the illegality."10 Atty. Yumol further testified that she signed the lease contract in the presence of her close friend, Hermenegilda Lao, and her maid, Natividad Luna, who was constantly by her side.11 Any of them could have testified on the undue influence that Wong supposedly wielded over Justina Santos, but neither of them was presented as a witness. The truth is that even after giving his client time to think the matter over, the lawyer could not make her change her mind. This persuaded the lower court to uphold the validity of the lease contract against the claim that it was procured through undue influence. Indeed, the charge of undue influence in this case rests on a mere inference12 drawn from the fact that Justina Santos could not read (as she was blind) and did not understand the English language in which the contract is written, but that inference has been overcome by her own evidence. Nor is there merit in the claim that her consent to the lease contract, as well as to the rest of the contracts in question, was given out of a mistaken sense of gratitude to Wong who, she was made to believe, had saved her and her sister from a fire that destroyed their house during the liberation of Manila. For while a witness claimed that the sisters were saved by other persons (the brothers Edilberto and Mariano Sta. Ana)13 it was Justina Santos herself who, according to her own witness, Benjamin C. Alonzo, said "very emphatically" that she and her sister would have perished in the fire had it not been for Wong.14 Hence the recital in the deed of conditional option (Plff Exh. 7) that "[I]tong si Wong Heng ang siyang nagligtas sa aming dalawang magkapatid sa halos ay tiyak na kamatayan", and the equally emphatic avowal of gratitude in the lease contract (Plff Exh. 3). As it was with the lease contract (Plff Exh. 3), so it was with the rest of the contracts (Plff Exhs. 4-7) the consent of Justina Santos was given freely and voluntarily. As Atty. Alonzo, testifying for her, said: [I]n nearly all documents, it was either Mr. Wong Heng or Judge Torres and/or both. When we had conferences, they used to tell me what the documents should contain. But, as I said, I would always ask the old woman about them and invariably the old woman used to tell me: "That's okay. It's all right."15 But the lower court set aside all the contracts, with the exception of the lease contract of November 15, 1957, on the ground that they are contrary to the expressed wish of Justina Santos and that their considerations are fictitious. Wong stated in his

deposition that he did not pay P360 a month for the additional premises leased to him, because she did not want him to, but the trial court did not believe him. Neither did it believe his statement that he paid P1,000 as consideration for each of the contracts (namely, the option to buy the leased premises, the extension of the lease to 99 years, and the fixing of the term of the option at 50 years), but that the amount was returned to him by her for safekeeping. Instead, the court relied on the testimony of Atty. Alonzo in reaching the conclusion that the contracts are void for want of consideration. Atty. Alonzo declared that he saw no money paid at the time of the execution of the documents, but his negative testimony does not rule out the possibility that the considerations were paid at some other time as the contracts in fact recite. What is more, the consideration need not pass from one party to the other at the time a contract is executed because the promise of one is the consideration for the other.16 With respect to the lower court's finding that in all probability Justina Santos could not have intended to part with her property while she was alive nor even to lease it in its entirety as her house was built on it, suffice it to quote the testimony of her own witness and lawyer who prepared the contracts (Plff Exhs. 4-7) in question, Atty. Alonzo: The ambition of the old woman, before her death, according to her revelation to me, was to see to it that these properties be enjoyed, even to own them, by Wong Heng because Doa Justina told me that she did not have any relatives, near or far, and she considered Wong Heng as a son and his children her grandchildren; especially her consolation in life was when she would hear the children reciting prayers in Tagalog.17 She was very emphatic in the care of the seventeen (17) dogs and of the maids who helped her much, and she told me to see to it that no one could disturb Wong Heng from those properties. That is why we thought of the ninety-nine (99) years lease; we thought of adoption, believing that thru adoption Wong Heng might acquire Filipino citizenship; being the adopted child of a Filipino citizen.18 This is not to say, however, that the contracts (Plff Exhs. 3-7) are valid. For the testimony just quoted, while dispelling doubt as to the intention of Justina Santos, at the same time gives the clue to what we view as a scheme to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition against the transfer of lands to aliens. "The illicit purpose then becomes the illegal causa"19 rendering the contracts void. Taken singly, the contracts show nothing that is necessarily illegal, but considered collectively, they reveal an insidious pattern to subvert by indirection what the Constitution directly prohibits. To be sure, a lease to an alien for a reasonable period is

valid. So is an option giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship. As this Court said in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds:20 [A]liens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. Should they desire to remain here forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire. But if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property,21 this to last for 50 years, then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land ( jus possidendi, jus utendi, jus fruendi and jus abutendi) but also of the right to dispose of it ( jus disponendi) rights the sum total of which make up ownership. It is just as if today the possession is transferred, tomorrow, the use, the next day, the disposition, and so on, until ultimately all the rights of which ownership is made up are consolidated in an alien. And yet this is just exactly what the parties in this case did within the space of one year, with the result that Justina Santos' ownership of her property was reduced to a hollow concept. If this can be done, then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines, as announced in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds,22 is indeed in grave peril. It does not follow from what has been said, however, that because the parties are in pari delicto they will be left where they are, without relief. For one thing, the original parties who were guilty of a violation of the fundamental charter have died and have since been substituted by their administrators to whom it would be unjust to impute their guilt.23 For another thing, and this is not only cogent but also important, article 1416 of the Civil Code provides, as an exception to the rule on pari delicto, that "When the agreement is not illegal per se but is merely prohibited, and the prohibition by law is designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he may, if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he has paid or delivered." The Constitutional provision that "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines"24 is an expression of public policy to conserve lands for the Filipinos. As this Court said in Krivenko: It is well to note at this juncture that in the present case we have no choice. We are construing the Constitution as it is and not as we may desire it to be. Perhaps the effect of our construction is to preclude aliens admitted freely into the Philippines from owning sites where they may build their homes.

But if this is the solemn mandate of the Constitution, we will not attempt to compromise it even in the name of amity or equity . . . . For all the foregoing, we hold that under the Constitution aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands, including residential lands, and, accordingly, judgment is affirmed, without costs.25 That policy would be defeated and its continued violation sanctioned if, instead of setting the contracts aside and ordering the restoration of the land to the estate of the deceased Justina Santos, this Court should apply the general rule of pari delicto. To the extent that our ruling in this case conflicts with that laid down in Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun 26 and subsequent similar cases, the latter must be considered as pro tanto qualified. The claim for increased rentals and attorney's fees, made in behalf of Justina Santos, must be denied for lack of merit. And what of the various amounts which Wong received in trust from her? It appears that he kept two classes of accounts, one pertaining to amount which she entrusted to him from time to time, and another pertaining to rentals from the Ongpin property and from the Rizal Avenue property, which he himself was leasing. With respect to the first account, the evidence shows that he received P33,724.27 on November 8, 1957 (Plff Exh. 16); P7,354.42 on December 1, 1957 (Plff Exh. 13); P10,000 on December 6, 1957 (Plff Exh. 14) ; and P18,928.50 on August 26, 1959 (Def. Exh. 246), or a total of P70,007.19. He claims, however, that he settled his accounts and that the last amount of P18,928.50 was in fact payment to him of what in the liquidation was found to be due to him. He made disbursements from this account to discharge Justina Santos' obligations for taxes, attorneys' fees, funeral services and security guard services, but the checks (Def Exhs. 247-278) drawn by him for this purpose amount to only P38,442.84.27 Besides, if he had really settled his accounts with her on August 26, 1959, we cannot understand why he still had P22,000 in the bank and P3,000 in his possession, or a total of P25,000. In his answer, he offered to pay this amount if the court so directed him. On these two grounds, therefore, his claim of liquidation and settlement of accounts must be rejected. After subtracting P38,442.84 (expenditures) from P70,007.19 (receipts), there is a difference of P31,564 which, added to the amount of P25,000, leaves a balance of P56,564.3528 in favor of Justina Santos. As to the second account, the evidence shows that the monthly income from the Ongpin property until its sale in Rizal Avenue July, 1959 was P1,000, and that from the

Rizal Avenue property, of which Wong was the lessee, was P3,120. Against this account the household expenses and disbursements for the care of the 17 dogs and the salaries of the 8 maids of Justina Santos were charged. This account is contained in a notebook (Def. Exh. 6) which shows a balance of P9,210.49 in favor of Wong. But it is claimed that the rental from both the Ongpin and Rizal Avenue properties was more than enough to pay for her monthly expenses and that, as a matter of fact, there should be a balance in her favor. The lower court did not allow either party to recover against the other. Said the court: [T]he documents bear the earmarks of genuineness; the trouble is that they were made only by Francisco Wong and Antonia Matias, nick-named Toning, which was the way she signed the loose sheets, and there is no clear proof that Doa Justina had authorized these two to act for her in such liquidation; on the contrary if the result of that was a deficit as alleged and sought to be there shown, of P9,210.49, that was not what Doa Justina apparently understood for as the Court understands her statement to the Honorable Judge of the Juvenile Court . . . the reason why she preferred to stay in her home was because there she did not incur in any debts . . . this being the case, . . . the Court will not adjudicate in favor of Wong Heng on his counterclaim; on the other hand, while it is claimed that the expenses were much less than the rentals and there in fact should be a superavit, . . . this Court must concede that daily expenses are not easy to compute, for this reason, the Court faced with the choice of the two alternatives will choose the middle course which after all is permitted by the rules of proof, Sec. 69, Rule 123 for in the ordinary course of things, a person will live within his income so that the conclusion of the Court will be that there is neither deficit nor superavit and will let the matter rest here. Both parties on appeal reiterate their respective claims but we agree with the lower court that both claims should be denied. Aside from the reasons given by the court, we think that the claim of Justina Santos totalling P37,235, as rentals due to her after deducting various expenses, should be rejected as the evidence is none too clear about the amounts spent by Wong for food29 masses30 and salaries of her maids.31 His claim for P9,210.49 must likewise be rejected as his averment of liquidation is belied by his own admission that even as late as 1960 he still had P22,000 in the bank and P3,000 in his possession. ACCORDINGLY, the contracts in question (Plff Exhs. 3-7) are annulled and set aside; the land subject-matter of the contracts is ordered returned to the estate of Justina Santos as represented by the Philippine Banking Corporation; Wong Heng (as substituted by the defendant-appellant Lui She) is ordered to pay the Philippine Banking Corporation the sum of P56,564.35, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the amended complaint; and the amounts consigned in court by Wong Heng shall be applied to the

payment of rental from November 15, 1959 until the premises shall have been vacated by his heirs. Costs against the defendant-appellant. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, J., concurring: With the able and well-written opinion of Justice Castro, I am in full agreement. The exposition of the facts leaves nothing to be desired and the statement of the law is notable for its comprehensiveness and clarity. This concurring opinion has been written solely to express what I consider to be the unfortunate and deplorable consequences of applying the pari delicto concept, as was, to my mind, indiscriminately done, to alien landholding declared illegal under the Krivenko doctrine in some past decisions. It is to be remembered that in Krivenko v. The Register of Deeds of Manila,1 this Court over strong dissents held that residential and commercial lots may be considered agricultural within the meaning of the constitutional provision prohibiting the transfer of any private agricultural land to individuals, corporations or associations not qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines save in cases of hereditary succession. That provision of the Constitution took effect on November 15, 1935 when the Commonwealth Government was established. The interpretation as set forth in the Krivenko decision was only handed down on November 15, 1947. Prior to that date there were many who were of the opinion that the phrase agricultural land should be construed strictly and not be made to cover residential and commercial lots. Acting on that belief, several transactions were entered into transferring such lots to alien vendees by Filipinovendors. After the Krivenko decision, some Filipino vendors sought recovery of the lots in question on the ground that the sales were null and void. No definite ruling was made by this Court until September of 1953, when on the 29th of said month, Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun,2 Bautista v. Uy Isabelo,3 Talento v. Makiki,4 Caoile v. Chiao Peng5 were decided.

Of the four decisions in September, 1953, the most extensive discussion of the question is found in Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, the opinion being penned by retired Justice Bautista Angelo with the concurrence only of one Justice, Justice Labrador, also retired. Former Chief Justice Paras as well as the former Justices Tuason and Montemayor concurred in the result. The necessary sixth vote for a decision was given by the then Justice Bengzon, who had a two-paragraph concurring opinion disagreeing with the main opinion as to the force to be accorded to the two cases,6 therein cited. There were two dissenting opinions by former Justices Pablo and Alex Reyes. The doctrine as announced in the Rellosa case is that while the sale by a Filipino-vendor to an alienvendee of a residential or a commercial lot is null and void as held in the Krivenko case, still the Filipino-vendor has no right to recover under a civil law doctrine, the parties being in pari delicto. The only remedy to prevent this continuing violation of the Constitution which the decision impliedly sanctions by allowing the alien vendees to retain the lots in question is either escheat or reversion. Thus: "By following either of these remedies, or by approving an implementary law as above suggested, we can enforce the fundamental policy of our Constitution regarding our natural resources without doing violence to the principle of pari delicto."7 Were the parties really in pari delicto? Had the sale by and between Filipinovendor and alien-vendee occurred after the decision in the Krivenko case, then the above view would be correct that both Filipino-vendor and alien-vendee could not be considered as innocent parties within the contemplation of the law. Both of them should be held equally guilty of evasion of the Constitution. Since, however, the sales in question took place prior to the Krivenko decision, at a time when the assumption could be honestly entertained that there was no constitutional prohibition against the sale of commercial or residential lots by Filipino-vendor to alienvendee, in the absence of a definite decision by the Supreme Court, it would not be doing violence to reason to free them from the imputation of evading the Constitution. For evidently evasion implies at the very least knowledge of what is being evaded. The new Civil Code expressly provides: "Mistakes upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith."8 According to the Rellosa opinion, both parties are equally guilty of evasion of the Constitution, based on the broader principle that "both parties are presumed to know the law." This statement that the sales entered into prior to the Krivenko decision were at that time already vitiated by a guilty knowledge of the parties may be too extreme a view. It appears to ignore a postulate of a constitutional system, wherein the words of the Constitution acquire meaning through Supreme Court adjudication.1awphl.nt Reference may be made by way of analogy to a decision adjudging a statute void. Under the orthodox theory of constitutional law, the act having been found unconstitutional was not a law, conferred no rights, imposed no duty, afforded no

protection.9 As pointed out by former Chief Justice Hughes though in Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank:10 "It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects, with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand examination." After the Krivenko decision, there is no doubt that continued possession by alienvendee of property acquired before its promulgation is violative of the Constitution. It is as if an act granting aliens the right to acquire residential and commercial lots were annulled by the Supreme Court as contrary to the provision of the Constitution prohibiting aliens from acquiring private agricultural land. The question then as now, therefore, was and is how to divest the alien of such property rights on terms equitable to both parties. That question should be justly resolved in accordance with the mandates of the Constitution not by a wholesale condemnation of both parties for entering into a contract at a time when there was no ban as yet arising from the Krivenko decision, which could not have been anticipated. Unfortunately, under the Rellosa case, it was assumed that the parties, being in pari delicto, would be left in the situation in which they were, neither being in a position to seek judicial redress. Would it not have been more in consonance with the Constitution, if instead the decision compelled the restitution of the property by the alien-vendee to the Filipinovendor? Krivenko decision held in clear, explicit and unambigous language that: "We are deciding the instant case under section 5 of Article XIII of the Constitution which is more comprehensive and more absolute in the sense that it prohibits the transfer to aliens of any private agricultural land including residential land whatever its origin might have been . . . . This prohibition [Rep. Act No. 133] makes no distinction between private lands that are strictly agricultural and private lands that are residential or commercial. The prohibition embraces the sale of private lands of any kind in favor of aliens, which is again a clear implementation and a legislative interpretation of the constitutional prohibition. . . . It is well to note at this juncture that in the present case we have no choice. We are construing the Constitution as it is and not as we may desire it to be. Perhaps the effect of our construction is to preclude aliens, admitted freely into the Philippines, from owning sites where they may build their homes. But if this is the solemn mandate of the Constitution, we will not attempt to compromise it even in the name of amity or equity."11

Alien-vendee is therefore incapacitated or disqualified to acquire and hold real estate. That incapacity and that disqualification should date from the adoption of the Constitution on November 15, 1935. That incapacity and that disqualification, however, was made known to Filipino-vendor and to alien-vendee only upon the promulgation of the Krivenko decision on November 15, 1947. Alien-vendee, therefore, cannot be allowed to continue owning and exercising acts of ownership over said property, when it is clearly included within the Constitutional prohibition. Alien-vendee should thus be made to restore the property with its fruits and rents to Filipino-vendor, its previous owner, if it could be shown that in the utmost good faith, he transferred his title over the same to alien-vendee, upon restitution of the purchase price of course. The Constitution bars alien-vendees from owning the property in question. By dismissing those suits, the lots remained in alien hands. Notwithstanding the solution of escheat or reversion offered, they are still at the moment of writing, for the most part in alien hands. There have been after almost twenty years no proceedings for escheat or reversion. Yet it is clear that an alien-vendee cannot consistently with the constitutional provision, as interpreted in the Krivenko decision, continue owning and exercising acts of ownership over the real estate in question. It ought to follow then, if such a continuing violation of the fundamental law is to be put an end to, that the Filipino-vendor, who in good faith entered into, a contract with an incapacitated person, transferring ownership of a piece of land after the Constitution went into full force and effect, should, in the light of the ruling in the Krivenko case, be restored to the possession and ownership thereof, where he has filed the appropriate case or proceeding. Any other construction would defeat the ends and purposes not only of this particular provision in question but the rest of the Constitution itself. The Constitution frowns upon the title remaining in the alien-vendees. Restoration of the property upon payment of price received by Filipino vendor or its reasonable equivalent as fixed by the court is the answer. To give the constitutional provision full force and effect, in consonance with the dictates of equity and justice, the restoration to Filipino-vendor upon the payment of a price fixed by the court is the better remedy. He thought he could transfer the property to an alien and did so. After the Krivenko case had made clear that he had no right to sell nor an alien-vendee to purchase the property in question, the obvious solution would be for him to reacquire the same. That way the Constitution would be given, as it ought to be given, respect and deference. It may be said that it is too late at this stage to hope for such a solution, the Rellosa opinion, although originally concurred in by only one justice, being too firmly imbedded. The writer however sees a welcome sign in the adoption by the Court in this case of the concurring opinion of the then Justice, later Chief Justice, Bengzon. Had it been followed

then, the problem would not be still with us now. Fortunately, it is never too late not even in constitutional adjudication. G.R. No. L-34338 November 21, 1984 LOURDES VALERIO LIM, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. RELOVA, J.: Petitioner Lourdes Valerio Lim was found guilty of the crime of estafa and was sentenced "to suffer an imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum to two (2) years and four (4) months as maximum, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P559.50, with subsidize imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs." (p. 14, Rollo) From this judgment, appeal was taken to the then Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the penalty imposed by sentencing her "to suffer an indeterminate penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum, to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P550.50 without subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs of suit." (p. 24, Rollo) The question involved in this case is whether the receipt, Exhibit "A", is a contract of agency to sell or a contract of sale of the subject tobacco between petitioner and the complainant, Maria de Guzman Vda. de Ayroso, thereby precluding criminal liability of petitioner for the crime charged. The findings of facts of the appellate court are as follows: ... The appellant is a businesswoman. On January 10, 1966, the appellant went to the house of Maria Ayroso and proposed to sell Ayroso's tobacco. Ayroso agreed to the proposition of the appellant to sell her tobacco consisting of 615 kilos at P1.30 a kilo. The appellant was to receive the overprice for which she could sell the tobacco. This agreement was made in the presence of plaintiff's sister, Salud G. Bantug. Salvador Bantug drew the document, Exh. A, dated January 10, 1966, which reads:

To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that I have received from Mrs. Maria de Guzman Vda. de Ayroso. of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, six hundred fifteen kilos of leaf tobacco to be sold at Pl.30 per kilo. The proceed in the amount of Seven Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and 50/100 (P 799.50) will be given to her as soon as it was sold. This was signed by the appellant and witnessed by the complainant's sister, Salud Bantug, and the latter's maid, Genoveva Ruiz. The appellant at that time was bringing a jeep, and the tobacco was loaded in the jeep and brought by the appellant. Of the total value of P799.50, the appellant had paid to Ayroso only P240.00, and this was paid on three different times. Demands for the payment of the balance of the value of the tobacco were made upon the appellant by Ayroso, and particularly by her sister, Salud Bantug. Salud Bantug further testified that she had gone to the house of the appellant several times, but the appellant often eluded her; and that the "camarin" the appellant was empty. Although the appellant denied that demands for payment were made upon her, it is a fact that on October 19, 1966, she wrote a letter to Salud Bantug which reads as follows: Dear Salud, Hindi ako nakapunta dian noon a 17 nitong nakaraan, dahil kokonte pa ang nasisingil kong pera, magintay ka hanggang dito sa linggo ito at tiak na ako ay magdadala sa iyo. Gosto ko Salud ay makapagbigay man lang ako ng marami para hindi masiadong kahiyahiya sa iyo. Ngayon kung gosto mo ay kahit konte muna ay bibigyan kita. Pupunta lang kami ni Mina sa Maynila ngayon. Salud kung talagang kailangan mo ay bukas ay dadalhan kita ng pera. Medio mahirap ang maningil sa palengke ng Cabanatuan dahil nagsisilipat ang mga suki

ko ng puesto. Huwag kang mabahala at tiyak na babayaran kita. Patnubayan tayo ng mahal na panginoon Dios. (Exh. B).

Pursuant to this letter, the appellant sent a money order for P100.00 on October 24, 1967, Exh. 4, and another for P50.00 on March 8, 1967; and she paid P90.00 on April 18, 1967 as evidenced by the receipt Exh. 2, dated April 18, 1967, or a total of P240.00. As no further amount was paid, the complainant filed a complaint against the appellant for estafa. (pp. 14, 15, 16, Rollo) In this petition for review by certiorari, Lourdes Valerio Lim poses the following questions of law, to wit: 1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals was legally right in holding that the foregoing document (Exhibit "A") "fixed a period" and "the obligation was therefore, immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was sold" (Decision, p. 6) as against the theory of the petitioner that the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended in which case the only action that can be maintained is a petition to ask the court to fix the duration thereof; 2. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals was legally right in holding that "Art. 1197 of the New Civil Code does not apply" as against the alternative theory of the petitioner that the fore. going receipt (Exhibit "A") gives rise to an obligation wherein the duration of the period depends upon the will of the debtor in which case the only action that can be maintained is a petition to ask the court to fix the duration of the period; and

3. Whether or not the honorable Court of Appeals was legally right in holding that the foregoing receipt is a contract of agency to sell as against the theory of the petitioner that it is a contract of sale. (pp. 3-4, Rollo) It is clear in the agreement, Exhibit "A", that the proceeds of the sale of the tobacco should be turned over to the complainant as soon as the same was sold, or, that the obligation was immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was disposed of. Hence, Article 1197 of the New Civil Code, which provides that the courts may fix the duration of the obligation if it does not fix a period, does not apply. Anent the argument that petitioner was not an agent because Exhibit "A" does not say that she would be paid the commission if the goods were sold, the Court of Appeals correctly resolved the matter as follows: ... Aside from the fact that Maria Ayroso testified that the appellant asked her to be her agent in selling Ayroso's tobacco, the appellant herself admitted that there was an agreement that upon the sale of the tobacco she would be given something. The appellant is a businesswoman, and it is unbelievable that she would go to the extent of going to Ayroso's house and take the tobacco with a jeep which she had brought if she did not intend to make a profit out of the transaction. Certainly, if she was doing a favor to Maria Ayroso and it was Ayroso who had requested her to sell her tobacco, it would not have been the appellant who would have gone to the house of Ayroso, but it would have been Ayroso who would have gone to the house of the appellant and deliver the tobacco to the appellant. (p. 19, Rollo) The fact that appellant received the tobacco to be sold at P1.30 per kilo and the proceeds to be given to complainant as soon as it was sold, strongly negates transfer of ownership of the goods to the petitioner. The agreement (Exhibit "A') constituted her as an agent with the obligation to return the tobacco if the same was not sold. ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review on certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit. With costs. SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-22558 May 31, 1967

GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., respondent. Araneta and Araneta for petitioner. Rosauro Alvarez and Ernani Cruz Pao for respondent. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Petition for certiorari to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals, in its CA-G.R. No. 28249-R, affirming with modification, an amendatory decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 36303, entitled "Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., Ltd., plaintiff, versus J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Gregorio Araneta, Inc., defendants." As found by the Court of Appeals, the facts of this case are: J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. is the owner of a big tract land situated in Quezon City, otherwise known as the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision, and covered by a Torrens title in its name. On July 28, 1950, through Gregorio Araneta, Inc., it (Tuason & Co.) sold a portion thereof with an area of 43,034.4 square meters, more or less, for the sum of P430,514.00, to Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., Ltd. The parties stipulated, among in the contract of purchase and sale with mortgage, that the buyer will Build on the said parcel land the Sto. Domingo Church and Convent while the seller for its part will Construct streets on the NE and NW and SW sides of the land herein sold so that the latter will be a block surrounded by streets on all four sides; and the street on the NE side shall be named "Sto. Domingo Avenue;" The buyer, Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., Ltd., finished the construction of Sto. Domingo Church and Convent, but the seller, Gregorio Araneta, Inc., which began constructing the streets, is unable to finish the construction of the street in the Northeast side named (Sto. Domingo Avenue) because a certain third-party, by the name of Manuel

10

Abundo, who has been physically occupying a middle part thereof, refused to vacate the same; hence, on May 7, 1958, Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., Lt. filed its complaint against J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., and instance, seeking to compel the latter to comply with their obligation, as stipulated in the above-mentioned deed of sale, and/or to pay damages in the event they failed or refused to perform said obligation. Both defendants J. M. Tuason and Co. and Gregorio Araneta, Inc. answered the complaint, the latter particularly setting up the principal defense that the action was premature since its obligation to construct the streets in question was without a definite period which needs to he fixed first by the court in a proper suit for that purpose before a complaint for specific performance will prosper. The issues having been joined, the lower court proceeded with the trial, and upon its termination, it dismissed plaintiff's complaint (in a decision dated May 31, 1960), upholding the defenses interposed by defendant Gregorio Araneta, Inc.1wph1.t Plaintiff moved to reconsider and modify the above decision, praying that the court fix a period within which defendants will comply with their obligation to construct the streets in question. Defendant Gregorio Araneta, Inc. opposed said motion, maintaining that plaintiff's complaint did not expressly or impliedly allege and pray for the fixing of a period to comply with its obligation and that the evidence presented at the trial was insufficient to warrant the fixing of such a period. On July 16, 1960, the lower court, after finding that "the proven facts precisely warrants the fixing of such a period," issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and amending the dispositive portion of the decision of May 31, 1960, to read as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered giving defendant Gregorio Araneta, Inc., a period of two (2) years from notice hereof, within which to comply with its obligation under the contract, Annex "A". Defendant Gregorio Araneta, Inc. presented a motion to reconsider the above quoted order, which motion, plaintiff opposed. On August 16, 1960, the lower court denied defendant Gregorio Araneta, Inc's. motion; and the latter perfected its appeal Court of Appeals. In said appellate court, defendant-appellant Gregorio Araneta, Inc. contended mainly that the relief granted, i.e., fixing of a period, under the amendatory decision of July 16, 1960,

was not justified by the pleadings and not supported by the facts submitted at the trial of the case in the court below and that the relief granted in effect allowed a change of theory after the submission of the case for decision. Ruling on the above contention, the appellate court declared that the fixing of a period was within the pleadings and that there was no true change of theory after the submission of the case for decision since defendant-appellant Gregorio Araneta, Inc. itself squarely placed said issue by alleging in paragraph 7 of the affirmative defenses contained in its answer which reads 7. Under the Deed of Sale with Mortgage of July 28, 1950, herein defendant has a reasonable time within which to comply with its obligations to construct and complete the streets on the NE, NW and SW sides of the lot in question; that under the circumstances, said reasonable time has not elapsed; Disposing of the other issues raised by appellant which were ruled as not meritorious and which are not decisive in the resolution of the legal issues posed in the instant appeal before us, said appellate court rendered its decision dated December 27, 1963, the dispositive part of which reads IN VIEW WHEREOF, judgment affirmed and modified; as a consequence, defendant is given two (2) years from the date of finality of this decision to comply with the obligation to construct streets on the NE, NW and SW sides of the land sold to plaintiff so that the same would be a block surrounded by streets on all four sides. Unsuccessful in having the above decision reconsidered, defendant-appellant Gregorio Araneta, Inc. resorted to a petition for review by certiorari to this Court. We gave it due course. We agree with the petitioner that the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming that of the Court of First Instance is legally untenable. The fixing of a period by the courts under Article 1197 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is sought to be justified on the basis that petitioner (defendant below) placed the absence of a period in issue by pleading in its answer that the contract with respondent Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., Ltd. gave petitioner Gregorio Araneta, Inc. "reasonable time within which to comply with its obligation to construct and complete the streets." Neither of the courts below seems to have noticed that, on the hypothesis stated, what the answer put in issue was not whether the court should fix the time of performance, but whether or not the parties agreed that the petitioner should have reasonable time to perform its part of the bargain. If the contract so provided, then there was a period fixed, a "reasonable time;" and all that the court should have done was to determine if that reasonable time had already elapsed

11

when suit was filed if it had passed, then the court should declare that petitioner had breached the contract, as averred in the complaint, and fix the resulting damages. On the other hand, if the reasonable time had not yet elapsed, the court perforce was bound to dismiss the action for being premature. But in no case can it be logically held that under the plea above quoted, the intervention of the court to fix the period for performance was warranted, for Article 1197 is precisely predicated on the absence of any period fixed by the parties. Even on the assumption that the court should have found that no reasonable time or no period at all had been fixed (and the trial court's amended decision nowhere declared any such fact) still, the complaint not having sought that the Court should set a period, the court could not proceed to do so unless the complaint in as first amended; for the original decision is clear that the complaint proceeded on the theory that the period for performance had already elapsed, that the contract had been breached and defendant was already answerable in damages. Granting, however, that it lay within the Court's power to fix the period of performance, still the amended decision is defective in that no basis is stated to support the conclusion that the period should be set at two years after finality of the judgment. The list paragraph of Article 1197 is clear that the period can not be set arbitrarily. The law expressly prescribes that the Court shall determine such period as may under the circumstances been probably contemplated by the parties. All that the trial court's amended decision (Rec. on Appeal, p. 124) says in this respect is that "the proven facts precisely warrant the fixing of such a period," a statement manifestly insufficient to explain how the two period given to petitioner herein was arrived at. It must be recalled that Article 1197 of the Civil Code involves a two-step process. The Court must first determine that "the obligation does not fix a period" (or that the period is made to depend upon the will of the debtor)," but from the nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended" (Art. 1197, pars. 1 and 2). This preliminary point settled, the Court must then proceed to the second step, and decide what period was "probably contemplated by the parties" (Do., par. 3). So that, ultimately, the Court can not fix a period merely because in its opinion it is or should be reasonable, but must set the time that the parties are shown to have intended. As the record stands, the trial Court appears to have pulled the two-year period set in its decision out of thin air, since no circumstances are mentioned to support it. Plainly, this is not warranted by the Civil Code.

In this connection, it is to be borne in mind that the contract shows that the parties were fully aware that the land described therein was occupied by squatters, because the fact is expressly mentioned therein (Rec. on Appeal, Petitioner's Appendix B, pp. 12-13). As the parties must have known that they could not take the law into their own hands, but must resort to legal processes in evicting the squatters, they must have realized that the duration of the suits to be brought would not be under their control nor could the same be determined in advance. The conclusion is thus forced that the parties must have intended to defer the performance of the obligations under the contract until the squatters were duly evicted, as contended by the petitioner Gregorio Araneta, Inc. The Court of Appeals objected to this conclusion that it would render the date of performance indefinite. Yet, the circumstances admit no other reasonable view; and this very indefiniteness is what explains why the agreement did not specify any exact periods or dates of performance. It follows that there is no justification in law for the setting the date of performance at any other time than that of the eviction of the squatters occupying the land in question; and in not so holding, both the trial Court and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. It is not denied that the case against one of the squatters, Abundo, was still pending in the Court of Appeals when its decision in this case was rendered. In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the time for the performance of the obligations of petitioner Gregorio Araneta, Inc. is hereby fixed at the date that all the squatters on affected areas are finally evicted therefrom. Costs against respondent Philippine Sugar Estates Development, Co., Ltd. So ordered. Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-55480 June 30, 1987 PACIFICA MILLARE, petitioner, vs. HON. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, In his capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of Instance of Abra, Second Judicial District, Branch I, ANTONIO CO and ELSA CO, respondents.

FELICIANO, J.:

12

On 17 June 1975, a five-year Contract of Lease 1 was executed between petitioner Pacifica Millare as lessor and private respondent Elsa Co, married to Antonio Co, as lessee. Under the written agreement, which was scheduled to expire on 31 May 1980, the lessor-petitioner agreed to rent out to thelessee at a monthly rate of P350.00 the "People's Restaurant", a commercial establishment located at the corner of McKinley and Pratt Streets in Bangued, Abra. The present dispute arose from events which transpired during the months of May and July in 1980. According to the Co spouses, sometime during the last week of May 1980, the lessor informed them that they could continue leasing the People's Restaurant so long as they were amenable to paying creased rentals of P1,200.00 a month. In response, a counteroffer of P700.00 a month was made by the Co spouses. At this point, the lessor allegedly stated that the amount of monthly rentals could be resolved at a later time since "the matter is simple among us", which alleged remark was supposedly taken by the spouses Co to mean that the Contract of Lease had been renewed, prompting them to continue occupying the subject premises and to forego their search for a substitute place 2 to rent. In contrast, the lessor flatly denied ever having considered, much less offered, a renewal of the Contract of Lease. The variance in versions notwithstanding, the record shows that on 22 July 1980, Mrs. Millare wrote the Co spouses requesting them to vacate the leased premises as she had no intention of renewing the Contract of Lease which had, 3 in the meantime, already expirecl. In reply, the Co spouses reiterated their unwillingness to pay the Pl,200.00 monthly rentals supposedly sought bv Mrs. Millare which they considered "highly excessive, oppressive and contrary to existing laws". They also signified their intention to deposit the amount of rentals 4 in court, in view of Mrs. Millare's refusal to accept their counter-offer. Another letter of demand from Mrs. Millare was received on 28 July 1980 by the Co spouses, who responded by depositing the rentals for June and July (at 700.00 a month) in court. On 30 August 1980, a Saturday, the Co spouses jumped the gun, as it were, and 5 filed a Complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. 1434) with the then Court of First Instance of Abra against Mrs. Millare and seeking judgment (a) ordering the renewal of the Contract of Lease at a rental rate of P700.00 a nionth and for a period of ten years, (b) ordering the defendant to collect the sum of P1,400.00 deposited by plaintiffs with the court, and (c) ordering the defendant to pay damages in the amount of P50,000.00. The following Monday, on 1 September 1980, Mrs. Millare filed an ejectment case against the Co spouses in the Municipal Court of Bangued, Abra, docketed as Civil Case No. 661. The spouses Co, defendants therein, sut)sequently set up lis pendens as a Civil Case No. 661. The spouses Co, defendants therein, subsequently set up lis pendens as a defense against the complaint for ejectment.

Mrs. Millare, defendant in Civil Case No. 1434, countered with an Omnibus 6 Motion to Dismiss rounded on (a) lack of cause of action due to plaintiffs' failure to establish a valid renewal of the Contract of Lease, and (b) lack of jurisdiction by the trial court over the complaint for failure of plaintiffs to secure a certification from the Lupong Tagapayapa of the barangay wherein both disputants reside attesting that no amicable settlement between them had been reached despite efforts to arrive at one, as required by Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1508. 7 The Co spouses opposed the motion to dismiss. In an Order dated 15 October 1980, respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the renewal of the Contract of Lease. Furthermore plaintiffs were allowed to deposit all accruing monthly rentals in court, while defendant 8 Millare was directed to submit her answer to the complaint. A motion for 9 reconsideration was subsequently filed which, however, was likewise denied. 10 Hence, on 13 November 1980, Mrs. Millare filed the instant Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, seeking injunctive relief from the abovementioned orders. This Court issued a temporary restraining order on 21 November 1980 enjoining respondent, judge from conducting further proceedings in Civil Case No. 1434. 11 Apparently, before the temporary restraining order could be served on the respondent judge, he rendered a "Judgment by Default" dated 26 November 1980 ordering the renewal of the lease contract for a term of 5 years counted from the expiration date of the original lease contract, and fixing monthly rentals thereunder at P700.00 a month, payable in arrears. On18 March 1981, this Court gave due course to the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus. 12 Two issues are presented for resolution: (1) whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 1434; and (2) whether or not private respondents have a valid cause of action against petitioner. Turning to the first issue, petitioner's attack on the jurisdiction of the trial court must fail, though for reasons different from those cited by the respondent judge. 13 We would note firstly that the conciliation procedure required under P.D. 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement in the sense that failure to have prior recourse to such procedure would not deprive a court of its jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant.14 Secondly, the acord shows that two complaints were submitted to the barangay authorities for conciliation one by petitioner for ejectment and the other by private respondents for renewal of the Contract of Lease. It appears further that both complaints were, in fact, heard by the Lupong Tagapayapa in the afternoon of 30 August 1980. After attempts at conciliation had proven fruitless, Certifications to File Action authorizing the parties to pursue their respective claims in court were then issued at 5:20 p.m. of that same aftemoon, as attested to by the Barangay Captain in a Certification presented in evidence by petitioner herself. 15

13

Petitioner would, nonetheless, assail the proceedings in the trial court on a technicaety, i.e., private respondents allegedly filed their complaint at 4:00 p.m. of 30 August 1980, or one hour and twenty minutes before the issuance of the requisite certification by the Lupng Tagapayapa. The defect in procedure admittedly initially present at that particular moment when private respondents first filed the complaint in the trial court, was cured by the subsequent issuance of the Certifications to File Action by the barangay Lupong Tagapayapa Such certifications in any event constituted substantial comphance with the requirement of P.D. 1508. We turn to the second issue, that is, whether or not the complaint in Civil Case No. 1434 filed by the respondent Co spouses claiming renewal of the contract of lease stated a valid cause of action. Paragraph 13 of the Contract of Lease reads as follows: 13. This contract of lease is subject to the laws and regulations ofthe goverrunent; and that this contract of lease may be renewed after a period of five (5) years under the terms and conditions as will be mutually agreed upon by the parties at the time of renewal; ... (Emphasis supplied.) The respondent judge, in his Answer and Comment to the Petition, urges that under paragraph 13 quoted above. there was already a consummated and finished mutual agreement of the parties to renew the contract of lease after five years; what is only left unsettled between the parties to the contract of lease is the amount of the monthly rental; the lessor insists Pl,200 a month, while the lessee is begging P700 a month which doubled the P350 monthly rental under the original contract .... In short, the lease contract has never expired because paragraph 13 thereof had expressly mandated that it is renewable. ... 16 In the "Judgment by Default" he rendered, the respondent Judge elaborated his views obviously highly emotional in character in the following extraordinary tatements: However, it is now the negative posture of the defendant-lessor to block, reject and refuse to renew said lease contract. It is the defendant-lessor's assertion and position that she can at the mere click of her fingers, just throw-out the plaintiffs-lessees from the leased premises and any time after the original term

of the lease contract had already expired; This negative position of the defendantlessor, to the mind of this Court does not conform to the principles and correct application of the philosophy underlying the law of lease; for indeed, the law of lease is impressed with public interest, social justice and equity; reason for which, this Court cannot sanction lot owner's business and commercial speculations by allowing them with "unbridled discretion" to raise rentals even to the extent of "extraordinary gargantuan proportions, and calculated to unreasonably and unjustly eject the helpless lessee because he cannot afford said inflated monthly rental and thereby said lessee is placed without any alternative, except to surrender and vacate the premises mediately,-" Many business establishments would be closed and the public would directly suffer the direct consequences; Nonetheless, this is not the correct concept or perspective the law of lease, that is, to place the lessee always at the mercy of the lessor's "Merchant of Venice" and to agit the latter's personal whims and caprices; the defendant-lessor's hostile attitude by imposing upon the lessee herein an "unreasonable and extraordinary gargantuan monthly rental of P1,200.00", to the mind of this Court, is "flyby night unjust enrichment" at the expense of said lessees; but, no Man should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another; under these facts and circumstances surrounding this case, the action therefore to renew the lease contract! is "tenable" because it falls squarely within the coverage and command of Articles 1197 and 1670 of the New Civil Code, to wit: xxx xxx xxx The term "to be renewed" as expressly stipulated by the herein parties in the original contract of lease means that the lease may be renewed for another term of five (5) years; its equivalent to a promise made by the lessor to the lessee, and as a unilateral stipulation, obliges the lessor to fulfill her promise; of course the lessor is free to comply and honor her commitment or back-out from her promise to renew the lease contract; but, once expressly stipulated, the lessor shall not be allowed to evade or violate the obligation to renew the lease because, certainly, the lessor may be held hable for damages caused to the lessee as a consequence of the unjustifiable termination of the lease or renewal of the same; In other words, the lessor is guilty of breach of contract: Since the original

14

lease was fixed for five (5) years, it follows, therefore, that the lease contract is renewable for another five (5) years and the lessee is not required before hand to give express notice of this fact to the lessor because it was expressly stipulated in the original lease contract to be renewed; Wherefore, the bare refusal of the lessor to renew the lease contract unless the monthly rental is P1,200.00 is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, justice and equity because no one should unjustly enrich herself at the expense of another. Article 1197 and 1670 of the New Civil Code must therefore govern the case at bar and whereby this Court is authorized to fix the period thereof by ordering the renewal of the lease contract to another fixed term of five (5) years. 17 Clearly, the respondent judge's grasp of both the law and the Enghsh language is tenuous at best. We are otherwise unable to comprehend how he arrived at the reading set forth above. Paragraph 13 of the Contract of Lease can only mean that the lessor and lessee may agree to renew the contract upon their reaching agreement on the terms and conditions to be embodied in such renewal contract. Failure to reach agreement on the terms and conditions of the renewal contract will of course prevent the contract from being renewed at all. In the instant case, the lessor and the lessee conspicuously failed to reach agreement both on the amount of the rental to be payable during the renewal term, and on the term of the renewed contract. The respondent judge cited Articles 1197 and 1670 of the Civil Code to sustain the "Judgment by Default" by which he ordered the renewal of the lease for another term of five years and fixed monthly rentals thereunder at P700.00 a month. Article 1197 of the Civil Code provides as follows: If the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended, the courts may fix the duration thereof. The courts shall also fix the duration of the period when it depends upon the will of the debtor. In every case, the courts shall determine such period as may, under the circumstances, have been probably contemplated by the parties. Once fixed by the courts, the period cannot be changed by them. (Emphasis supplied.)

The first paragraph of Article 1197 is clearly inapplicable, since the Contract of Lease did in fact fix an original period of five years, which had expired. It is also clear from paragraph 13 of the Contract of Lease that the parties reserved to themselves the faculty of agreeing upon the period of the renewal contract. The second paragraph of Article 1197 is equally clearly inapplicable since the duration of the renewal period was not left to the wiu of the lessee alone, but rather to the will of both the lessor and the lessee. Most importantly, Article 1197 applies only where a contract of lease clearly exists. Here, the contract was not renewed at all, there was in fact no contract at all the period of which could have been fixed. Article 1670 of the Civil Code reads thus: If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing left for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given. It is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The ther terms of the original contract shall be revived. (Emphasis suplied.) The respondents themselves, public and private, do not pretend that the continued occupancy of the leased premises after 31 May 1980, the date of expiration of the contract, was with the acquiescence of the lessor. Even if it be assumed that tacite reconduccion had occurred, the implied new lease could not possibly have a period of five years, but rather would have been a month-tomonth lease since the rentals (under the original contract) were payable on a monthly basis. At the latest, an implied new lease (had one arisen) would have expired as of the end of July 1980 in view of the written demands served by the petitioner upon the private respondents to vacate the previously leased premises. It follows that the respondent judge's decision requiring renewal of the lease has no basis in law or in fact. Save in the limited and exceptional situations envisaged inArticles ll97 and 1670 of the Civil Code, which do not obtain here, courts have no authority to prescribe the terms and conditions of a contract for the parties. As pointed out by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Republic vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone,Co., 18 [P]arties cannot be coerced to enter into a contract where no agreement is had between them as to the principal terms and conditions of the contract. Freedom to stipulate such terms and conditions is of the essence of our contractual system, and by express provision of the statute, a contract may be annulled if

15

tainted by violence, intimidation or undue influence (Article 1306, 1336, 1337, Civil Code of the Philippines). Contractual terms and conditions created by a court for two parties are a contradiction in terms. If they are imposed by a judge who draws upon his own private notions of what morals, good customs, justice, equity and public policy" demand, the resulting "agreement" cannot, by definition, be consensual or contractual in nature. It would also follow that such coerced terms and conditions cannot be the law as between the parties themselves. Contracts spring from the volition of the parties. That volition cannot be supplied by a judge and a judge who pretends to do so, acts tyrannically, arbitrarily and in excess of his jurisdiction. 19 WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and mandamus is granted. The Orders of the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 1434 dated 26 September 1980 (denying petitioner's motion to dismiss) and 4 November 1980 (denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration), and the "Judgment by Default" rendered by the respondent judge dated 26 November 1980, are hereby annulled and set aside and Civil Case No. 1434 is hereby dismissed. The temporary restraining order dated 21 November 1980 issued by this ourt, is hereby made permanent. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Gancayco and Sarmiento, JJ., concur. As to rights and obligations of multiple parties: joint, solidary, disjunctive THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 190696 : August 03, 2010] ROLITO CALANG AND PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. RESOLUTION BRION, J.: We resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners, Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. (Philtranco) and Rolito Calang, to challenge our Resolution of February 17, 2010. Our assailed Resolution denied the petition for review on certiorari for failure to

show any reversible error sufficient to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Antecedent Facts At around 2:00 p.m. of April 22, 1989, Rolito Calang was driving Philtranco Bus No. 7001, owned by Philtranco along Daang Maharlika Highway in Barangay Lambao, Sta. Margarita, Samar when its rear left side hit the front left portion of a Sarao jeep coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the collision, Cresencio Pinohermoso, the jeep's driver, lost control of the vehicle, and bumped and killed Jose Mabansag, a bystander who was standing along the highway's shoulder. The jeep turned turtle three (3) times before finally stopping at about 25 meters from the point of impact. Two of the jeep's passengers, Armando Nablo and an unidentified woman, were instantly killed, while the other passengers sustained serious physical injuries. The prosecution charged Calang with multiple homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Calbayog City. The RTC, in its decision dated May 21, 2001, found Calang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to property, and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of thirty days of arresto menor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. The RTC ordered Calang and Philtranco, jointly and severally, to pay P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the heirs of Armando; P50,000.00 as death indemnity to the heirs of Mabansag; and P90,083.93 as actual damages to the private complainants. The petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CAG.R. CR No. 25522. The CA, in its decision dated November 20, 2009, affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA ruled that petitioner Calang failed to exercise due care and precaution in driving the Philtranco bus. According to the CA, various eyewitnesses testified that the bus was traveling fast and encroached into the opposite lane when it evaded a pushcart that was on the side of the road. In addition, he failed to slacken his speed, despite admitting that he had already seen the jeep coming from the opposite direction when it was still half a kilometer away. The CA further ruled that Calang demonstrated a reckless attitude when he drove the bus, despite knowing that it was suffering from loose compression, hence, not roadworthy. The CA added that the RTC correctly held Philtranco jointly and severally liable with petitioner Calang, for failing to prove that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the accident. The petitioners filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari. In our Resolution dated February 17, 2010, we denied the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

16

The Motion for Reconsideration In the present motion for reconsideration, the petitioners claim that there was no basis to hold Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang because the former was not a party in the criminal case (for multiple homicide with multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence) before the RTC. The petitioners likewise maintain that the courts below overlooked several relevant facts, supported by documentary exhibits, which, if considered, would have shown that Calang was not negligent, such as the affidavit and testimony of witness Celestina Cabriga; the testimony of witness Rodrigo Bocaycay; the traffic accident sketch and report; and the jeepney's registration receipt. The petitioners also insist that the jeep's driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. We partly grant the motion. Liability of Calang We see no reason to overturn the lower courts' finding on Calang's culpability. The finding of negligence on his part by the trial court, affirmed by the CA, is a question of fact that we cannot pass upon without going into factual matters touching on the finding of negligence. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. Liability of Philtranco We, however, hold that the RTC and the CA both erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang. We emphasize that Calang was charged criminally before the RTC. Undisputedly, Philtranco was not a direct party in this case. Since the cause of action against Calang was based on delict, both the RTC and the CA erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang, based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176[1] and 2180[2] of the Civil Code. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has committed. Such provision of law does not apply to civil liability arising from delict. If at all, Philtranco's liability may only be subsidiary. Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments, as follows: In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all

cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulations shall have been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiary liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees. The foregoing subsidiary liability applies to employers, according to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads: The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability - Articles 102 and 103 - are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable.Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer.[3] Nonetheless, before the employers' subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate evidence must exist establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2) they are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The determination of these conditions may be done in the same criminal action in which the employee's liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing set for that precise purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment.[4] WHEREFORE, we PARTLY GRANT the present motion. The Court of Appeals decision that affirmed in toto the RTC decision, finding Rolito Calang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, multiple serious physical injuries and damage to property, is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that Philtranco's liability should only be subsidiary. No costs. SO ORDERED. Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Bersamin, *Abad, and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-55138 September 28, 1984

17

ERNESTO V. RONQUILLO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND ANTONIO P. SO, respondents. Gloria A. Fortun for petitioner. Roselino Reyes Isler for respondents.

4. That both parties agree that failure on the part of either party to comply with the foregoing terms and conditions, the innocent party will be entitled to an execution of the decision based on this compromise agreement and the defaulting party agrees and hold themselves to reimburse the innocent party for attorney's fees, execution fees and other fees related with the execution. xxx xxx xxx

CUEVAS, J.: This is a petition to review the Resolution dated June 30, 1980 of the then Court of Appeals (now the Intermediate Appellate Court) in CA-G.R. No. SP-10573, entitled "Ernesto V. Ronquillo versus the Hon. Florellana Castro-Bartolome, etc." and the Order of said court dated August 20, 1980, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the above resolution. Petitioner Ernesto V. Ronquillo was one of four (4) defendants in Civil Case No. 33958 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (now the Regional Trial Court), Branch XV filed by private respondent Antonio P. So, on July 23, 1979, for the collection of the sum of P17,498.98 plus attorney's fees and costs. The other defendants were Offshore Catertrade Inc., Johnny Tan and Pilar Tan. The amount of P117,498.98 sought to be collected represents the value of the checks issued by said defendants in payment for foodstuffs delivered to and received by them. The said checks were dishonored by the drawee bank. On December 13, 1979, the lower court rendered its Decision 1 based on the compromise agreement submitted by the parties, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows: 1. Plaintiff agrees to reduce its total claim of P117,498-95 to only P11,000 .00 and defendants agree to acknowledge the validity of such claim and further bind themselves to initially pay out of the total indebtedness of P10,000.00 the amount of P55,000.00 on or before December 24, 1979, the balance of P55,000.00, defendants individually and jointly agree to pay within a period of six months from January 1980, or before June 30, 1980; (Emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx

On December 26, 1979, herein private respondent (then plaintiff filed a Motion for Execution on the ground that defendants failed to make the initial payment of P55,000.00 on or before December 24, 1979 as provided in the Decision. Said motion for execution was opposed by herein petitioner (as one of the defendants) contending that his inability to make the payment was due to private respondent's own act of making himself scarce and inaccessible on December 24, 1979. Petitioner then prayed that private respondent be ordered to accept his payment 2 in the amount of P13,750.00. During the hearing of the Motion for Execution and the Opposition thereto on January 16, 1980, petitioner, as one of the four defendants, tendered the amount of P13,750.00, as his prorata share in the P55,000.00 initial payment. Another defendant, Pilar P. Tan, offered to pay the same amount. Because private respondent refused to accept their payments, demanding from them the full initial installment of P 55,000.00, petitioner and Pilar Tan instead deposited the said amount with the Clerk of Court. The amount deposited was subsequently 3 withdrawn by private respondent. On the same day, January 16, 1980, the lower court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for the balance of the initial amount payable, against the other 4 two defendants, Offshore Catertrade Inc. and Johnny Tan who did not pay their shares. On January 22, 1980, private respondent moved for the reconsideration and/or modification of the aforesaid Order of execution and prayed instead for the "execution of the decision in its entirety against all defendants, jointly and 5 severally." Petitioner opposed the said motion arguing that under the decision of the lower court being executed which has already become final, the liability of the four (4) defendants was not expressly declared to be solidary, consequently each defendant is obliged to pay only his own pro-rata or 1/4 of the amount due and payable. On March 17, 1980, the lower court issued an Order reading as follows:

18

ORDER Regardless of whatever the compromise agreement has intended the payment whether jointly or individually, or jointly and severally, the fact is that only P27,500.00 has been paid. There appears to be a non-payment in accordance with the compromise agreement of the amount of P27,500.00 on or before December 24, 1979. The parties are reminded that the payment is condition sine qua non to the lifting of the preliminary attachment and the execution of an affidavit of desistance. WHEREFORE, let writ of execution issue as prayed for On March 17, 1980, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the above order, and the same was set for hearing on March 25,1980. Meanwhile, or more specifically on March 19, 1980, a writ of execution was issued for the satisfaction of the sum of P82,500.00 as against the properties of 6 the defendants (including petitioner), "singly or jointly hable." On March 20, 1980, Special Sheriff Eulogio C. Juanson of Rizal, issued a notice of sheriff's sale, for the sale of certain furnitures and appliances found in petitioner's residence to satisfy the sum of P82,500.00. The public sale was 7 scheduled for April 2, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Order of Execution dated March 17, 1980 which was set for hearing on March 25, 1980, was upon motion of private respondent reset to April 2, 1980 at 8:30 a.m. Realizing the actual threat to property rights poised by the re-setting of the hearing of s motion for reconsideration for April 2, 1980 at 8:30 a.m. such that if his motion for reconsideration would be denied he would have no more time to obtain a writ from the appellate court to stop the scheduled public sale of his personal properties at 10:00 a.m. of the same day, April 2, 1980, petitioner filed on March 26, 1980 a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the then Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-10573), praying at the same time for the issuance of a restraining order to stop the public sale. He raised the question of the validity of the order of execution, the writ of execution and the notice of public sale of his properties to satisfy fully the entire unpaid obligation payable by all of the four (4) defendants, when the lower court's decision based on the compromise agreement did not specifically state the liability of the four (4) defendants to be solidary.

On April 2, 1980, the lower court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration but the scheduled public sale in that same day did not proceed in view of the pendency of a certiorari proceeding before the then Court of Appeals. On June 30, 1980, the said court issued a Resolution, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows: This Court, however, finds the present petition to have been filed prematurely. The rule is that before a petition for certiorari can be brought against an order of a lower court, all remedies available in that court must first be exhausted. In the case at bar, herein petitioner filed a petition without waiting for a resolution of the Court on the motion for reconsideration, which could have been favorable to the petitioner. The fact that the hearing of the motion for reconsideration had been reset on the same day the public sale was to take place is of no moment since the motion for reconsideration of the Order of March 17, 1980 having been seasonably filed, the scheduled public sale should be suspended. Moreover, when the defendants, including herein petitioner, defaulted in their obligation based on the compromise agreement, private respondent had become entitled to move for an execution of the decision based on the said agreement. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction is hereby denied due course. The restraining order issued in our resolution dated April 9, 1980 is hereby lifted without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Petitioner moved to reconsider the aforesaid Resolution alleging that on April 2, 1980, the lower court had already denied the motion referred to and consequently, the legal issues being raised in the petition were already "ripe" for 8 determination. The said motion was however denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated August 20, 1980. Hence, this petition for review, petitioner contending that the Court of Appeals erred in (a) declaring as premature, and in denying due course to the petition to restrain implementation of a writ of execution issued at variance with the final decision of

19

the lower court filed barely four (4) days before the scheduled public sale of the attached movable properties; (b) denying reconsideration of the Resolution of June 30, 1980, which declared as premature the filing of the petition, although there is proof on record that as of April 2, 1980, the motion referred to was already denied by the lower court and there was no more motion pending therein; (c) failing to resolve the legal issues raised in the petition and in not declaring the liabilities of the defendants, under the final decision of the lower court, to be only joint; (d) not holding the lower court's order of execution dated March 17, 1980, the writ of execution and the notice of sheriff's sale, executing the lower court's decision against "all defendants, singly and jointly", to be at variance with the lower court's final decision which did not provide for solidary obligation; and (e) not declaring as invalid and unlawful the threatened execution, as against the properties of petitioner who had paid his pro-rata share of the adjudged obligation, of the total unpaid amount payable by his joint co-defendants. The foregoing assigned errors maybe synthesized into the more important issues of 1. Was the filing of a petition for certiorari before the then Court of Appeals against the Order of Execution issued by the lower court, dated March 17, 1980, proper, despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration of the same questioned Order? 2. What is the nature of the liability of the defendants (including petitioner), was it merely joint, or was it several or solidary? Anent the first issue raised, suffice it to state that while as a general rule, a motion for reconsideration should precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error that it may have committed, the 9 said rule is not absolutes and may be dispensed with in instances where the filing of a motion for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose, such as when the motion for reconsideration would raise the same point stated in the motion 10 or where the error is patent for the order is void 11 or where the relief is extremely urgent, as in cases where execution had already been ordered 12 where the issue raised is one purely of law. 13

In the case at bar, the records show that not only was a writ of execution issued but petitioner's properties were already scheduled to be sold at public auction on April 2, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. The records likewise show that petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the questioned Order of Execution was filed on March 17, 1980 and was set for hearing on March 25, 1980 at 8:30 a.m., but upon motion of private respondent, the hearing was reset to April 2, 1980 at 8:30 a.m., the very same clay when petitioner's properties were to be sold at public auction. Needless to state that under the circumstances, petitioner was faced with imminent danger of his properties being immediately sold the moment his motion for reconsideration is denied. Plainly, urgency prompted recourse to the Court of Appeals and the adequate and speedy remedy for petitioner under the situation was to file a petition for certiorari with prayer for restraining order to stop the sale. For him to wait until after the hearing of the motion for reconsideration on April 2, 1980 before taking recourse to the appellate court may already be too late since without a restraining order, the public sale can proceed at 10:00 that morning. In fact, the said motion was already denied by the lower court in its order dated April 2, 1980 and were it not for the pendency of the petition with the Court of Appeals and the restraining order issued thereafter, the public sale scheduled that very same morning could have proceeded. The other issue raised refers to the nature of the liability of petitioner, as one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 33958, that is whether or not he is liable jointly or solidarily. In this regard, Article 1207 and 1208 of the Civil Code provides Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. Then is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Art. 1208. If from the law,or the nature or the wording of the obligation to which the preceding article refers the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors and debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of quits. The decision of the lower court based on the parties' compromise agreement, provides:

20

1. Plaintiff agrees to reduce its total claim of P117,498.95 to only P110,000.00 and defendants agree to acknowledge the validity of such claim and further bind themselves to initially pay out of the total indebtedness of P110,000.00, the amount of P5,000.00 on or before December 24, 1979, the balance of P55,000.00, defendants individually and jointly agree to pay within a period of six months from January 1980 or before June 30, 1980. (Emphasis supply) Clearly then, by the express term of the compromise agreement and the decision based upon it, the defendants obligated themselves to pay their obligation "individually and jointly". The term "individually" has the same meaning as "collectively", "separately", "distinctively", respectively or "severally". An agreement to be "individually liable" undoubtedly creates a several obligation, 14 and a "several obligation is one by which one individual binds himself to perform the whole obligation. 15 In the case of Parot vs. Gemora 16 We therein ruled that "the phrase juntos or separadamente or in the promissory note is an express statement making each of the persons who signed it individually liable for the payment of the fun amount of the obligation contained therein." Likewise in Un Pak Leung vs. Negorra 17 We held that "in the absence of a finding of facts that the defendants made themselves individually hable for the debt incurred they are each liable only for one-half of said amount The obligation in the case at bar being described as "individually and jointly", the same is therefore enforceable against one of the numerous obligors. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Cost against petitioner. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-36413 September 26, 1988 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) MARTIN C. VALLEJOS, SIO CHOY, SAN LEON RICE MILL, INC. and PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., respondents.

Freqillana Jr. for petitioner. B.F. Estrella & Associates for respondent Martin Vallejos. Vicente Erfe Law Office for respondent Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. Nemesio Callanta for respondent Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc.

PADILLA, J.: Review on certiorari of the judgment * of the respondent appellate court in CAG.R. No. 47319-R, dated 22 February 1973, which affirmed, with some modifications, the decision, ** dated 27 April 1970, rendered in Civil Case No. U2021 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: On 29 March 1967, herein petitioner, Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., issued in favor of private respondent Sio Choy Private Car Comprehensive Policy No. MRO/PV15753, effective from 18 April 1967 to 18 April 1968, covering a Willys jeep with Motor No. ET-03023 Serial No. 351672, and Plate No. J-21536, Quezon City, 1967. The insurance coverage was for "own damage" not to exceed P600.00 and "third-party liability" in the amount of P20,000.00. During the effectivity of said insurance policy, and more particularly on 19 December 1967, at about 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, the insured jeep, while being driven by one Juan P. Campollo an employee of the respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., collided with a passenger bus belonging to the respondent Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. (PANTRANCO, for short) at the national highway in Barrio San Pedro, Rosales, Pangasinan, causing damage to the insured vehicle and injuries to the driver, Juan P. Campollo, and the respondent Martin C. Vallejos, who was riding in the ill-fated jeep. As a result, Martin C. Vallejos filed an action for damages against Sio Choy, Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. and the PANTRANCO before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, which was docketed as Civil Case No. U-2021. He prayed therein that the defendants be ordered to pay him, jointly and severally, the amount of P15,000.00, as reimbursement for medical and hospital expenses;

21

P6,000.00, for lost income; P51,000.00 as actual, moral and compensatory damages; and P5,000.00, for attorney's fees. Answering, PANTRANCO claimed that the jeep of Sio Choy was then operated at an excessive speed and bumped the PANTRANCO bus which had moved to, and stopped at, the shoulder of the highway in order to avoid the jeep; and that it had observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, especially in the selection and supervision of its employees and in the maintenance of its motor vehicles. It prayed that it be absolved from any and all liability. Defendant Sio Choy and the petitioner insurance company, in their answer, also denied liability to the plaintiff, claiming that the fault in the accident was solely imputable to the PANTRANCO. Sio Choy, however, later filed a separate answer with a cross-claim against the herein petitioner wherein he alleged that he had actually paid the plaintiff, Martin C. Vallejos, the amount of P5,000.00 for hospitalization and other expenses, and, in his cross-claim against the herein petitioner, he alleged that the petitioner had issued in his favor a private car comprehensive policy wherein the insurance company obligated itself to indemnify Sio Choy, as insured, for the damage to his motor vehicle, as well as for any liability to third persons arising out of any accident during the effectivity of such insurance contract, which policy was in full force and effect when the vehicular accident complained of occurred. He prayed that he be reimbursed by the insurance company for the amount that he may be ordered to pay. Also later, the herein petitioner sought, and was granted, leave to file a third-party complaint against the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. for the reason that the person driving the jeep of Sio Choy, at the time of the accident, was an employee of the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. performing his duties within the scope of his assigned task, and not an employee of Sio Choy; and that, as the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. is the employer of the deceased driver, Juan P. Campollo, it should be liable for the acts of its employee, pursuant to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. The herein petitioner prayed that judgment be rendered against the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., making it liable for the amounts claimed by the plaintiff and/or ordering said San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to reimburse and indemnify the petitioner for any sum that it may be ordered to pay the plaintiff. After trial, judgment was rendered as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings of this Court judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against

Sio Choy and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., and third-party defendant San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., as follows: (a) P4,103 as actual damages; (b) P18,000.00 representing the unearned income of plaintiff Martin C. Vallejos for the period of three (3) years; (c) P5,000.00 as moral damages; (d) P2,000.00 as attomey's fees or the total of P29,103.00, plus costs. The above-named parties against whom this judgment is rendered are hereby held jointly and severally liable. With respect, however, to Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., its liability will be up to only P20,000.00. As no satisfactory proof of cost of damage to its bus was presented by defendant Pantranco, no award should be made in its favor. Its counter-claim for attorney's fees is also 1 dismissed for not being proved. On appeal, the respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court that Sio Choy, the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. and the Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. are jointly and severally liable for the damages awarded to the plaintiff Martin C. Vallejos. It ruled, however, that the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. has no obligation to indemnify or reimburse the petitioner insurance company for whatever amount it has been ordered to pay on its policy, since the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. is not a privy to the contract of insurance between Sio Choy and the insurance company.
2

Hence, the present recourse by petitioner insurance company. The petitioner prays for the reversal of the appellate court's judgment, or, in the alternative, to order the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to reimburse petitioner any amount, in excess of one-half (1/2) of the entire amount of damages, petitioner may be ordered to pay jointly and severally with Sio Choy. The Court, acting upon the petition, gave due course to the same, but "only insofar as it concerns the alleged liability of respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc.

22

to petitioner, it being understood that no other aspect of the decision of the Court of Appeals shall be reviewed, hence, execution may already issue in favor of respondent Martin C. Vallejos against the respondents, without prejudice to the determination of whether or not petitioner shall be entitled to reimbursement by respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. for the whole or part of whatever the former 3 may pay on the P20,000.00 it has been adjudged to pay respondent Vallejos." However, in order to determine the alleged liability of respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to petitioner, it is important to determine first the nature or basis of the liability of petitioner to respondent Vallejos, as compared to that of respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. Therefore, the two (2) principal issues to be resolved are (1) whether the trial court, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, was correct in holding petitioner and respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. "solidarily liable" to respondent Vallejos; and (2) whether petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed by respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. for whatever amount petitioner has been adjudged to pay respondent Vallejos on its insurance policy. As to the first issue, it is noted that the trial court found, as affirmed by the appellate court, that petitioner and respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. are jointly and severally liable to respondent Vallejos. We do not agree with the aforesaid ruling. We hold instead that it is only respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc, (to the exclusion of the petitioner) that are solidarily liable to respondent Vallejos for the damages awarded to Vallejos. It must be observed that respondent Sio Choy is made liable to said plaintiff as owner of the ill-fated Willys jeep, pursuant to Article 2184 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune it is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable.

On the other hand, it is noted that the basis of liability of respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to plaintiff Vallejos, the former being the employer of the driver of the Willys jeep at the time of the motor vehicle mishap, is Article 2180 of the Civil Code which reads: Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxx xxx xxx Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged ill any business or industry. xxx xxx xxx The responsibility treated in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned proved that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. It thus appears that respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. are the principal tortfeasors who are primarily liable to respondent Vallejos. The law states that the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi4 delict is solidarily. On the other hand, the basis of petitioner's liability is its insurance contract with respondent Sio Choy. If petitioner is adjudged to pay respondent Vallejos in the amount of not more than P20,000.00, this is on account of its being the insurer of respondent Sio Choy under the third party liability clause included in the private car comprehensive policy existing between petitioner and respondent Sio Choy at the time of the complained vehicular accident. In Guingon vs. Del Monte, a passenger of a jeepney had just alighted therefrom, when he was bumped by another passenger jeepney. He died as a result thereof. In the damage suit filed by the heirs of said passenger against the driver and owner of the jeepney at fault as well as against the insurance company which insured the latter jeepney against third party liability, the trial court, affirmed by this Court, adjudged the owner and the driver of the jeepney at fault jointly and severally liable to the heirs of the victim in the total amount of P9,572.95 as damages and attorney's fees; while the insurance company was
5

23

sentenced to pay the heirs the amount of P5,500.00 which was to be applied as partial satisfaction of the judgment rendered against said owner and driver of the jeepney. Thus, in said Guingon case, it was only the owner and the driver of the jeepney at fault, not including the insurance company, who were held solidarily liable to the heirs of the victim. While it is true that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against 6 liability to third persons, such third persons can directly sue the insurer, however, the direct liability of the insurer under indemnity contracts against third party liability does not mean that the insurer can be held solidarily liable with the insured and/or the other parties found at fault. The liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of the insured is based on tort. In the case at bar, petitioner as insurer of Sio Choy, is liable to respondent Vallejos, but it cannot, as incorrectly held by the trial court, be made "solidarily" liable with the two principal tortfeasors namely respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. For if petitioner-insurer were solidarily liable with said two (2) respondents by reason of the indemnity contract against third party liability-under which an insurer can be directly sued by a third party this will result in a violation of the principles underlying solidary obligation and insurance contracts. In solidary obligation, the creditor may enforce the entire obligation against one of 7 the solidary debtors. On the other hand, insurance is defined as "a contract whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, 8 damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event." In the case at bar, the trial court held petitioner together with respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mills Inc. solidarily liable to respondent Vallejos for a total amount of P29,103.00, with the qualification that petitioner's liability is only up to P20,000.00. In the context of a solidary obligation, petitioner may be compelled by respondent Vallejos to pay the entire obligation of P29,013.00, notwithstanding the qualification made by the trial court. But, how can petitioner be obliged to pay the entire obligation when the amount stated in its insurance policy with respondent Sio Choy for indemnity against third party liability is only P20,000.00? Moreover, the qualification made in the decision of the trial court to the effect that petitioner is sentenced to pay up to P20,000.00 only when the obligation to pay P29,103.00 is made solidary, is an evident breach of the concept of a solidary obligation. Thus, We hold that the trial court, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, erred in holding petitioner, solidarily liable with respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to respondent Vallejos. As to the second issue, the Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the trial court, ruled that petitioner is not entitled to be reimbursed by respondent San

Leon Rice Mill, Inc. on the ground that said respondent is not privy to the contract of insurance existing between petitioner and respondent Sio Choy. We disagree. The appellate court overlooked the principle of subrogation in insurance contracts. Thus ... Subrogation is a normal incident of indemnity insurance (Aetna L. Ins. Co. vs. Moses, 287 U.S. 530, 77 L. ed. 477). Upon payment of the loss, the insurer is entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to any right of action which the insured may have against the third person whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss (44 Am. Jur. 2nd 745, citing Standard Marine Ins. Co. vs. Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Co., 283 U.S. 284, 75 L. ed. 1037). The right of subrogation is of the highest equity. The loss in the first instance is that of the insured but after reimbursement or compensation, it becomes the loss of the insurer (44 Am. Jur. 2d, 746, note 16, citing Newcomb vs. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 22 Ohio St. 382). Although many policies including policies in the standard form, now provide for subrogation, and thus determine the rights of the insurer in this respect, the equitable right of subrogation as the legal effect of payment inures to the insurer without any formal assignment or any express stipulation to that effect in the policy" (44 Am. Jur. 2nd 746). Stated otherwise, when the insurance company pays for the loss, such payment operates as an equitable assignment to the insurer of the property and all remedies which the insured may have for the recovery thereof. That right is not dependent upon , nor does it grow out of any privity of contract (emphasis supplied) or upon written assignment of claim, and payment to the insured makes the insurer assignee in equity (Shambley v. Jobe-Blackley 9 Plumbing and Heating Co., 264 N.C. 456, 142 SE 2d 18). It follows, therefore, that petitioner, upon paying respondent Vallejos the amount of riot exceeding P20,000.00, shall become the subrogee of the insured, the respondent Sio Choy; as such, it is subrogated to whatever rights the latter has against respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. Article 1217 of the Civil Code gives to a solidary debtor who has paid the entire obligation the right to be reimbursed by his co-debtors for the share which corresponds to each.

24

Art. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept. He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, no interest for the intervening period may be demanded. xxx xxx xxx In accordance with Article 1217, petitioner, upon payment to respondent Vallejos and thereby becoming the subrogee of solidary debtor Sio Choy, is entitled to reimbursement from respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. To recapitulate then: We hold that only respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. are solidarily liable to the respondent Martin C. Vallejos for the amount of P29,103.00. Vallejos may enforce the entire obligation on only one of said solidary debtors. If Sio Choy as solidary debtor is made to pay for the entire obligation (P29,103.00) and petitioner, as insurer of Sio Choy, is compelled to pay P20,000.00 of said entire obligation, petitioner would be entitled, as subrogee of Sio Choy as against San Leon Rice Mills, Inc., to be reimbursed by the latter in the amount of P14,551.50 (which is 1/2 of P29,103.00 ) WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification above-mentioned. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

LUCIANO CASTILLO, AURELIO VALENCIA, LAURO LEVISTE, GAVINO GONZALES, LOPE GEVANA and BONIFACIO LAUREANA, defendantsappellees. Basa, Ilao, del Rosario Diaz for plaintiff-appellant. Laurel Law Office for Dimayuga. Tomas Yumol for Fajardo, defendant-appellee.

PLANA, J.: Appeal by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) from the Order of the defunct Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XX) in its Civil Case No. 46741 dismissing PNB's complaint against several solidary debtors for the collection of a sum of money on the ground that one of the defendants (Ceferino Valencia) died during the pendency of the case (i.e., after the plaintiff had presented its evidence) and therefore the complaint, being a money claim based on contract, should be prosecuted in the testate or intestate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased defendant pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court which reads: SEC. 6. Solidary obligation of decedent. the obligation of the decedent is solidary with another debtor, the claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he were the only debtor, without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover contribution from the other debtor. In a joint obligation of the decedent, the claim shall be confined to the portion belonging to him. The appellant assails the order of dismissal, invoking its right of recourse against one, some or all of its solidary debtors under Article 1216 of the Civil Code ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully collected.

G.R. No. L-28046 May 16, 1983 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. INDEPENDENT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ANTONIO DIMAYUGA, DELFIN FAJARDO, CEFERINO VALENCIA, MOISES CARANDANG,

25

The sole issue thus raised is whether in an action for collection of a sum of money based on contract against all the solidary debtors, the death of one defendant deprives the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the case against the surviving defendants. It is now settled that the quoted Article 1216 grants the creditor the substantive right to seek satisfaction of his credit from one, some or all of his solidary debtors, as he deems fit or convenient for the protection of his interests; and if, after instituting a collection suit based on contract against some or all of them and, during its pendency, one of the defendants dies, the court retains jurisdiction to continue the proceedings and decide the case in respect of the surviving defendants. Thus in Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Villarama et al., 107 Phil. 891 at 897, this Court ruled: Construing Section 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure from whence the aforequoted provision (Sec. 6, Rule 86) was taken, this Court held that where two persons are bound in solidum for the same debt and one of them dies, the whole indebtedness can be proved against the estate of the latter, the decedent's liability being absolute and primary; and if the claim is not presented within the time provided by the rules, the same will be barred as against the estate. It is evident from the foregoing that Section 6 of Rule 87 (now Rule 86) provides the procedure should the creditor desire to go against the deceased debtor, but there is certainly nothing in the said provision making compliance with such procedure a condition precedent before an ordinary action against the surviving solidary debtors, should the creditor choose to demand payment from the latter, could be entertained to the extent that failure to observe the same would deprive the court jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action against the surviving debtors. Upon the other hand, the Civil Code expressly allows the creditor to proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. There is, therefore, nothing improper in the creditor's filing of an action against the surviving solidary debtors alone, instead of instituting a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased debtor wherein his claim could be filed. Similarly, in PNB vs. Asuncion, 80 SCRA 321 at 323-324, this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Makasiar, reiterated the doctrine.

A cursory perusal of Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court reveals that nothing therein prevents a creditor from proceeding against the surviving solidary debtors. Said provision merely sets up the procedure in enforcing collection in case a creditor chooses to pursue his claim against the estate of the deceased solidary, debtor. It is crystal clear that Article 1216 of the New Civil Code is the applicable provision in this matter. Said provision gives the creditor the right to 'proceed against anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.' The choice is undoubtedly left to the solidary, creditor to determine against whom he will enforce collection. In case of the death of one of the solidary debtors, he (the creditor) may, if he so chooses, proceed against the surviving solidary debtors without necessity of filing a claim in the estate of the deceased debtors. It is not mandatory for him to have the case dismissed against the surviving debtors and file its claim in the estate of the deceased solidary debtor . . . As correctly argued by petitioner, if Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court were applied literally, Article 1216 of the New Civil Code would, in effect, be repealed since under the Rules of Court, petitioner has no choice but to proceed against the estate of Manuel Barredo only. Obviously, this provision diminishes the Bank's right under the New Civil, Code to proceed against any one, some or all of the solidary debtors. Such a construction is not sanctioned by the principle, which is too well settled to require citation, that a substantive law cannot be amended by a procedural rule. Otherwise stared, Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot be made to prevail over Article 1216 of the New Civil Code, the

26

former being merely procedural, while the latter, substantive. AVANCEA, C. J.: WHEREFORE the appealed order of dismissal of the court a quo in its Civil Case No. 46741 is hereby set aside in respect of the surviving defendants; and the case is remanded to the corresponding Regional Trial Court for proceedings. proceedings. No costs. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Acta. C.J.), Escolin ** Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. Melencio-Herrera and Relova, JJ., is on leave. These two cases, Nos. 28497 and 28948, were tried together. It appears, in connection with case 28497; that on July 28, 1925 the defendant Faustino Espiritu purchased of the plaintiff corporation a two-ton White truck for P11,983.50, paying P1,000 down to apply on account of this price, and obligating himself to pay the remaining P10,983.50 within the periods agreed upon. To secure the payment of this sum, the defendants mortgaged the said truck purchased and, besides, three others, two of which are numbered 77197 and 92744 respectively, and all of the White make (Exhibit A). These two trucks had been purchased from the same plaintiff and were fully paid for by the defendant and his brother Rosario Espiritu. The defendant failed to pay P10,477.82 of the price secured by this mortgage. In connection with case 28498, it appears that on February 18, 1925 the defendant bought a one-ton White truck of the plaintiff corporation for the sum of P7,136.50, and after having deducted the P500 cash payment and the 12 per cent annual interest on the unpaid principal, obligated himself to make payment of this sum within the periods agreed upon. To secure this payment the defendant mortgaged to the plaintiff corporation the said truck purchased and two others, numbered 77197 and 92744, respectively, the same that were mortgaged in the purchase of the other truck referred to in the other case. The defendant failed to pay P4,208.28 of this sum. In both sales it was agreed that 12 per cent interest would be paid upon the unpaid portion of the price at the executon of the contracts, and in case of non-payment of the total debt upon its maturity, 25 per cent thereon, as penalty. In addition to the mortagage deeds referred to, which the defendant executed in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant at the same time also signed a promissory note solidarily with his brother Rosario Espiritu for the several sums secured by the two mortgages (Exhibits B and D). Rosario Espiritu appeared in these two cases as intervenor, alleging to be the exclusive owner of the two White trucks Nos. 77197 and 92744, which appear to have been mortgaged by the defendants to the plaintiff. lawphi1.net 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.

As to presence of an accessory undertaking in case of breach With penal clause distinguish from liquidated damages

G.R. No. L-28497

November 6, 1928

THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO ESPIRITU, defendant-appellant. -----------------------------G.R. No. L-28498 November 6, 1928

THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO ESPIRITU, defendant-appellant, and ROSARIO ESPIRITU, intervenor-appellant. Ernesto Zaragoza and Simeon Ramos for defendant-appellant. Benito Soliven and Jose Varela Calderon for intervenor-appellant. B. Francisco for appellee.

27

The judgment appealed from 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. 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. 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). 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. But the evidence shows that while the intervenor Rosario Espiritu did not sign the two mortgage deeds (Exhibits A and C), yet, together with the defendants Faustino Espiritu, he signed the two promissory notes (Exhibits B and D) secured by these two mortgages. All these instruments were executed at the same time, and when the trucks 77197 and 92744 were included in the mortgages, the intervenor Rosario Espiritu was aware of it and consented to such inclusion. These facts are supported by the testimony of Bachrach, manager of the plaintiff corporation, of Agustin Ramirez, who witnessed the execution of all these documents, and of Angel Hidalgo, who witnessed the execution of Exhibits B and D. We do not find the statement of the intervenor Rosario Espiritu that he did not sign promissory notes Exhibits B and C to be sufficient to overthrow this evidence. A comparison of his genuine signature on Exhibit AA with those appearing on promissory notes B and C, convinces us that the latter are his signatures. And such is our conclusion, notwithstanding the evidence presented to establish that on the date when Exhibits B appears to have been signed, that is July 25, 1925, the intervenor was in Batac, Ilocos Norte, many miles away from Manila. And the fact that on the 24th of said month of July, the plaintiff sent some truck accessory parts by rail to Ilocos for the intervenor does not necessarily prove that the latter could not have been in Manila on the 25th of that month. In view of his conclusion that the intervenor signed the promissory notes secured by trucks 77197 and 92744 and consented to the mortgage of the same, it is immaterial whether he was or was not the exclusive owner thereof. It is finally contended that the 25 per cent penalty upon the debt, in addition to the interest of 12 per cent per annum, makes the contract usurious. Such a contention is not

well founded. Article 1152 of the Civil Code permits the agreement upon a penalty apart from the interest. Should there be such an agreemnet, the penalty, as was held in the case of Lopez vs. Hernaez (32 Phil., 631), does not include the interest, and which may be demamded separetely. According to this, 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. With the sole modification that instead of 25 per cent upon the sum owed, the defendants need pay only 10 per cent thereon as penalty, the judgment appealed from is affired in all other respects without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered. Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

28