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
 

   
December-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2502 December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-2836 December 6, 1949 - ENGRACIA G. DE PONCE v. ALICIA VASQUEZ SAGARIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-2466 December 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TUAZON

    085 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-2580 December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-2593 December 7, 1949 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL

    085 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-2652 December 7, 1949 - JULIA LORENZO, ET AL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAIC, ET AL

    085 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-2758 December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL

    085 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-3452 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-3474 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    085 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2354 December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON

    085 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-2672 December 13, 1949 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL

    085 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3521 December 13, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY ET AL. v. COMELEC

    085 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2722 December 15, 1949 - NICOLAS LIZARES & CO. v. BIENVENIDO TAN

    085 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2802 December 23, 1949 - ROSA PASCUAL, ET AL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2936 December 23, 1949 - TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL CO. v. VICTORY EMPLOYEES, ET AL

    085 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-867 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO ET AL. v. CARLOS SANDICO ET AL.

    085 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-1349 December 29, 1949 - H. D. KNEEDLER v. SIMON PATERNO

    085 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-1773 December 29, 1949 - ALEJANDRO ANDRES, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-1811 December 29, 1949 - GREGORIO BALVERAN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-1877 December 29, 1949 - H. P. HOSKYNS v. NAT’L. CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    085 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-1965 December 29, 1949 - EDUARDO OSORIO v. MARINA OSORIO

    085 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2020 December 29, 1949 - LA ORDEN DE PADRES BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    085 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-2360 December 29, 1949 - GAVINO ALDAMIZ v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, ET AL

    085 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-2404 December 29, 1949 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    085 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-2634 December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-2570 December 29, 1949 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSO.

    085 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-2678 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO C. ARAGON v. MARCOS JORGE

    085 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-2717 December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL.

    085 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-2752 December 29, 1949 - URBANO OLAVARIO ET AL. v. JUAN T. VILLANUEVA

    085 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-2842 December 29, 1949 - JOSE T. VALMONTE, ET AL v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-2850 December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL

    085 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-2942 December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL

    085 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3039 December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL

    085 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-3261 December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL

    085 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-2529 December 31, 1949 - J. A. SISON v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, EZT AL

    085 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-2720 December 31, 1949 - HEMANDAS UDHARAM v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    085 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949 - AGRIPINO JIMINEZ, ET AL v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    085 Phil 286

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2354   December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON<br /><br />085 Phil 142

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2354. December 13, 1949.]

    ALFONSO ARANETA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON, Defendant-Appellee.

    Tomas Alonso and Gaudioso O. Sosmeña for Appellant.

    Hipolito Alo for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. MORATORIUM LAW, NATURE OF; WAIVABLE. — The law on debt moratorium does not condone debts or the payments of obligations. It merely suspends collection and payment. The right to such suspension may be invoked by the debtor; but he may also waive or renounce it (Doctrine in Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. v. Barrious, 45 Off. Gaz., p. 2444, 2 reiterated.)


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    On June 17, 1941, Alfonso Araneta and his wife Dolores Bobadilla sold two parcels of land with the improvements thereon, located in the City of Cebu, to Julian Sanson and his wife Marta Cui for P2,000, with right to repurchase within one year, with the condition that pending repurchase, the vendors as lessees could continue occupying the property by paying rent at the rate of P20 a month (Exhibit A). The period of one year expired without the vendors exercising their right of repurchase. Legally, the vendees became absolute owners of the two parcels, but on June 24, 1946, Marta Cui Vda. de Sanson (her husband Julian being already dead) as an act of charity or generosity, resold the said two parcels to the vendors Alfonso and Dolores for the same amount of P2,000, plus P1,000 as rents unpaid.

    Afterwards, and after consulting some lawyers who were supposed to have advised him that he was not under obligation to pay the P1,000 as back rents, Alfonso Araneta sought to recover the said amount from Marta and upon her refusal, he brought the corresponding action to collect from Marta in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (civil case No. R-27). Judgment was rendered absolving the defendant Marta Cui Vda. de Sanson and Alfonso is now appealing from that decision.

    Appellant’s contention is that under the provisions of Executive Order No. 25, as amended by Executive Order No. 32 on debt moratorium, his payment of P1,000 was prematurely made and that the said amount should be returned to him by the defendant-appellee. This contention is clearly untenable. We quote with approval a portion of Judge Felix Martinez’ decision appealed from on this point of the moratorium law.

    "Si el demandante debia por alquileres esa cantidad a la demandada, bien hecho estaba que a requerimiento de esta, aquel la pagara. La orden de moratoria no condonaba lo adeudado; posponia solamente la obligacion de pagarlo por el periodo de su vigencia. La moratoria trataba de aliviar las dificultades en que un deudor podria hallarse con ocasion de la guerra; pero si de todos modos el aqui demandante, siendo deudor, estaba en situacion de pagar su deuda, y de hecho la pago; no hay razon, ni se le debe permitir, que volviese atras, ya que de todos modos tenia que hacerlo tarde o temprano."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The law of debt moratorium does not condone debts on the payments of obligations. It merely suspends collection and payment. The right to such suspension may be invoked by the debtor; but he may also waive or renounce it. Plaintiff herein in voluntarily paying the P1,000 waived his right to suspend or postpone. As was said by this Court in the case of Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. v. Barrios, 45 Off. Gaz., No. 6, p. 2444, 1 the right granted by Executive Order No. 25, as amended by Executive Order No. 32, is a right granted by law to debtors and such right may be waived because its waiver does not affect the public interest or the rights of third parties.

    But there is yet another reason against the contention of the appellant. According to the deed of sale (Exhibit A) by virtue of which Alfonso Araneta and his wife sold the two parcels to the appellee and her husband in 1941, and wherein it was agreed that the vendors were to continue occupying the property as lessees by paying P20 monthly rent, said vendors may not exercise the right of redemption if they were delinquent in the payment of any rent. Consequently, the right of appellant Alfonso to redeem the property in question was conditioned on his paying the back rent amounting to P1,000. In other words, the appellee was under no obligation to resell the property to him unless and until he first paid the P1,000 back rents. This, aside from the fact that as already stated, the period for repurchase had long expired as far back as June, 1942, and that it was only out of consideration and charity that the appellee reconveyed the property to appellant. We repeat that the contention of the appellant in this case is absolutely untenable, not to say, savoring of the ingratitude and lack of appreciation.

    Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. 79 Phil., 666.

    1. 79 Phil, 666.

    G.R. No. L-2354   December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON<br /><br />085 Phil 142


    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