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
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1282   April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG<br /><br />083 Phil 378

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1282. April 25, 1949.]

    JUAN S. BARROZO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    Primicias, Abad, Mencias, & Castillo for Appellant.

    Macaraeg & Sison for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. JUDICIAL SALE; REDEMPTION TERM; EFFECT OF THE WAR. — The Japanese occupation did not suspend redemptory rights when the courts in the corresponding locality had been functioning regularly.

    2. ID.; NON-REDEMPTION, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS NO EXCUSE FOR. — Financial hardship is no excuse for non-redemption in the same manner as shortage of funds does nor prevent a sale on execution.

    3. ID.; INADEQUACY OF PRICE IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND TO ANNUL SALE. — Mere inadequacy of price is not sufficient ground to annul the sale. It is only where such inadequacy shocks the conscience that the courts will intervene.

    4. ID.; MORATORIUM; REDEMPTION MONEY IS NOT DEBT; MORATORIUM LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE. — The debt moratorium merely prohibited the enforcement by action of the debts therein included; it did not affect the period of redemption.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    The plaintiff Juan S. Barrozo, whose properties were sold on execution in pre-war days desires to repurchase them even after the lapse of the one-year period specified by law, insisting that the advent of the last war suspended or extended that period. Such in a nutshell is the gist of this litigation which was submitted for decision to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, upon a stipulation of facts reading partly as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That the plaintiff used to be the owner of the parcels of land described in . . . the complaint.

    "2. That on or about January 23, 1941, a complaint was filed by Tableria B and S against Juan S. Barrozo (civil case No. 438 of the justice of the peace court of Mangaldan) to recover the amount of P446.41 plus costs; . . .

    "3. That decision was rendered in civil case No. 438 aforesaid sentencing Juan S. Barrozo to pay P446.41 with 12 per cent interest, costs and attorney’s fees; . . .

    "4. That execution was issued by the J. P. of Mangaldan and the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan levied on the properties described in the complaint . . .

    "5. That pursuant to the levy and notice of sale at public auction (Exhibit C), the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan sold the properties levied upon, at public auction on April 28, 1941, to Jose B. Biagtan as the highest bidder;

    "6. That on August 21, 1942, the provincial sheriff executed a deed of final sale of the said properties in favor of Jose S. Biagtan, copy of the said deed is hereto attached as Exhibit E and made a part hereof;

    "7. That Jose S. Biagtan sold and transferred all his rights, title and interests over all of the properties described in Exhibit E in favor of the defendant spouses Marcelino T. Macaraeg and Asuncion V. Sison-Macaraeg on November 21, 1942;

    "8. That the eight parcels of land levied upon and sold at public auction were mortgaged by the plaintiff Juan S. Barrozo on February 15, 1940 to the Agricultural & Industrial Bank for P1,400 payable under the terms and conditions stipulated in the deed of mortgage and the promissory note which are marked respectively as Exhibits G and G- 1 and made parts hereof;

    "9. That the defendant spouses paid the mortgage credit and interests to the Agricultural and Industrial Bank on February 26, 1943 in the amount of P1,646.51 under Receipt No. 73043 which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit H;"

    x       x       x


    "12. That the possession of the properties situated in Mangatarem, Pangasinan, were delivered to the defendant spouses on November 25, 1942 by the provincial sheriff;"

    It will be observed that as the realties of plaintiff had been sold on April 28, 1941 the redemption term should have expired in regular course on April 28, 1942. Now then, what effect did the war have upon such term? The trial judge, Hon. Eugenio Angeles, held that the Japanese occupation did not suspend the redemptory rights of the plaintiff, who should have tried to repurchase on time. His Honor also held that after the Japanese occupation, the courts of Pangasinan began to function regularly in May 1942, and therefore even if the intervening period of confusion caused by the invasion should be deducted (January to May 1942), still plaintiff was late because he moved to repurchase by filing this complaint only in February 1943.

    Appellant claims the lower court erred in not relieving him from his failure to redeem by reason of the difficulties occassioned by the war, citing authorities upholding the discretionary power of courts of equity to permit redemption after the statutory period has expired. However, under the circumstances disclosed, we fail to see how to impute abuse of discretion to the trial judge whose knowledge of local conditions must be reckoned with in the matter of facilities of the judgment debtor to repurchase, or the lack thereof. And supposing that fairly normal conditions in the province were restored only in May 1942, His Honor was entirely right in declaring the plaintiff had "slept too long." Remember that from May 1942 to February 1943 the periods for soliciting relief under Rule 38 on the ground of equitable circumstances have elapsed.

    In this connection the appellant argues that he had exerted every effort to redeem as early as December 1942, "as is admitted by defendants’ answer." This argument is adequately met by appellees, who point out that although appellant talked about repurchase in December 1942, he merely requested for an extension of time within which to make it without tendering payment of the redemption price.

    It is quite probable that because of the conflagration plaintiff found it difficult to get the necessary money. But it should be clear that financial hardship is no excuse for non-redemption, in the same manner as shortage of funds does not prevent a sale on execution.

    Another point raised by appellant is that the price paid at the auction sale was so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court. Supposing that this issue is open even after the one-year period has expired and after the properties have passed into the hands of third persons who may have paid a price higher than the auction sale money, the first thing to consider is that the stipulation contains no statement of the reasonable value of the properties; and although defendant’s answer avers that the assessed value was P3,960 it also avers that their real market value was P2,000 only. Anyway, mere inadequacy of price — which was the complaint’s allegation — is not sufficient ground to annul the sale. It is only where such inadequacy shocks the conscience that the courts will intervene (Warner Barnes & Co. v. Santos, 14 Phil., 446; National Bank v. Gonzales, 45 Phil, 693; Jalandoni v. Ledesma, 64 Phil., 1058). Another consideration is that the assessed value being P3,960 and the purchase price being in effect P1,864 (P464 sale price plus P1,400 mortgage lien which had to be discharged) the conscience is not shocked upon examining the prices paid in the sales in National Bank v. Gonzales, 45 Phil., 693 1 and Guerrero v. Guerrero, 57 Phil., 445, 2 sales which were left undisturbed by this Court.

    Furthermore, where there is the right to redeem — as in this case - inadequacy of price should not be material, because the judgment debtor may re-acquire the property or else sell his right to redeem and thus recover any loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price obtained at the execution sale.

    The third point raised in this appeal is that "the lower court erred in not holding that under the debt moratorium proclaimed in Executive Order No. 32 the payment in forced sales of the redemption money was suspended." But the debt moratorium merely prohibited the enforcement by action of the debts therein included; and in this case no one is attempting to force anybody to pay his debt. The judgment debtor whose property has been sold is not in debt for the redemption money. He could not be required by action to redeem. Hence, he is not entitled to invoke the suspension. At any rate the moratorium, even if applicable to the right to repurchase would not logically have the effect of reviving a period that had expired long before its promulgation.

    Wherefore, finding no substantial error in the appealed decision dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, we hereby affirm it, with costs.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Property assessed at P45,900 sold for P15,000.

    2. Property assessed at P8,505 sold for P3,463.

    G.R. No. L-1282   April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG<br /><br />083 Phil 378


    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