TodayisWednesday,November02,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.85494May7,1991
CHOITHRAMJETHMALRAMNANIAND/ORNIRMLAV.RAMNANIandMOTIG.RAMNANI,petitioners,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,SPOUSESISHWARJETHMALRAMNANI,SONYAJETHMALRAMNANIand
OVERSEASHOLDINGCO.,LTD.,respondents.
G.R.No.85496May7,1991
SPOUSESISHWARJETHMALRAMNANIANDSONYAJETRAMNANI,petitioners,
vs.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,ORTIGAS&CO.,LTD.PARTNERSHIP,andOVERSEASHOLDING
CO.,LTD.,respondents.
Quasha,AsperillaAncheta,PeaandNolascoforpetitionersIshwarJethmalRamnani&SonyaRamnani.
Salonga,Andres,Hernandez&AlladoforChoithramJethmalRamnani,NirmlaRamnani&MotiRamnani.
RamaLawOfficeforprivaterespondentsincollaborationwithSalonga,Andres,Hernandez&Allado.
EulogioR.RodriguezforOrtigas&Co.,Ltd.

GANCAYCO,J.:
Thiscaseinvolvesthebitterquarreloftwobrothersovertwo(2)parcelsoflandanditsimprovementsnowwortha
fortune.Theboneofcontentionistheapparentlyconflictingfactualfindingsofthetrialcourtandtheappellatecourt,
theresolutionofwhichwillmateriallyaffecttheresultofthecontest.
Thefollowingfactsarenotdisputed.
Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of the full blood. Ishwar and his
spouseSonyahadtheirmainbusinessbasedinNewYork.Realizingthedifficultyofmanagingtheirinvestmentsin
thePhilippinestheyexecutedageneralpowerofattorneyonJanuary24,1966appointingNavalraiandChoithram
asattorneysinfact,empoweringthemtomanageandconducttheirbusinessconcerninthePhilippines.1
On February 1, 1966 and on May 16, 1966, Choithram, in his capacity as aforesaid attorneyinfact of Ishwar,
entered into two agreements for the purchase of two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from
Ortigas&Company,Ltd.Partnership(Ortigasforshort)withatotalareaofapproximately10,048squaremeters. 2
Peragreement,Choithrampaidthedownpaymentandinstallmentsonthelotwithhispersonalchecks.Abuilding
was constructed thereon by Choithram in 1966 and this was occupied and rented by Jethmal Industries and a
wardrobe shop called Eppie's Creation. Three other buildings were built thereon by Choithram through a loan of
P100,000.00obtainedfromtheMerchantsBankaswellastheincomederivedfromthefirstbuilding.Thebuildings
wereleasedoutbyChoithramasattorneyinfactofIshwar.Twoofthesebuildingswerelaterburned.
Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses relative to these properties
during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed and refused to render such accounting. As a consequence, on
February4,1971,Ishwarrevokedthegeneralpowerofattorney.ChoithramandOrtigasweredulynotifiedofsuch
revocationonApril1,1971andMay24,1971,respectively.3SaidnoticewasalsoregisteredwiththeSecuritiesand
ExchangeCommissiononMarch29,1971 4andwaspublishedintheApril2,1971issueofTheManilaTimesfor
theinformationofthegeneralpublic.5
Nevertheless,ChoithramassuchattorneyinfactofIshwar,transferredallrightsandinterestsofIshwarandSonya
in favor of his daughterinlaw, Nirmla Ramnani, on February 19, 1973. Her husband is Moti, son of Choithram.

Uponcompletepaymentofthelots,OrtigasexecutedthecorrespondingdeedsofsaleinfavorofNirmla. 6Transfer
CertificatesofTitleNos.403150and403152oftheRegisterofDeedsofRizalwereissuedinherfavor.
Thus, on October 6, 1982, Ishwar and Sonya (spouses Ishwar for short) filed a complaint in the Court of First
InstanceofRizalagainstChoithramand/orspousesNirmlaandMoti(Choithrametal.forbrevity)andOrtigasfor
reconveyance of said properties or payment of its value and damages. An amended complaint for damages was
thereafterfiledbysaidspouses.
Aftertheissueswerejoinedandthetrialonthemerits,adecisionwasrenderedbythetrialcourtonDecember3,
1985dismissingthecomplaintandcounterclaim.AmotionforreconsiderationthereoffiledbyspousesIshwarwas
deniedonMarch3,1986.
AnappealtherefromwasinterposedbyspousesIshwartotheCourtofAppealswhereininduecourseadecision
waspromulgatedonMarch14,1988,thedispositivepartofwhichreadsasfollows:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedreversingandsettingasidetheappealeddecisionofthelower
courtdatedDecember3,1985andtheOrderdatedMarch3,1986whichdeniedplaintiffsappellants'Motion
for Reconsideration from aforesaid decision. A new decision is hereby rendered sentencing defendants
appellees Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani, and Ortigas and Company
LimitedPartnershiptopay,jointlyandseverally,plaintiffsappellantsthefollowing:
1.Actualorcompensatorydamagestotheextentofthefairmarketvalueofthepropertiesinquestionandall
improvementsthereoncoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.403150andTransferCertificateofTitleNo.
403152oftheRegistryofDeedsofRizal,prevailingatthetimeofthesatisfactionofthejudgmentbutinno
caseshallsuchdamagesbelessthanthevalueofsaidpropertiesasappraisedbyAsianAppraisal,Inc.inits
AppraisalReportdatedAugust1985(ExhibitsTtoT14,inclusive).
2.Allrentalincomespaidoroughttobepaidfortheuseandoccupancyofthepropertiesinquestionandall
improvementsthereonconsistingofbuildings,andtobecomputedasfollows:
a) On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to 1973, inclusive,
basedonthe1967to1973monthlyrentalspaidbyEppie'sCreation
b)AlsoonBuildingCabove,occupiedbyJethmalIndustriesandLavinefrom1974to1978,therental
incomesbasedonthenratesprevailingasshownunderExhibit"P"andfrom1979to1981,basedon
thenprevailingratesasindicatedunderExhibit"Q"
c) On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental incomes based
uponthenprevailingratesshownunderExhibit"P",andfrom1979to1981,basedonprevailingrates
perExhibit"Q"
d)OnthetwoBaysBuildingsoccupiedbySigmaMariwasafrom1972to1978,therentalsbasedon
the Lease Contract, Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on the Lease Contract,
Exhibit"Q",
andthereaftercommencing1982,toaccountforandturnovertherentalincomespaidoroughttobepaidfor
theuseandoccupancyofthepropertiesandallimprovementstotalling10,048sq.mbasedontherateper
squaremeterprevailingin1981asindicatedannuallycumulativeupto1984.Then,commencing1985and
up to the satisfaction of the judgment, rentals shall be computed at ten percent (10%) annually of the fair
marketvaluesofthepropertiesasappraisedbytheAsianAppraisal,Inc.inAugust1985(ExhibitsTtoT14,
inclusive.)
3.MoraldamagesinthesumofP200,000.00
4.ExemplarydamagesinthesumofP100,000.00
5.Attorney'sfeesequivalentto10%oftheawardhereinmade
6.Legalinterestonthetotalamountawardedcomputedfromfirstdemandin1967anduntilthefullamountis
paidandsatisfiedand
7.Thecostofsuit.7
Acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by Choithram, et al. and Ortigas, the appellate court promulgated an
amendeddecisiononOctober17,1988grantingthemotionforreconsiderationofOrtigasbyaffirmingthedismissal
ofthecasebythelowercourtasagainstOrtigasbutdenyingthemotionforreconsiderationofChoithram,etal.8

Choithram,etal.thereafterfiledapetitionforreviewofsaidjudgmentoftheappellatecourtallegingthefollowing
grounds:
1. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in making a factual finding not supported by and
contrary,totheevidencepresentedattheTrialCourt.
2.TheCourtofAppealsactedinexcessofjurisdictioninawardingdamagesbasedonthevalueofthereal
propertiesinquestionwherethecauseofactionofprivaterespondentsisrecoveryofasumofmoney.
ARGUMENTS
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION IN MAKING A FACTUAL
FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT ISHWAR REMITTED THE AMOUNT OF US $150,000.00 TO
PETITIONERCHOITHRAMINTHEABSENCEOFPROOFOFSUCHREMITTANCE.
II
THECOURTOFAPPEALSACTEDWITHGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONANDMANIFESTPARTIALITY
IN DISREGARDING THE TRIAL COURTS FINDINGS BASED ON THE DIRECT DOCUMENTARY AND
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY CHOITHRAM IN THE TRIAL COURT ESTABLISHING THAT
THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED WITH PERSONAL FUNDS OF PETITIONER CHOITHRAM AND
NOTWITHMONEYALLEGEDLYREMITTEDBYRESPONDENTISHWAR.
III
THECOURTOFAPPEALSACTEDINEXCESSOFJURISDICTIONINAWARDINGDAMAGESBASEDON
THEVALUEOFTHEPROPERTIESANDTHEFRUITSOFTHEIMPROVEMENTSTHEREON.9
Similarly, spouses Ishwar filed a petition for review of said amended decision of the appellate court exculpating
Ortigasofliabilitybasedonthefollowingassignederrors
I
THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR AND HAS
DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH APPLICABLE
DECISIONSOFTHISHONORABLECOURT
A) IN PROMULGATING THE QUESTIONED AMENDED DECISION (ANNEX "A") RELIEVING
RESPONDENT ORTIGAS FROM LIABILITY AND DISMISSING PETITIONERS' AMENDED
COMPLAINTINCIVILCASENO.534P,ASAGAINSTSAIDRESPONDENTORTIGAS
B) IN HOLDING IN SAID AMENDED DECISION THAT AT ANY RATE NO ONE EVER TESTIFIED
THAT ORTIGAS WAS A SUBSCRIBER TO THE MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION OR THAT ANY OF
ITS OFFICERS READ THE NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN THE MANILA TIMES, THEREBY
ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDING THAT FOR RESPONDENT ORTIGAS TO BE CONSTRUCTIVELY
BOUND BY THE PUBLISHED NOTICE OF REVOCATION, ORTIGAS AND/OR ANY OF ITS
OFFICERSMUSTBEASUBSCRIBERAND/ORTHATANYOFITSOFFICERSSHOULDREADTHE
NOTICEASACTUALLYPUBLISHED
C) IN HOLDING IN SAID AMENDED DECISION THAT ORTIGAS COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE
JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WITH THE DEFENDANTSAPPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND
NIRMLARAMNANI,ASORTIGASRELIEDONTHEWORDOFCHOITHRAMTHATALLALONGHE
WAS ACTING FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HIS BROTHER ISHWAR WHEN IT TRANSFERRED THE
RIGHTSOFTHELATTERTONIRMLAV.RAMNANI
D)INIGNORINGTHEEVIDENCEDULYPRESENTEDANDADMITTEDDURINGTHETRIALTHAT
ORTIGAS WAS PROPERLY NOTIFIED OF THE NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF THE GENERAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN TO CHOITHRAM, EVIDENCED BY THE PUBLICATION IN THE
MANILA TIMES ISSUE OF APRIL 2, 1971 (EXH. F) WHICH CONSTITUTES NOTICE TO THE
WHOLEWORLDTHERECEIPTOFTHENOTICEOFSUCHREVOCATIONWHICHWASSENTTO
ORTIGAS ON MAY 22, 1971 BY ATTY. MARIANO P. MARCOS AND RECEIVED BY ORTIGAS ON
MAY 24, 1971 (EXH. G) AND THE FILING OF THE NOTICE WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGECOMMISSIONONMARCH29,1971(EXH.H)
E)INDISCARDINGITSFINDINGSCONTAINEDINITSDECISIONOF14MARCH1988(ANNEXB)
THATORTIGASWASDULYNOTIFIEDOFTHEREVOCATIONOFTHEPOWEROFATTORNEYOF

CHOITHRAM, HENCE ORTIGAS ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN EXECUTING THE DEED OF SALE TO
THEPROPERTIESINQUESTIONINFAVOROFNIRMLAV.RAMNANI
F)INSUSTAININGRESPONDENTORTIGASVACUOUSREHASHEDARGUMENTSINITSMOTION
FORRECONSIDERATIONTHATITWOULDNOTGAINONECENTAVOMOREFROMCHOITHRAM
FOR THE SALE OF SAID LOTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE SAME TO THE
MATTER'S DAUGHTERINLAW, AND THAT IT WAS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN IT TRANSFERRED
ISHWAR'SRIGHTSTOTHELOTSINQUESTION.
II
THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE
ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING WHEN IT HELD IN THE QUESTIONED
AMENDEDDECISIONOF17NOVEMBER1988(ANNEXA)THATRESPONDENTORTIGAS&CO.,LTD.,
ISNOT JOINTLY ANDSEVERALLYLIABLEWITHDEFENDANTSAPPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND
NIRMLA RAMNANI IN SPITE OF ITS ORIGINAL DECISION OF 14 MARCH 1988 THAT ORTIGAS WAS
DULYNOTIFIEDOFTHEREVOCATIONOFTHEPOWEROFATTORNEYOFCHOITHRAMRAMNANI.10
ThecenterofcontroversyisthetestimonyofIshwarthatduringthelatterpartof1965,hesenttheamountofUS
$150,000.00toChoithramintwobankdraftsofUS$65,000.00andUS$85,000.00forthepurposeofinvestingthe
sameinrealestateinthePhilippines.Thetrialcourtconsideredthislonetestimonyunworthyoffaithandcredit.On
theotherhand,theappellatecourtfoundthatthetrialcourtmisapprehendedthefactsincompletedisregardofthe
evidence,documentaryandtestimonial.
Another crucial issue is the claim of Choithram that because he was then a British citizen, as a temporary
arrangement,hearrangedthepurchaseofthepropertiesinthenameofIshwarwhowasanAmericancitizenand
who was then qualified to purchase property in the Philippines under the then Parity Amendment. The trial court
believedthisaccountbutitwasdebunkedbytheappellatecourt.
AstotheissueofwhetherofnotspousesIshwaractuallysentUS$150,000.00toChoithrampreciselytobeusedin
therealestatebusiness,thetrialcourtmadethefollowingdisquisition
Afteracareful,consideredandconscientiousexaminationoftheevidenceadducedinthecaseatbar,plaintiff
Ishwar Jethmal Ramanani's main evidence, which centers on the alleged payment by sending through
registered mail from New York two (2) US$ drafts of $85,000.00 and $65,000.00 in the latter part of 1965
(TSN28Feb.1984,p.1011).ThesendingofthesemoneyswerebeforetheexecutionofthatGeneralPower
ofAttorney,whichwasdatedinNewYork,onJanuary24,1966.BecauseoftheseallegedremittancesofUS
$150,000.00 and the subsequent acquisition of the properties in question, plaintiffs averred that they
constitutedatrustinfavorofdefendantChoithramJethmalRamnani.ThisCourtcanbeinfullagreementif
theplaintiffswereonlyabletoprovepreponderantlytheseremittances.Theentirerecordofthiscaseisbereft
ofevenashredofprooftothateffect.Itiscompletelybarren.Hisuncorroboratedtestimonythatheremitted
these amounts in the "later part of 1965" does not engender enough faith and credence. Inadequacy of
details of such remittance on the two (2) US dollar drafts in such big amounts is completely not positive,
credible,probableandentirelynotinaccordwithhumanexperience.Thisisaclassicsituation,plaintiffsnot
exhibitinganycommercialdocumentoranydocumentand/orpaperasregardtotheseallegedremittances.
PlaintiffIshwarRamnaniisnotanordinarybusinessmaninthestrictsenseoftheword.Rememberhismain
business is based in New York, and he should know better how to send these alleged remittances. Worst,
plaintiffsdidnotpresentevenascumofproof,thatdefendantChoithramRamnanireceivedtheallegedtwo
US dollar drafts. Significantly, he does not know even the bank where these two (2) US dollar drafts were
purchased. Indeed, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani's lone testimony is unworthy of faith and credit and, therefore,
deservesscantconsideration,andsincetheplaintiffs'theoryisbuiltorbasedonsuchtestimony,theircause
ofactioncollapsesorfallswithit.
Further, the rate of exchange that time in 1966 was P4.00 to $1.00. The alleged two US dollar drafts
amounted to $150,000.00 or about P600,000.00. Assuming the cash price of the two (2) lots was only
P530,000.00 (ALTHOUGH he said: "Based on my knowledge I have no evidence," when asked if he even
knowsthecashpriceofthetwolots).Ifhewerereallythetrueandbonafideinvestorandpurchaserforprofit
asheasserted,hecouldhavepaidthepriceinfullincashdirectlyandobtainedthetitleinhisnameandnot
thru"ContractsToSell"ininstallmentspayinginterestandthruanattorneyinfact(TSNofMay2,1984,pp.
1011) and, again, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani told this Court that he does not know whether or not his late
fatherinlawborrowedthetwoUSdollardraftsfromtheSwissBankorwhetherornothislatefatherinlaw
hadanydebitmemofromtheSwissBank(TSNofMay2,1984,pp.910).11
Ontheotherhand,theappellatecourt,ingivingcredencetotheversionofIshwar,hadthistosay
Whileitistrue,thatgenerallythefindingsoffactofthetrialcourtarebindingupontheappellatecourts,said
rule admits of exceptions such as when (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations,

surmisesandconjectures(2)whentheinferencesmadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdandimpossible(3)
whenthereisgraveabuseofdiscretion(4)whenthejudgmentisbasedonamisapprehensionoffactsand
whenthecourt,inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesamearecontrarytothe
admissionsofbothappellantandappellee(Ramosvs.CourtofAppeals,63SCRA33PhilippineAmerican
LifeAssuranceCo.vs.Santamaria,31SCRA798Aldabavs.CourtofAppeals,24SCRA189).
The evidence on record shows that the t court acted under a misapprehension of facts and the inferences
madeontheevidencepalpablyamistake.
Thetrialcourt'sobservationthat"theentirerecordsofthecaseisbereftofevenashredofproof"thatplaintiff
appellants have remitted to defendantappellee Choithram Ramnani the amount of US $ 150,000.00 for
investmentinrealestateinthePhilippines,isnotbornebytheevidenceonrecordandshowsthetrialcourt's
misapprehensionofthefactsifnotacompletedisregardoftheevidence,bothdocumentaryandtestimonial.
PlaintiffappellantIshwarJethmalRamnanitestifyinginhisownbehalf,declaredthatduringthelatterpartof
1965,hesenttheamountofUS$150,000.00tohisbrotherChoithramintwobankdraftsofUS$65,000.00
andUS$85,000.00forthepurposeofinvestingthesameinrealestateinthePhilippines.Histestimonyisas
follows:
ATTY.MARAPAO:
Mr.Witness,yousaidthatyourattorneyinfactpaidinyourbehalf.CanyoutellthisHonorableCourt
whereyourattorneyinfactgotthemoneytopaythisproperty?
ATTY.CRUZ:
Wait.Itisnowclearitbecomesincompetentorhearsay.
COURT:
Witnesscananswer.
AIpaidthroughmyattorneyinfact.Iamtheonewhogavehimthemoney.
ATTY.MARAPAO:
QYougavehimthemoney?
AThat'sright.
QHowmuchmoneydidyougivehim?
AUS$150,000.00.
QHowwasitgiventhen?
AThroughBankdrafts.US$65,000.00andUS$85,000.00bankdrafts.Thetotalamountwhichis$
150,000.00(TSN,28February1984,p.10Emphasissupplied.)
xxxxxxxxx
ATTY.CRUZ:
QThetwobankdraftswhichyousentIassumeyouboughtthatfromsomebanksinNewYork?
ANo,sir.
QButthereisnoquestionthosetwobankdraftswereforthepurposeofpayingdownpaymentand
installmentofthetwoparcelsofland?
ADownpayment,installmentandtoputupthebuilding.
QIthoughtyousaidthatthebuildingswereconstructed...subjecttoourcontinuingobjectionfrom
rentalsoffirstbuilding?
ATTY.MARAPAO:
YourHonor,thatismisleading.

COURT
Witness(may)answer.
AYes,thefirstbuildingwasimmediatelyputupafterthepurchaseofthetwoparcelsoflandthatwasin
1966 and the finds were used for the construction of the building from the US $150,000.00 (TSN, 7
March1984,page14Emphasissupplied.)
xxxxxxxxx
QThesetwobankdraftswhichyoumentionedandtheuseforityousentthembyregisteredmail,did
yousendthemfromNewYour?
AThatisright.
QAndthetwobankdraftswhichwereputintheregisteredmail,theregisteredmailwasaddressedto
whom?
AChoithramRamnani.(TSN,7March1984,pp.1415).
On crossexamination, the witness reiterated the remittance of the money to his brother Choithram, which
wassenttohimbyhisfatherinlaw,RochiramL.MulchandonifromSwitzerland,amanofimmensewealth,
whichevendefendantsappellees'witnessNavalraiRamnaniadmitstobeso(tsn.,p.16,S.Oct.13,1985).
Thus,oncrossexamination,Ishwartestifiedasfollows:
QHowdidyoureceivethesetwobankdraftsfromthebankthenameofwhichyoucannotremember?
AIgotitfrommyfatherinlaw.
QFromwheredidyourfatherinlawsentthesetwobankdrafts?
AFromSwitzerland.
QHewasinSwitzerland.
AProbably,theysentoutthesetwodraftsfromSwitzerland.
(TSN,7March1984,pp.1617Emphasissupplied.)
Thispositiveandaffirmativetestimonyofplaintiffappellantthathesentthetwo(2)bankdraftstotallingUS$
150,000.00 to his brother, is proof of said remittance. Such positive testimony has greater probative force
than defendantappellee's denial of receipt of said bank drafts, for a witness who testifies affirmatively that
somethingdidhappenshouldbebelievedforitisunlikelythatawitnesswillrememberwhatneverhappened
(Underhill'sCr.Guidance,5thEd.,Vol.1,pp.1011).
That is not all. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffappellant Ishwar Ramnani executed a General Power of Attorney
(Exhibit"A")datedJanuary24,1966appointinghisbrothers,defendantsappelleesNavalraiandChoithram
asattorneyinfactempoweringthelattertoconductandmanageplaintiffsappellants'businessaffairsinthe
Philippinesandspecifically
No. 14. To acquire, purchase for us, real estates and improvements for the purpose of real estate
businessanywhereinthePhilippinesandtodevelop,subdivide,improveandtoreselltobuyingpublic
(individual, firm or corporation) to enter in any contract of sale in oar behalf and to enter mortgages
betweenthevendeesandthehereingrantorsthatmaybeneededtofinancetherealestatebusiness
beingundertaken.
Pursuant thereto, on February 1, 1966 and May 16, 1966, Choithram Jethmal Ramnani entered into
Agreements(Exhibits"B'and"C")withtheotherdefendant.OrtigasandCompany,Ltd.,forthepurchaseof
two (2) parcels of land situated at Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, with said defendantappellee signing the
AgreementsinhiscapacityasAttorneyinfactofIshwarJethmalRamnani.
Again,onJanuary5,1972,almostseven(7)yearsafterIshwarsenttheUS$150,000.00in1965,Choithram
Ramnani,as attorneyin fact of Ishwar entered into a Contract of Lease with SigmaMariwasa (Exhibit "P")
therebyreaffirmingtheownershipofIshwaroverthedisputedpropertyandthetrustrelationshipbetweenthe
latterasprincipalandChoithramasattorneyinfactofIshwar.
All of these facts indicate that if plaintiffappellant Ishwar had not earlier sent the US $ 150,000.00 to his
brother,Choithram,therewouldbenopurposeforhimtoexecuteapowerofattorneyappointinghisbrothers

assattorneyinfactinbuyingrealestateinthePhilippines.
As against Choithram's denial that he did not receive the US $150,000.00 remitted by Ishwar and that the
Power of Attorney, as well as the Agreements entered into with Ortigas & Co., were only temporary
arrangements, Ishwar's testimony that he did send the bank drafts to Choithram and was received by the
latter, is the more credible version since it is natural, reasonable and probable. It is in accord with the
commonexperience,knowledgeandobservationofordinarymen(Gardnervs.Wentors18Iowa533).Andin
determiningwherethesuperiorweightoftheevidenceontheissuesinvolvedlies,thecourtmayconsiderthe
probabilityorimprobabilityofthetestimonyofthewitness(Sec.1,Rule133,RulesofCourt).
Contrary, therefore, to the trial court's sweeping observation that 'the entire records of the case is bereft of
even a shred of proof that Choithram received the alleged bank drafts amounting to US $ 150,000.00, we
havenotonlytestimonialevidencebutalsodocumentaryandcircumstantialevidenceprovingsaidremittance
ofthemoneyandthefiduciaryrelationshipbetweentheformerandIshwar.12
TheCourtagrees.TheenvironmentalcircumstancesofthiscasebuttresstheclaimofIshwarthathedidentrustthe
amountofUS$150,000.00tohisbrother,Choithram,whichthelatterinvestedintherealpropertybusinesssubject
ofthislitigationinhiscapacityasattorneyinfactofIshwar.
TrueitisthatthereisnoreceiptwhateverinthepossessionofIshwartoevidencethesame,butitisnotunusual
amongbrothersandclosefamilymemberstoentrustmoneyandvaluablestoeachotherwithoutanyformalitiesor
receiptduetothespecialrelationshipoftrustbetweenthem.
AndanotherproofthereofisthefactthatIshwar,outoffrustrationwhenChoithramfailedtoaccountfortherealty
business despite his demands, revoked the general power of attorney he extended to Choithram and Navalrai.
Thereafter,ChoithramwrotealettertoIshwarpleadingthatthepowerofattorneyberenewedoranotherauthorityto
thesameeffectbeextended,whichreadsasfollows:
June25,1971
MR.ISHWARJETHMAL
NEWYORK
(1)SendpowerofAtty.immediately,becausethecasehasbeenpostponedfortwoweeks.The
same way as it has been send before in favor of both names. Send it immediately otherwise
everythingwillbelostunnecessarily,andthenitwilltakeusinlitigation.Nowthatwehavegone
aheadwithacaseandwouldliketoenditimmediatelyotherwisesquatterswilltaketheentire
land.Therefore,senditimmediately.
(2) Ortigas also has sued us because we are holding the installments, because they have
refused to give a rebate of P5.00 per meter which they have to give us as per contract. They
havefiledthelawsuitthatsincewehavenotpaidtheinstallmenttheyshouldgetbacktheland.
ThehearingofthiscaseisinthemonthofJuly.Therefore,pleasesendthepowerimmediately.
InonecaseDADA(ElderBrother)willrepresentandinanotherone,Ishall.
(3)IncaseifyoudonotwanttogivepowerthenmakeoneletterinfavorofDadaandtheother
oneinmyfavorshowingthatinanylitigationwecanrepresentyouandyourwife,andwhatever
thecourtdecideitwillbeacceptablebyme.Youcanaskanylawyer,hewillbeabletoprepare
theseletters.AfterthatyoucanhavetheselettersratifybeforeP.I.Consulate.Itshouldbedated
April15,1971.
(4)Trytosendthepowerbecauseitwillbemoreuseful.Makeitinanymannerwhateverway
youhaveconfidentinit.Butpleasesenditimmediately.
Youhavecancelledthepower.Therefore,youhavelostyourreputationeverywhere.WhatcanIfurther
writeyouaboutit.IhavetoldeverybodythatduetocertainreasonsIhavewrittenyoutodothisthatis
why you have done this. This way your reputation have been kept intact. Otherwise if I want to do
something about it, I can show you that inspite of the power you have cancelled you can not do
anything.Youcankeepthisletterbecausemyconscienceisclear.Idonothaveanythinginmymind.
Ishouldnotbewritingyouthis,butbecausemyconscienceiscleardoyouknowthatifIhadpredated
paperswhatcouldyouhavedone?OrdoyouknowthatIhavemanypapersignedbyyouandifhad
done anything or do then what can you do about it? It is not necessary to write further about this. It
does not matter if you have cancelled the power. At that time if I had predated and done something
about it what could you have done? You do not know me. I am not after money. I can earn money
anytime. It has been ten months since I have not received a single penny for expenses from Dada
(elderbrother).Whytherearenoexpenses?Wecannotdrawasinglepennyfromknitting(factory).

Well I am not going to write you further, nor there is any need for it. This much I am writing you
becauseofthewayyouhaveconductedyourself.Butremember,wheneverIhalethemoneyIwillnot
keepitmyselfRightnowIhavenotgotanythingatall.
Iamnotgoingtowriteanyfurther.
Keep your business clean with Naru. Otherwise he will discontinue because he likes to keep his
businessveryclean.13
The said letter was in Sindhi language. It was translated to English by the First Secretary of the Embassy of
Pakistan,whichtranslationwasverifiedcorrectbytheChairman,DepartmentofSindhi,UniversityofKarachi.14
Fromtheforegoingletterwhatcouldbegleanedisthat
1. Choithram asked for the issuance of another power of attorney in their favor so they can continue to
represent Ishwar as Ortigas has sued them for unpaid installments. It also appears therefrom that Ortigas
learnedoftherevocationofthepowerofattorneysotherequesttoissueanother.
2. Choithram reassured Ishwar to have confidence in him as he was not after money, and that he was not
interestedinIshwar'smoney.
3.Todemonstratethathecanbereliedupon,hesaidthathecouldhaveantedatedthesalesagreementof
the Ortigas lots before the issuance of the powers of attorney and acquired the same in his name, if he
wantedto,buthedidnotdoso.
4.HesaidhehadnotreceivedasinglepennyforexpensesfromDada(theirelderbrotherNavalrai).Thus,
confirmingthatifhewasnotgivenmoneybyIshwartobuytheOrtigaslots,hecouldnothaveconsummated
thesale.
5.ItisimportanttonotethatinsaidletterChoithramneverclaimedownershipofthepropertyinquestion.He
affirmedthefactthatheboughtthesameasmereagentandinbehalfofIshwar.Neitherdidhementionthe
allegedtemporaryarrangementwherebyIshwar,beinganAmericancitizen,shallappeartobethebuyerof
thesaidproperty,butthatafterChoithramacquiresPhilippinecitizenship,itsownershipshallbetransferredto
Choithram.
ThisbringsustothistemporaryarrangementtheoryofChoithram.
Theappellatecourtdisposedofthismatterinthiswise
Choithram'sclaimthathepurchasedthetwoparcelsoflandforhimselfin1966butplaceditinthenameof
hisyoungerbrother,Ishwar,whoisanAmericancitizen,asatemporaryarrangement,'becauseasaBritish
subjectheisdisqualifiedunderthe1935ConstitutiontoacquirerealpropertyinthePhilippines,whichisnot
so with respect to American citizens in view of the Ordinance Appended to the Constitution granting them
parity rights, there is nothing in the records showing that Ishwar ever agreed to such a temporary
arrangement.
During the entire period from 1965, when the US $ 150,000. 00 was transmitted to Choithram, and until
Ishwar filed a complaint against him in 1982, or over 16 years, Choithram never mentioned of a temporary
arrangement nor can he present any memorandum or writing evidencing such temporary arrangement,
promptingplaintiffappellanttoobserve:
ThepropertiesinquestionwhicharelocatedinaprimeindustrialsiteinUgong,Pasig,MetroManila
haveapresentfairmarketvalueofnolessthanP22,364,000.00(ExhibitsTtoT14,inclusive),andyet
for such valuable pieces of property, Choithram who now belatedly that he purchased the same for
himself did not document in writing or in a memorandum the alleged temporary arrangement with
Ishwar'(pp.441,Appellant'sBrief).
Suchverbalallegationofatemporaryarrangementissimplyimprobableandinconsistent.Ithasrepeatedly
beenheldthatimportantcontractsmadewithoutevidencearehighlyimprobable.
TheimprobabilityofsuchtemporaryarrangementisbroughttoforewhenweconsiderthatChoithramhasa
son (Haresh Jethmal Ramnani) who is an American citizen under whose name the properties in question
could be registered, both during the time the contracts to sell were executed and at the time absolute title
overthesamewastobedelivered.AtthetimetheAgreementswereenteredintowithdefendantOrtigas&
Co.in1966,Haresh,wasalready18yearsoldandconsequently,Choithramcouldhaveexecutedthedeeds
in trust for his minor son. But, he did not do this. Three (3) years, thereafter, or in 1968 after Haresh had
attained the age of 21, Choithram should have terminated the temporary arrangement with Ishwar, which

accordingtohimwouldbeeffectiveonlypendingtheacquisitionofcitizenshippapers.Again,hedidnotdo
anything.
Evidencetobebelieved,saidViceChancellorVanFleetofNewJersey,mustnotonlyproceedfromthe
mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itselfsuch as the common experience and
observationofmankindcanapproveasprobableunderthecircumstances.Wehavenotestofthetruth
ofhumantestimony,exceptitsconformitytoourknowledge,observationandexperience.Whateveris
repugnanttothesebelongstothemiraculousandisoutsideofjudicialcognizance.(Daggersvs.Van
Dyek37M.J.Eq.130,132).
Anotherfactorthatcanbecountedagainstthetemporaryarrangementexcuseisthatupontherevocationon
February 4, 1971 of the Power of attorney dated January 24, 1966 in favor of Navalrai and Choithram by
Ishwar,Choithramwrote(tsn,p.21,S.July19,1985)aletterdatedJune25,1971(ExhibitsR,R1,R2and
R3)imploringIshwartoexecuteanewpowerofattorneyintheirfavor.Thatifhedidnotwanttogivepower,
thenIshwarcouldmakealetterinfavorofDadaandanotherinhisfavorsothatinanylitigationinvolvingthe
propertiesinquestion,bothofthemcouldrepresentIshwarandhiswife.ChoithramtriedtoconvinceIshwar
toissuethepowerofattorneyinwhatevermannerhemaywant.Insaidletternomentionwasmadeatallof
anytemporaryarrangement.
On the contrary, said letter recognize(s) the existence of principal and attorneyinfact relationship between
Ishwar and himself. Choithram wrote: . . . do you know that if I had predated papers what could you have
done?OrdoyouknowthatIhavemanypaperssignedbyyouandifIhaddoneanythingordothenwhatcan
you do about it?' Choithram was saying that he could have repudiated the trust and ran away with the
propertiesofIshwarbypredatingdocumentsandIshwarwouldbeentirelyhelpless.Hewasbitterasaresult
ofIshwar'srevocationofthepowerofattorneybutnomentionwasmadeofanytemporaryarrangementora
claimofownershipoverthepropertiesinquestionnorwasheabletopresentanymemorandumordocument
toprovetheexistenceofsuchtemporaryarrangement.
Choithram is also estopped in pais or by deed from claiming an interest over the properties in question
adversetothatofIshwar.Section3(a)ofRule131oftheRulesofCourtstatesthatwheneverapartyhas,by
hisowndeclaration,act,oromissionintentionallyanddeliberatelyledanothertobelieveaparticularthingtrue
and act upon such belief, he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be
permittedtofalsifyit.'Whileestoppelbydeedisabarwhichprecludesapartytoadeedandhispriviesfrom
assertingasagainsttheotherandhispriviesanyrightoftitleinderogationofthedeed,orfromdenyingthe
truthofanymaterialfactassertedinit(31C.J.S.19519Am.Jur.603).
Thus,defendantsappelleesarenotpermittedtorepudiatetheiradmissionsandrepresentationsortoassert
anyrightortitleinderogationofthedeedsorfromdenyingthetruthofanymaterialfactassertedinthe(1)
powerofattorneydatedJanuary24,1966(ExhibitA)(2)theAgreementsofFebruary1,1966andMay16,
1966(ExhibitsBandC)and(3)theContractofLeasedatedJanuary5,1972(ExhibitP).
. . . The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and
justice,anditspurposeistoforbidonetospeakagainsthisownact,representations,orcommitments
to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of
estoppelspringsfromequitableprinciplesandtheequitiesinthecase.Itisdesignedtoaidthelawin
the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result. It has been applied by court
wherever and whenever special circumstances of a case so demands' (Philippine National Bank vs.
CourtofAppeals,94SCRA357,368[1979]).
It was only after the services of counsel has been obtained that Choithram alleged for the first time in his
Answer that the General Power of attorney (Annex A) with the Contracts to Sell (Annexes B and C) were
made only for the sole purpose of assuring defendants' acquisition and ownership of the lots described
thereoninduetimeunderthelawthatsaidinstrumentsdonotreflectthetrueintentionoftheparties(par.2,
AnswerdatedMay30,1983),seventeen(17)longyearsfromthetimehereceivedthemoneytransmittedto
himbyhisbrother,Ishwar.
Moreover, Choithram's 'temporary arrangement,' by which he claimed purchasing the two (2) parcels in
question in 1966 and placing them in the name of Ishwar who is an American citizen, to circumvent the
disqualification provision of aliens acquiring real properties in the Philippines under the 1935 Philippine
Constitution,asChoithramwasthenaBritishsubject,showapalpabledisregardofthelawofthelandandto
sustainthesupposed"temporaryarrangement"withIshwarwouldbesanctioningtheperpetrationofanillegal
actandculpableviolationoftheConstitution.
DefendantsappelleeslikewiseviolatedtheAntiDummyLaw(CommonwealthAct108,asamended),which
providesinSection1thereofthat:

In all cases in which any constitutional or legal provision requires Philippine or any other specific
citizenshipasarequisitefortheexerciseorenjoymentofaright,franchiseorprivilege,...anyalienor
foreignerprofitingthereby,shallbepunished...byimprisonment...andofafineofnotlessthanthe
value of the right, franchise or privileges, which is enjoyed or acquired in violation of the provisions
hereof...
Havingcometocourtwithuncleanhands,Choithrammustnotbepermittedfoisthis'temporaryarrangement'
scheme as a defense before this court. Being in delicto, he does not have any right whatsoever being
shieldedfromhisownwrongdoing,whichisnotsowithrespecttoIshwar,whowasnotapartytosuchan
arrangement.
ThefalsityofChoithram'sdefenseisfurtheraggravatedbythematerialinconsistenciesandcontradictionsin
his testimony. While on January 23, 1985 he testified that he purchased the land in question on his own
behalf(tsn,p.4,S.Jan.23,1985),intheJuly18,1985hearing,forgettingprobablywhathestatedbefore,
Choithram testified that he was only an attorneyinfact of Ishwar (tsn, p. 5, S. July 18, 1985). Also in the
hearingofJanuary23,1985,Choithramdeclaredthatnobodyrentedthebuildingthatwasconstructedonthe
parcelsoflandinquestion(tsn,pp.5and6),onlytoadmitinthehearingofOctober30,1985,thathewasin
fact renting the building for P12,000. 00 per annum (tsn, p. 3). Again, in the hearing of July 19, 1985,
ChoithramtestifiedthathehadnoknowledgeoftherevocationofthePowerofAttorney(tsn,pp.2021),only
tobacktrackwhenconfrontedwiththeletterofJune25,1971(ExhibitsRtoR3),whichheadmittedtobein
"hisownwriting,"indicatingknowledgeoftherevocationofthePowerofAttorney.
These inconsistencies are not minor but go into the entire credibility of the testimony of Choithram and the
rule is that contradictions on a very crucial point by a witness, renders s testimony incredible People vs.
Rafallo,80Phil.22).Notonlythisthedoctrineoffalsusinuno,falsusinomnibusisfullyapplicableasfaras
the testimony of Choithram is concerned. The cardinal rule, which has served in all ages, and has been
appliedtoallconditionsofmen,isthatawitnesswillfullyfalsifyingthetruthinoneparticular,whenuponoath,
oughtnevertobebelieveduponthestrengthofhisowntestimony,whateverhemayassert(U.S.vs.Osgood
27Feb.CaseNo.15971a,p.364)Gonzalesvs.Mauricio,52Phil,728),forwhatgroundofjudicialreliefcan
there be left when the party has shown such gross insensibility to the difference between right and wrong,
betweentruthandfalsehood?(TheSantisimaTrinidad,7Wheat,283,5U.S.[L.ed.]454).
True,thatChoithram'stestimonyfindscorroborationfromthetestimonyofhisbrother,Navalrai,butthesame
would not be of much help to Choithram. Not only is Navalrai an interested and biased witness, having
admittedhiscloserelationshipwithChoithramandthatwheneverheorChoithramhadproblems,theyranto
eachother(tsn,pp.1718,S.Sept.20,1985),NavalraihasapecuniaryinterestinthesuccessofChoithram
inthecaseinquestion.BothheandChoithramarebusinesspartnersinJethmalandSonsand/orJethmal
Industries, wherein he owns 60% of the company and Choithram, 40% (p. 62, Appellant's Brief). Since the
acquisitionofthepropertiesinquestionin1966,Navalraiwasoccupying1,200squaremetersthereofasa
factorysiteplusthefactthathisson(Navalrais)wasoccupyingtheapartmentontopofthefactorywithhis
familyrentfreeexcepttheamountofPl,000.00amonthtopayfortaxesonsaidproperties(tsn,p.17,S.
Oct.3,1985).
Inherent contradictions also marked Navalrai testimony. "While the latter was very meticulous in keeping a
receiptfortheP10,000.00thathepaidIshwarassettlementinJethmalIndustries,yetintheallegedpayment
ofP100,000.00toIshwar,noreceiptorvoucherwaseverissuedbyhim(tsn,p.17,S.Oct.3,1983).15
Weconcur.
TheforegoingfindingsoffactsoftheCourtofAppealswhicharesupportedbytheevidenceisconclusiveonthis
Court.TheCourtfindsthatIshwarentrustedUS$150,000.00toChoithramin1965forinvestmentintherealty
business.Soonthereafter,ageneralpowerofattorneywasexecutedbyIshwarinfavorofbothNavalraiand
Choithram.IfitistruethatthepurposeonlyistoenableChoithramtopurchaserealtytemporarilyinthenameof
Ishwar,whytheinclusionoftheirelderbrotherNavalraiasanattorneyinfact?
Then,actingasattorneyinfactofIshwar,ChoithrampurchasedtwoparcelsoflandlocatedinBarrioUgongPasig,
Rizal, from Ortigas in 1966. With the balance of the money of Ishwar, Choithram erected a building on said lot.
Subsequently,withaloanobtainedfromabankandtheincomeofthesaidproperty,Choithramconstructedthree
otherbuildingsthereon.Hemanagedthebusinessandcollectedtherentals.Duetotheirrelationshipofconfidence
it was only in 1970 when Ishwar demanded for an accounting from Choithram. And even as Ishwar revoked the
generalpowerofattorneyonFebruary4,1971,ofwhichChoithramwasdulynotified,ChoithramwrotetoIshwaron
June25,1971requestingthatheexecuteanewpowerofattorneyintheirfavor. 16 When Ishwar did notrespond
thereto,ChoithramneverthelessproceededassuchattorneyinfacttoassignalltherightsandinterestofIshwarto
his daughterinlaw Nirmla in 1973 without the knowledge and consent of Ishwar. Ortigas in turn executed the
correspondingdeedsofsaleinfavorofNirmlaafterfullpaymentofthepurchaseaccompliceofthelots.
In the prefatory statement of their petition, Choithram pictured Ishwar to be so motivated by greed and
ungratefulness, who squandered the family business in New York, who had to turn to his wife for support,

accustomed to living in ostentation and who resorted to blackmail in filing several criminal and civil suits against
them.Thesestatementsfindnosupportandshouldbestrickenfromtherecords.Indeed,theyareirrelevanttothe
proceeding.
Moreover,assumingIshwarisofsuchalowcharacterasChoithramproposestomakethisCourttobelieve,whyis
itthatofallpersons,underhistemporaryarrangementtheory,Choithramoptedtoentrustthepurchaseofvaluable
realestateandbuiltfourbuildingsthereonallinthenameofIshwar?Isitnotanunconsciousemergenceofthetruth
thatthisotherwisewaywardbrotheroftheirswasonthecontraryabletoraiseenoughcapitalthroughthegenerosity
ofhisfatherinlawforthepurchaseoftheverypropertiesinquestion?Astheappellatecourtaptlyobservediftruly
this temporary arrangement story is the only motivation, why Ishwar of all people? Why not the own son of
Choithram,HareshwhoisalsoanAmericancitizenandwhowasalready18yearsoldatthetimeofpurchasein
1966? The Court agrees with the observation that this theory is an afterthought which surfaced only when
Choithram,NirmlaandMotifiledtheiranswer.
WhenIshwaraskedforanaccountingin1970andrevokedthegeneralpowerofattorneyin1971,Choithramhada
totalchangeofheart.Hedecidedtoclaimthepropertyashis.Hecausedthetransferoftherightsandinterestof
Ishwar to Nirmla. On his representation, Ortigas executed the deeds of sale of the properties in favor of Nirmla.
ChoithramobviouslysurmisedIshwarcannotstakeavalidclaimoverthepropertybysodoing.
Clearly,thistransfertoNirmlaisfictitiousand,asadmittedbyChoithram,wasintendedonlytoplacethepropertyin
hernameuntilChoithramacquiresPhilippinecitizenship. 17Whatappearscertainisthatitappearstobeascheme
ofChoithramtoplacethepropertybeyondthereachofIshwarshouldhesuccessfullyclaimthesame.Thus,itmust
bestruckdown.
Worsestill,onSeptember27,1990spousesIshwarfiledanurgentmotionfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminary
attachmentandtorequireChoithram,etal.tosubmitcertaindocuments,invitingtheattentionofthisCourttothe
following:
a) Donation by Choithram of his 2,500 shares of stock in General Garments Corporation in favor of his
childrenonDecember29,198918
b)SaleonAugust2,1990byChoithramofhis100sharesinBiflex(Phils.),Inc.,infavorofhischildren19and
c)MortgageonJune20,1989byNirmlathroughherattorneyinfact,Choithram,ofthepropertiessubjectof
this litigation, for the amount of $3 Million in favor of Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd., (Overseas for brevity), a
corporationwhichappearstobeorganizedandexistingunderandbyvirtueofthelawsofCaymanIslands,
with a capital of only $100.00 divided into 100 shares of $1.00 each, and with address at P.O. Box 1790,
GrandCayman,CaymanIslands.20
AnoppositiontheretowasfiledbyChoithram,etal.butnodocumentswereproduced.Amanifestationandreplyto
theoppositionwasfiledbyspousesIshwar.
AlltheseactsofChoithram,etal.appeartobefraudulentattemptstoremovethesepropertiestothedetrimentof
spousesIshwarshouldthelatterprevailinthislitigation.
OnDecember10,1990thecourtissuedaresolutionthatsubstantiallyreadsasfollows:
Considering the allegations of petitioners Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani and Sonya Ramnani that respondents
ChoithramJethmalRamnani,NirmlaRamnaniandMotiG.Ramnanihavefraudulentlyexecutedasimulated
mortgage of the properties subject of this litigation dated June 20, 1989, in favor of Overseas Holding Co.,
Ltd.whichappearstobeacorporationorganizedinCaymanIslands,fortheamountof$3,000,000.00,which
ismuchmorethanthevalueofthepropertiesinlitigationthatsaidallegedmortgageeappearstobea"shell"
corporationwithacapitalofonly$100.00andthatthisallegedtransactionappearstobeintendedtodefraud
petitionersIshwarandSonyaJethmalRamnaniofanyfavorablejudgmentthatthisCourtmayrenderinthis
case
Wherefore the Court Resolved to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining and prohibiting said
respondents Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti G. Ramnani and the Overseas Holding
Co.,Ltd.fromencumbering,sellingorotherwisedisposingofthepropertiesandimprovementssubjectofthis
litigationuntilfurtherordersoftheCourt.PetitionersIshwarandSonyaJethmalRamnaniareherebyrequired
topostabondofP100,000.00toanswerforanydamagesdrespondentsmaysufferbywayofthisinjunction
iftheCourtfinallydecidesthesaidpetitionersarenotentitledthereto.
TheOverseasHoldingCo.,Ltd.withaddressatP.O.Box1790GrandCayman,CaymanIslands,ishereby
IMPLEADEDasarespondentinthesecases,andisherebyrequiredtoSUBMITitscommentontheUrgent
Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Motion for Production of Documents, the
ManifestationandtheReplytotheOppositionfiledbysaidpetitioners,withinSixty(60)daysafterserviceby

publication on it in accordance with the provisions of Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, at the
expenseofpetitionersIshwarandSonyaJethmalRamnani.
LetcopiesofthisresolutionbeservedontheRegisterofDeedsofPasig,Rizal,andtheProvincialAssessor
ofPasig,Rizal,bothinMetroManila,foritsannotationonthetransferCertificatesofTitlesNos.403150and
403152 registered in the name of respondent Nirmla V. Ramnani, and on the tax declarations of the said
propertiesanditsimprovementssubjectofthislitigation.21
TherequiredinjunctionbondintheamountofP100,000.00wasfiledbythespousesIshwarwhichwasapprovedby
theCourt.TheaboveresolutionoftheCourtwaspublishedintheManilaBulletinissueofDecember17,1990atthe
expenseofsaidspouses.22OnDecember19,1990thesaidresolutionandpetitionforreviewwithannexesinG.R.
Nos.85494and85496weretransmittedtorespondentOverseas,GrandCaymanIslandsatitsaddressc/oCayman
OverseasTrustCo.Ltd.,throughtheUnitedParcelServicesBillofLading 23anditwasactuallydeliveredtosaid
companyonJanuary23,1991.24
OnJanuary22,1991,Choithram,etal.,filedamotiontodissolvethewritofpreliminaryinjunctionallegingthatthere
isnobasisthereforasintheamendedcomplaintwhatissoughtisactualdamagesandnotareconveyanceofthe
property, that there is no reason for its issuance, and that acts already executed cannot be enjoined. They also
offeredtofileacounterbondtodissolvethewrit.
A comment/opposition thereto was filed by spouses Ishwar that there is basis for the injunction as the alleged
mortgage of the property is simulated and the other donations of the shares of Choithram to his children are
fraudulentschemestonegateanyjudgmenttheCourtmayrenderforpetitioners.
NocommentoranswerwasfiledbyOverseasdespiteduenotice,thusitisandmustbeconsideredtobeindefault
and to have lost the right to contest the representations of spouses Ishwar to declare the aforesaid alleged
mortgagenunandvoid.
Thispurportedmortgageofthesubjectpropertiesinlitigationappearstobefraudulentandsimulated.Thestated
amountof$3Millionforwhichitwasmortgagedismuchmorethanthevalueofthemortgagedpropertiesandits
improvements.Theallegedmortgageecompany(Overseas)wasorganizedonlyonJune26,1989butthemortgage
wasexecutedmuchearlier,onJune20,1989,thatissix(6)daysbeforeOverseaswasorganized.Overseasisa
"shelf"companyworthonly$100.00. 25InthemanifestationofspousesIshwardatedApril1,1991,theCourtwas
informedthatthismatterwasbroughttotheattentionoftheCentralBank(CB)forinvestigation,andthatinaletter
ofMarch20,1991,theCBinformedcounselforspousesIshwarthatsaidallegedforeignloanofChoithram,etal.
fromOverseashasnotbeenpreviouslyapproved/registeredwiththeCB.26
Obviously, this is another ploy of Choithram, et al. to place these properties beyond the reach of spouses Ishwar
should they obtain a favorable judgment in this case. The Court finds and so declares that this alleged mortgage
shouldbeasitisherebydeclarednullandvoid.
AllthesecontemporaneousandsubsequentactsofChoithram,etal.,betraytheweaknessoftheircausesothey
hadtotakeansteps,evenasthecasewasalreadypendinginCourt,torenderineffectiveanyjudgmentthatmay
berenderedagainstthem.
TheproblemiscompoundedinthatrespondentOrtigasiscaughtinthewebofthisbitterfight.Ithadallthetime
been dealing with Choithram as attorneyinfact of Ishwar. However, evidence had been adduced that notice in
writing had been served not only on Choithram, but also on Ortigas, of the revocation of Choithram's power of
attorneybyIshwar'slawyer,onMay24,1971. 27ApublicationofsaidnoticewasmadeintheApril2,1971issueof
TheManilaTimesfortheinformationofthegeneralpublic. 28Suchnoticeofrevocationinanewspaperofgeneral
circulationissufficientwarningtothirdpersonsincludingOrtigas. 29Anoticeofrevocationwasalsoregisteredwith
theSecuritiesandExchangeCommissiononMarch29,1971.30
IndeedintheletterofChoithramtoIshwarofJune25,1971,ChoithramwaspleadingthatIshwarexecuteanother
powerofattorneytobeshowntoOrtigaswhoapparentlylearnedoftherevocationofChoithram'spowerofattorney.
31
Despitesaidnotices,OrtigasneverthelessaccededtotherepresentationofChoithram,asallegedattorneyinfact
ofIshwar,toassigntherightsofpetitionerIshwartoNirmla.Whiletheprimaryblameshouldbelaidatthedoorstep
of Choithram, Ortigas is not entirely without fault. It should have required Choithram to secure another power of
attorneyfromIshwar.ForrecklesslybelievingthepretensionofChoithramthathispowerofattorneywasstillgood,
itmust,therefore,shareinthelatter'sliabilitytoIshwar.
In the original complaint, the spouses Ishwar asked for a reconveyance of the properties and/or payment of its
presentvalueanddamages.32Intheamendedcomplainttheyasked,amongothers,foractualdamagesofnotless
thanthepresentvalueoftherealpropertiesinlitigation,moralandexemplarydamages,attorneysfees,costsofthe
suitandfurtherprayedfor"suchotherreliefsasmaybedeemedjustandequitableinthepremises.33Theamended
complaintcontainthefollowingpositiveallegations:

7.DefendantChoithramRamnani,inevidentbadfaithanddespiteduenoticeoftherevocationoftheGeneral
Power of Attorney, Annex 'D" hereof, caused the transfer of the rights over the said parcels of land to his
daughterinlaw, defendant Nirmla Ramnani in connivance with defendant Ortigas & Co., the latter having
agreed to the said transfer despite receiving a letter from plaintiffs' lawyer informing them of the said
revocationcopyoftheletterisheretoattachedandmadeanintegralparthereofasAnnex"H"
8.DefendantNirmlaRamnanihavingacquiredtheaforesaidpropertybyfraudis,byforceoflaw,considered
atrusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitofplaintiffandisobligedtoreturnthesametothelatter:
9.Severaleffortsweremadetosettlethematterwithinthefamilybutdefendants(ChoithramRamnani,Nirmla
Ramnani and Moti Ramnani) refused and up to now fail and still refuse to cooperate and respond to the
samethus,thepresentcase
10. In addition to having been deprived of their rights over the properties (described in par. 3 hereof),
plaintiffs, by reason of defendants' fraudulent act, suffered actual damages by way of lost rental on the
property which defendants (Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti Ramnani have collected for
themselves34
Insaidamendedcomplaint,spousesIshwar,amongothers,prayforpaymentofactualdamagesinanamountno
less than the value of the properties in litigation instead of a reconveyance as sought in the original complaint.
Apparently they opted not to insist on a reconveyance as they are American citizens as alleged in the amended
complaint.
Theallegationsoftheamendedcomplaintabovereproducedclearlyspelledoutthatthetransferofthepropertyto
NirmlawasfraudulentandthatitshouldbeconsideredtobeheldintrustbyNirmlaforspousesIshwar.Asabove
discussed, this allegation is welltaken and the transfer of the property to Nirmla should be considered to have
createdanimpliedtrustbyNirmlaastrusteeofthepropertyforthebenefitofspousesIshwar.35
ThemotiontodissolvethewritofpreliminaryinjunctionfiledbyChoithram,etal.shouldbedenied.Itsissuanceby
thisCourtisproperandwarrantedunderthecircumstancesofthecase.UnderSection3(c)Rule58oftheRulesof
Court, a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after commencement of the action and before
judgmentwhenitisestablished:
(c)thatthedefendantisdoing,threatens,orisabouttodo,orisprocuringorsufferingtobedone,someact
probably in violation of plaintiffs's rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the
judgmentineffectual.
Asaboveextensivelydiscussed,Choithram,etal.havecommittedandthreatentocommitfurtheractsofdisposition
ofthepropertiesinlitigationaswellastheotherassetsofChoithram,apparentlydesignedtorenderineffectiveany
judgmenttheCourtmayrenderfavorabletospousesIshwar.
Thepurposeoftheprovisionalremedyofpreliminaryinjunctionistopreservethestatusquoofthethingssubjectof
thelitigationandtoprotecttherightsofthespousesIshwarrespectingthesubjectoftheactionduringthependency
of the Suit 36 and not to obstruct the administration of justice or prejudice the adverse party. 37 In this case for
damages,shouldChoithram,etal.continuetocommitactsofdispositionofthepropertiessubjectofthelitigation,
anawardofdamagestospousesIshwarwouldtherebyberenderedineffectualandmeaningless.38
Consequently,ifonlytoprotecttheinterestofspousesIshwar,theCourtherebyfindsandholdsthatthemotionfor
theissuanceofawritofpreliminaryattachmentfiledbyspousesIshwarshouldbegrantedcoveringtheproperties
subjectofthislitigation.
Section1,Rule57oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatatthecommencementofanactionoratanytimethereafter,
theplaintifforanyproperpartymayhavethepropertyoftheadversepartyattachedassecurityforthesatisfaction
ofanyjudgmentthatmayberecovered,in,amongothers,thefollowingcases:
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the
obligation upon which the action is brought, or in concealing or disposing of the property for the taking,
detentionorconversionofwhichtheactionisbrought
(e)Inanactionagainstapartywhohasremovedordisposedofhisproperty,orisabouttodoso,withintent
todefraudhiscreditors...
Verily,theactsofChoithram,etal.ofdisposingthepropertiessubjectofthelitigationdiscloseaschemetodefraud
spousesIshwarsotheymaynotbeabletorecoveratallgivenajudgmentintheirfavor,therequiringtheissuance
ofthewritofattachmentinthisinstance.
Nevertheless, under the peculiar circumstances of this case and despite the fact that Choithram, et al., have
committedactswhichdemonstratetheirbadfaithandschemetodefraudspousesIshwarandSonyaoftheirrightful

shareinthepropertiesinlitigation,theCourtcannotignorethefactthatChoithrammusthavebeenmotivatedbya
strong conviction that as the industrial partner in the acquisition of said assets he has as much claim to said
propertiesasIshwar,thecapitalistpartnerinthejointventure.
The scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of $150,000.00 for the business. They entrusted the
money to Choithram to invest in a profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this purpose they appointed
Choithramastheirattorneyinfact.
1wphi1

Choithram in turn decidedtoinvestintherealestatebusiness.Heboughtthetwo (2) parcels of land in question

fromOrtigasasattorneyinfactofIshwarInsteadofpayingforthelotsincash,hepaidininstallmentsandusedthe
balanceofthecapitalentrustedtohim,plusaloan,tobuildtwobuildings.Althoughthebuildingswereburnedlater,
Choithram was able to build two other buildings on the property. He rented them out and collected the rentals.
ThroughtheindustryandgeniusofChoithram,Ishwar'spropertywasdevelopedandimprovedintowhatitisnow
avaluableassetworthmillionsofpesos.Asofthelastestimatein1985,whilethecasewaspendingbeforethetrial
court,themarketvalueofthepropertiesisnolessthanP22,304,000.00.39Itshouldbeworthmuchmoretoday.
We have a situation where two brothers engaged in a business venture. One furnished the capital, the other
contributed his industry and talent. Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint
investmentandefforts.PerhapsthisSolomonicsolutionmaypavethewaytowardstheirreconciliation.Bothwould
standtogain.Noonewouldenduptheloser.Afterall,bloodisthickerthanwater.
However,theCourtcannotjustcloseitseyestothedeviousmachinationsandschemesthatChoithramemployedin
attemptingtodisposeof,ifnotdissipate,thepropertiestodeprivespousesIshwarofanypossiblemeanstorecover
anyawardtheCourtmaygrantintheirfavor.SinceChoithram,etal.actedwithevidentbadfaithandmalice,they
shouldpaymoralandexemplarydamagesaswellasattorney'sfeestospousesIshwar.
WHEREFORE,thepetitioninG.R.No.85494isDENIED,whilethepetitioninG.R.No.85496isherebygivendue
courseandGRANTED.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsdatedOctober18,1988isherebymodifiedasfollows:
1.DividingequallybetweenrespondentsspousesIshwar,ontheonehand,andpetitionerChoithram
Ramnani,ontheother,(inG.R.No.85494)thetwoparcelsoflandsubjectofthislitigation,includingall
theimprovementsthereon,presentlycoveredbytransferCertificatesofTitleNos.403150and403152
oftheRegistryofDeeds,aswellastherentalincomeofthepropertyfrom1967tothepresent.
2. Petitioner Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani and respondent
OrtigasandCompany,LimitedPartnership(inG.R.No.85496)areorderedsolidarilytopayincashthe
valueofsaidonehalf(1/2)shareinthesaidlandandimprovementspertainingtorespondentsspouses
Ishwar and Sonya at their fair market value at the time of the satisfaction of this judgment but in no
case less than their value as appraised by the Asian Appraisal, Inc. in its Appraisal Report dated
August1985(ExhibitsTtoT14,inclusive).
3. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti Ramnani and respondent Ortigas & Co., Ltd. Partnership
shall also be jointly and severally liable to pay to said respondents spouses Ishwar and Sonya
Ramnanionehalf(1/2)ofthetotalrentalincomeofsaidpropertiesandimprovementsfrom1967upto
thedateofsatisfactionofthejudgmenttobecomputedasfollows:
a. On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to 1973,
inclusive,basedonthe1967to1973monthlyrentalspaidbyEppie'sCreation
b.AlsoonBuildingCabove,occupiedbyJethmalIndustriesandLavinefrom1974to1978,the
rental incomes based on then rates prevailing as shown under Exhibit "P" and from 1979 to
1981,basedonthenprevailingratesasindicatedunderExhibit"Q"
c. On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental incomes
based upon then prevailing rates shown under Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1981, based on
prevailingratesperExhibit"Q"
d.OnthetwoBaysBuildingsoccupiedbySigmaMariwasafrom1972to1978,therentalsbased
on the Lease Contract, Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on the Lease
Contract,Exhibit"Q".
andthereaftercommencing1982,toaccountforandturnovertherentalincomespaidoroughttobe
paidfortheuseandoccupancyofthepropertiesandallimprovementstotalling10,048sq.m.,based
on the rate per square meter prevailing in 1981 as indicated annually cumulative up to 1984. Then,
commencing1985anduptothesatisfactionofthejudgment,rentalsshallbecomputedattenpercent
(10%)annuallyofthefairmarketvaluesofthepropertiesasappraisedbytheAsianAppraisals,Inc.in
August1985.(ExhibitsTtoT14,inclusive.)

4.Todeterminethemarketvalueofthepropertiesatthetimeofthesatisfactionofthisjudgmentand
the total rental incomes thereof, the trial court is hereby directed to hold a hearing with deliberate
dispatch for this purpose only and to have the judgment immediately executed after such
determination.
5.PetitionersChoithram,NirmlaandMoti,allsurnamedRamnani,arealsojointlyandseverallyliableto
pay respondents Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani the amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages,
P200,000.00 as exemplary damages and attorney's fees equal to 10% of the total award. to said
respondentsspouses.
6.ThemotiontodissolvethewritofpreliminaryinjunctiondatedDecember10,1990filedbypetitioners
Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, is hereby DENIED and the said injunction is
hereby made permanent. Let a writ of attachment be issued and levied against the properties and
improvementssubjectofthislitigationtosecurethepaymentoftheaboveawardstospousesIshwar
andSonya.
7.ThemortgageconstitutedonthesubjectpropertydatedJune20,1989bypetitionersChoithramand
Nirmla,bothsurnamedRamnaniinfavorofrespondentOverseasHolding,Co.Ltd.(inG.R.No.85496)
for the amount of $3M is hereby declared null and void. The Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, is
directedtocanceltheannotationofdmortgageonthetitlesofthepropertiesinquestion.
8. Should respondent Ortigas Co., Ltd. Partnership pay the awards to Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani
underthisjudgment,itshallbeentitledtoreimbursementfrompetitionersChoithram,NirmlaandMoti,
allsurnamedRamnani.
9.Theaboveawardsshagbearlegalrateofinterestofsixpercent(6%)perannumfromthetimethis
judgmentbecomesfinaluntiltheyarefullypaidbypetitionersChoithramRamnani,NirmlaV.Ramnani,
MotiC.RamnaniandOrtigas,Co.,Ltd.Partnership.SaidpetitionersChoithram,etal.andrespondent
Ortigasshallalsopaythecosts.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,Cruz,GrioAquinoandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1

ExhibitA.

ExhibitsBandC.

Exhibit3.

ExhibitH.

ExhibitF.

ExhibitsandJ.

Pages 80 to 82,Rollo of G.R. No. 85496 pages 55 to 57, G.R. No. 85494 Associate Justice Rodolfo A
Nocon was the ponente, concurred in separate opinion by Justices Ricardo P. Tensuan and Manuel C.
Herrera.JusticesFelipeB.KalaloandVenancioD.AldecoaJr.,bothdissentedinseparatetheopinionsand
votedtoaffirmthedecisionofthetrialcourt.
8

Thefivejusticeswroteseparateopinions.

Pages15and16,Rollo,G.R.No.85494.

10

Pages23to24,Rollo,G.R.No.85496.

11

Pages117to119,Rollo,G.R.No.85496.

12

Pages41to45,Rollo,G.R.No.85494.

13

ExhibitR1emphasissupplied.

14

SeeExhibitRtoR3.

15

Pages45to50,Rollo,G.R.No.85494emphasissupplied.

16

ExhibitsRtoR3.

17

TSN,July18,1985,page12andJuly19,1985,pages8to9.

18

AnnexAtoUrgentMotion,etc.pages438to450,Rollo,G.R.No.85494.

19

AnnexB,suprapage451,supra.

20

AnnexC,suprapages452to456,supra.

21

Pages438to442,rollo,G.R.No.85496pages413to417,rollo,G.R.No.85494.

22

Page450,rollo,G.R.No.85496.

23

AnnexesC,C1andC2toManifestationandComplaintofpetitionersIshwar&SonyafiledonJanuary26,
1991.
24

AnnexDtoManifestation,etc.

25

AnnexAtoReplytoOppositionfiledbypetitionersonDecember7,1990Pages383to384,RolloSee
alsoManifestationofpetitioners,December11,1990,pages438to443rollo,G.R.85494.
26

SeepagestoofRollo.

27

ExhibitB.

28

ExhibitF.

29

Article1922,CivilCode.

30

ExhibitH.

31

ExhibitR1supra.

32

AnnexCtoPetitioninG.R.No.85494pages88to92,rollo.

33

AnnexD,supraPages93to97,Rollo.

34

Supra,pages95to96,Rolloemphasissupplied.

35

AnnexCtoPetitioninG.R.No.85494pages88to92,Rollo.

36

Calovs.Roldan,76Phil.445(1946)DelosReyesv.Elepao,G.R.L5282,May29,1959DelaCruzvs.
TanTorres,G.R.L14925,April30,1960,
37

YuTiongTayvs.Barrios,79Phil.597(1947).

38

Calovs.Roldansupra.

39

ExhibitsTtoT14.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation