ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47519   June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO<br /><br />072 Phil 248

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 47519. June 10, 1941.]

    EMILIANO E. GARCIA, as guardian of Elisa, Maria, Anita, Pastor, Gabino, Jose and Pacita, all surnamed Garcia, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAZ E. VELASCO (alias PAZ VELASCO), Defendant-Appellee.

    Manuel P. Suñga for Appellant.

    Juan M. Ladaw for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; VENUE; PERSONAL ACTION. — True that the fish pond is situated in Bulacan and the authority for its sale emanated from the Court of First Instance of the same province; but the action is for recovery of the purchase price and is not one against "executors, administrators and guardians touching the performance of their official duties." It is, therefore, a personal action and its venue should be laid "in any province where the defendant or any necessary defendant may reside or be found, or in any province where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff." As the plaintiff is a resident of the City of Manila, the filing of the complaint therein was an exercise of his right of election in accordance with law.

    2. SALE OR REAL ESTATE FOR A LUMP SUM; ARTICLE 1471 OF THE CIVIL CODE; CASE AT BAR. — Upon the question of law of whether upon a sale of real property in gross and for a lump sum, the purchaser may be entitled to an equitable reduction in the purchaser may be entitled to an equitable reduction in the price in proportion to what is lacking in the area as designated in the contract, the trial court credited the defendant the sum of P3,824 upon the evidence that the fish pond purchased by him was only eight (8) hectares when it was described in the contract to contain "una extension superficial de once (11) hectareas, treinta y ocho (38) areas, y setenta y siete (77) centiareas, poco mas o menos." The question is controlled by article 1471 of the Civil Code which provides that "in case of the sale of real estate for a lump sum and not at the rate of a specified price for each unit of measure or number there shall be no increase or decrease of the price even if the area or number be found to be more or less than that stated in the contract." The transaction here involved is, according to paragraph 5 of the deed of sale (Exhibit D), one for lump sum and not at a specified price for each unit of measure and, therefore, no reduction can be authorized although the areas was less than what was stated in the contract. There are instances in which equitable relief may be granted to the purchaser, as where the deficiency is very great for, under such circumstance, gross mistake may be inferred. (Asiain v. Jalandoni, 45 Phil., 296.) But, in the instant case, we are satisfied that, although the shortage amounts to practically one-fourth of the total area, the purchaser clearly intended to take the risk of quantity, and that the area has been mentioned in the contract merely for the purpose of description. From the circumstance that the defendant, before her purchase of the fish pond, had been in possession and control thereof for two years as a lessee, she can rightly be presumed to have acquired a good estimate of its value and area, and her subsequent purchase thereof must have been premised on the knowledge of such value and area. Accordingly, she cannot now be heard to claim an equitable reduction in the purchase price on the pretext that the property is much less than she thought it was.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    On July 1, 1929, Florentino Garcia, as duly appointed guardian of the minors, Elisa, Maria, Anita, Pastor, Gabino, Jose and Pacita, all surnamed Garcia, leased to defendant Paz E. Velasco, for a period of ten years at an annual rental of P750, a fish pond belonging to said minors, situated in Paombong, Bulacan. On May 22, 1931, pursuant to authority granted him by the court, he sold the fish pond to said defendant for a lump sum of P14,000. On October 29, 1935, Emiliano E. Garcia, who was appointed guardian in substitution of Florentino Garcia, was ordered by the court to institute an appropriate action for the recovery from the defendant of the purchase price of the fish pond. The action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila where said guardian resides. Defendant, in a special appearance, objected to the court’s jurisdiction over her person, and on the overruling of the objection, a demurrer was interposed reasserting the original ground of objection and adding, as another ground, want of the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. The demurrer having been overruled, defendant filed her answer in which she renewed her objection to the court’s jurisdiction over her person and the subject matte, pleads the special defense of payment, and sets up a counterclaim for P249.57. On the issues thus joined, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and that the amount claimed has already been paid. Hence, this appeal.

    Upon the question of jurisdiction raised, we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s objection. True that the fish pond is situated in Bulacan and the authority for its sale emanated from the Court of First Instance of the same province; but the action is for recovery of the purchase price and is not one against "executors, administrators and guardians touching the performance of their official duties." It is, therefore, a personal action and its venue should be laid "in any province where the defendant or any necessary defendant may reside or be found, or in any province where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff." As the plaintiff is a resident of the City of Manila, the filing of the complaint therein was an exercise of his right to election in accordance with law. Although, as a judicial policy, only residents should be appointed as guardians (Guerrero v. Teran, 13 Phil., 212), the fact that the plaintiff has been appointed as guardian by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan does not necessarily exclude his residence in Manila as alleged in the complaint and not directly denied in the answer.

    On the issue of payment upon which defendant’s claim was sustained, we find no ground for disturbing the findings of the trial court; but upon the question of law of whether upon a sale of real property in gross and for a lump sum, the purchaser may be entitled to an equitable reduction in the price in proportion to what is lacking in the area as designated in the contract, the trial court credited the defendant the sum of P3,824 upon the evidence that the fish pond purchased by him was only eight (8) hectares when it was described in the contract to contain "una extension superficial de once (11) hectareas, treinta y ocho (38) arenas, y setenta y siete (77) centiareas, poco mas o menos." The question is controlled by article 1471 of the Civil Code which provides that "in case of the sale of real estate for a lump sum and not at the rate of a specified price for each unit of measure or number there shall be no increase or decrease of the price even if the areas or number be found to be more or less than that stated in the contract." The transaction here involved is, according to paragraph 5 of the deed of sale (Exhibit D), one for a lump sum and not at a specified price for each unit of measure and, therefore, no reduction can be authorized although the area was less than what was stated in the contract. There are instances in which equitable relief may be granted to the purchaser, as where the deficiency is very great for, under such circumstance, gross mistake may be inferred. (Asiain v. Jalandoni, 45 Phil., 296.) But, in the instant case, we are satisfied that, although the shortage amounts to practically one-fourth of the total area, the purchaser clearly intended to take the risk of quantity, and that the area has been mentioned in the contract merely for the purpose of description. From the circumstance that the defendant, before her purchase of the fish pond, had been in possession and control thereof for two years as a lessee, she can rightly be presumed to have acquired a good estimate of its value and area, and her subsequent purchase thereof must have been premised on the knowledge of such value and area. Accordingly, she cannot now be heard to claim an equitable reduction in the purchase price on the pretext that the property is much less than she thought it was.

    Judgment is reversed, and defendant is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of P3,824, with costs against her.

    Avanceña, C.J., Diaz, Laurel and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47519   June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO<br /><br />072 Phil 248


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED