Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

093 Phil 56:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5529. May 15, 1953.]

FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO, Defendant-Appellee.

Alfonso G. Espinosa for Appellants.

Mariano D. Copuyoc for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; SALE; PAYMENT, WHO MAY RECEIVE. — In an action to rescind the sale for nonpayment of last installment, purchaser proved she had delivered money to the seller’s wife. Heirs of husband, who are suing, claim that the wife had no power to receive the payment. Held: Under the circumstances the wife was probably authorized.

2. APPEALS; QUESTIONS NOT RAISED IN TRIAL COURT. - Held, further, that as the point was not raised in the court below it is not entertainable on appeal considering equitable grounds and resultant judicial complications.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


In August 1948 Fortunata Ramento and her children by her deceased husband Adriano Mendoza brought suit in Nueva Ecija to rescind the sale of several parcels of land made by the spouses in May 1944 to Guadalupe Cosuangco. Cause of action was the alleged non-payment of part of the purchase price. The defendant asserted full payment, and the case was heard. The Honorable Francisco Arca, Judge, found for defendant, and plaintiffs perfected this appeal wherein they assign several errors of fact and one error of law, all of which have been carefully gone over.

Undisputed facts are these:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

By the deed of sale Annex A, Adriano Mendoza and his wife Fortunata Ramento sold to Guadalupe Cosuangco, on May 10, 1944, eight parcels of realty situated in Guimba, Nueva Ecija for the total sum of seventy-five thousand, eight hundred and sixty-two pesos (P75,862). On that day, the purchaser paid P30,000 promising to pay the rest afterwards. Subsequently, upon demand of the sellers, she made two payments amounting to P28,000. and the statement Exhibit A (Exhibit 6 also) was made, signed by Cosuangco and delivered to the Mendozas in words as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Ang una cong naibigay P30,000.00

Ang pangalawa 25,000.00

Ang pangatlo 3,000.00

—————

Lahat P58,000.00

Sa P76,000 na cabayaran ng lupang ipinagbile sa akin na 84 hectaria na mahigit ay P18,000 pa ang natitira sa akin. Aawasin ang bayad sa buis ng lupa na hindi nila nababayaran.

Hulio 9, 1944.

(Sgd.) G. COSUANGCO"

P. D.

Na itong natitira pa na hindi co pa naiibigay ay ibibigay co sa oras na maibigay nila sa akin ang mga titulo na nasa camay ni Abogado Salva.

Aco rin.

(Sgd.) FORTUNATA RAMENTO"

At the time of the sale, the lands were registered under the Torrens system in the name of the vendors or one of them. During the hearing of this litigation the defendant presented to the court the corresponding transfer certificates of title in her name over the eight parcels of land.

The issue in the court below, and here, centers around the payment or nonpayment of the P18,000 admittedly unpaid as of July 9, 1944 (Exhibit A, Exhibit 6).

Declaring under oath at the hearing on February 25, 1949, Fortunata Ramento asserted that despite her demands, Cosuangco had failed to pay the said amount of P18,000; that she was willing to return the Japanese money which Cosuangco had paid; that when P30,000 was paid it was agreed that the titles would be given the purchaser upon delivery of the remaining purchase price; and that she was ready to receive the equivalent in Philippine money of the amount still unpaid.

On the other hand, Guadalupe Cosuangco swore that after the statement Exhibit A was made, and before September 14, 1944 the Mendozas secured from her several amounts totalling P4,000; that on such date she handed to Fortunata Ramento the amount of P14,000 receipt of which Fortunata acknowledged in Exhibit 2 over her signature, the Exhibit containing furthermore the statement that with this installment the total price of the lots, P75,862 had thereby been fully satisfied. She also declared that on July 1, 1945, she lent P150 to Fortunata Ramento upon the latter’s request, the borrower signing therefor the promissory note Exhibit 5.

Arsenio Padre, 31, merchant of Guimba, swore that he was present when Fortunata Ramento borrowed money from Guadalupe Cosuangco, and that he signed as attesting witness in Exhibit 5 together with T. Mendoza, a son of the Mendozas. This witness was subjected to a thorough cross-examination; but he stuck to his story.

On rebuttal, Fortunata Ramento, corroborated by her daughter Isabel Mendoza, testified that one day in September 1944 Guadalupe Cosuangco brought Exhibit 2 to their house and asked Adriano Mendoza to sign it; that Adriano refused to sign; that Cosuangco left, and afterwards returned with the same document informing Fortunata Ramento that Adriano (who was then absent from the house) had finally agreed to let Fortunata sign the document; that believing Cosuangco had told the truth, Fortunata signed the document Exhibit 2; that subsequently Adriano arrived and denied having agreed to the signing of the document, but it was too late.

Fortunata also testified that she had signed the document Exhibit 5 as receipt for P150 which she had collected from Cosuangco on account of the unpaid balance of the purchase price; that without understanding the document, she signed it because Cosuangco told her it was merely a receipt.

Refusing to believe the mother-and-daughter story of deception, the trial judge gave full credit to the documents Exhibits 2 and 5, declared that the full purchase price had been paid, and, in accordance with defendant’s counterclaim, sentenced the plaintiff Fortunata Ramento to pay defendant Cosuangco the loan of P150 plus legal interest from the date of defendant’s answer, September 24, 1948.

Plaintiffs appealed, as hereinbefore stated.

The records do not reveal any relevant circumstance that might justify reversal of the judge’s appraisal of the conflicting evidence on the matter of payment. To us Exhibit 5 is the key to the situation. It had been concededly signed by Fortunata. It represented a loan given by Cosuangco to Fortunata Ramento on July 1, 1945. Arsenio Padre, an impartial witness so declared. The document was attested by Fortunata’s own son, Triunfante Mendoza, who was significantly not presented to corroborate his mother’s assertion that she signed it in complete ignorance of its contents. Which assertion is entirely incredible, because if she had been previously deceived by Cosuangco when she signed Exhibit 2 (as she claimed), it is quite unlikely that she should again close her eyes in affixing her signature to a document prepared by Cosuangco. And if, as she affirms, the P150 was delivered to her "on account of the purchase price", why did she not credit Cosuangco for it in the complaint filed in this case?

Now, as His Honor correctly observed, if in July 1945 Fortunata Ramento "borrowed" P150 from Cosuangco, the truth must be that, as the latter declared, Cosuangco on that date owed nothing to the Mendozas on account of the purchase price, which according to Exhibit 2 had been fully satisfied on September 14, 1944. And Fortunata’s claim that she had been deceived into signing said Exhibit 2 does not tally with her conduct in taking no action for four years, and in later asking for a "loan" from one who had deceived her (allegedly) on a previous occasion.

Another line of approach leads to the same factual conclusion of payment: According to Exhibit A, the P18,000 balance was to be given upon delivery to the purchaser of the certificates of title then in the hands of Attorney Salva. Now, such certificates must have been delivered to the purchaser, because she actually possesses transfer certificates of title in her name. Therefore she must have paid the balance, as she declared, and as attested by Exhibit 2.

An interesting legal point is raised by the attorney for the appellants. Admitting, he says "that Exhibit 2 is not vitiated by fraud still the heirs of Adriano Mendoza could not be prejudiced because of the lack of authority on the part of Fortunata Ramento to sign for them or to sign for Adriano Mendoza." This must be understood with reference to the last payment of the P18,000, because in the complaint the plaintiffs heirs of Adriano Mendoza impliedly conceded full validity to the previous payments admittedly handed to Fortunata Ramento. This concession suggests the inference that the husband probably authorized the wife to receive the purchase money on behalf of the conjugal partnership. 1 Anyway, as that issue was not tendered in the lower court by the pleadings, it is inadvisable to entertain it at this stage of the controversy, the defendant having been deprived of the opportunity to prove by competent evidence his position that Mendoza authorized, or consented to, the payments made to his wife, consent or authority which would naturally bind his heirs. 2 Not to mention other complications, for instance, conflict of interests between the heirs of Mendoza and Fortunata Ramento, consequent inability of their single attorney faithfully to uphold both, estoppel of Fortunata to assert lack of authority, and the resulting right of Cosuangco either to recover one-half from Fortunata if she actually had no authority to receive the money or to request the court to require Fortunata to pay that half unto the legal successors of her husband.

Finding no prejudicial error in the appealed decision, we must hereby affirm it, with costs against appellants. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Wife is traditionally the purse holder in the Philippine home.

2. Cf. article 1416, Civil Code; La Urbana v. Villasor, 59 Phil., 644. See also 41 C.J.S., pp. 541 et seq.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310