Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > March 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12729 March 30, 1959 - ARSENIO R. REYES v. MARCIAL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

105 Phil 372:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12729. March 30, 1959.]

ARSENIO R. REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARCIAL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Arsenio R. Reyes in his own behalf.

Angel M. Tesoro and Ruben M. Beltran for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTRACTS; CONTRACT FOR SERVICES; PROVISION CONSTRUED. — To expedite the partition of the property to which they were some of the heirs, defendants-appellees entered into a contract of services, defendants-appellees agreed to pay plaintiff-appellant 5 per cent of the amount adjudicated to them. After the partition had been effected, plaintiff-appellant tried to recover 5 per cent of the market value of the properties appearing on the project of partition. Held: The parties to the contract could not have had in mind the market value of the properties to be adjudicated to the appellees, which market value was then unknown, and whose determination would be attended with difficulties and disagreements. But there was one value which they inventory and on the basis of which the partition was to be made. That must have been the value and the only value which they agreed upon.

2. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; AMBIGUITY IN CONTRACTS, HOW RESOLVED. — If there is any ambiguity or obscurity in the interpretation and meaning of a contract, the same shall not favor the party who cause such ambiguity or obscurity.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


This is an appeal by Atty. Arsenio R. Reyes, plaintiff from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge Bonifacio Ysip presiding, in Civil Case No. 20670, ordering among other things that defendants-appellees pay to plaintiff-appellant and amount equivalent to 5 per cent of the amount adjudicated to each of them, from the estate to which they were some of the heirs, based not on the market value but on the assessed value of the property appearing on the project of partition and distribution, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, and the payment of their proportionate shares of the costs.

Marcial, Asuncion, Eugenio, Lucia, and Alfonso, all surnamed de la Cruz, are some of the heirs of the deceased Anselmo S. Hilario. The five aforementioned heirs, on September 26, 1950, entered into a contract of services with plaintiff Reyes, the pertinent portions of which are reproduced below:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We are hiring your services to represent us in Special Proceeding No. 7501, Court of First Instance, Manila, in such a way that we will be given all the due share arising out of the will and of the law. You will exercise all duties of an attorney to preserve and defend our rights until the project of partition is approved by the court.

"For and in consideration of the services which you are going to render to us in the said case we will pay you 5 per cent of the amount adjudicated to us. You will not be paid in cash by us for the time being that the case is pending in court. We have no money to pay. You will only be paid of your services when the case is terminated and our respective shares are delivered to us by order of court." (Exhibit A.)

At the time this contract was entered into, the probate court had already ordered partition. It seems, however, that there was delay in its execution and implementation and the main purpose of hiring Atty. Reyes and the services to be rendered by him was to expedite the said partition. He helped in the preparation of the project of partition. After said project had been approved and the terms thereof had been carried out; the properties adjudicated to each of the said five heirs individually, were given to them; and the properties which to be held in common was determined the plaintiff filed this action to recover his fees, namely, 5 per cent of the market value of all said properties; and P10,000 as moral damages, P10,000 as consequential damages, and P10,000 as attorney’s fees.

The lower court denied the prayer for damages and attorney’s fees. It held that the 5 per cent mentioned in the contract for services referred to the assessed value, not the market value, because the latter was too speculative.

Although Marcial de la Cruz was included in the complaint, he died before the complaint was filed in court, and because no substitution was made of his legal representative, the trial court believed itself not to have acquired jurisdiction over this estate, and so confined the proceedings to the heirs.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the contract for services referred to the assessed value or to the market value of the properties adjudicated to the four heirs. We agree with the trial court that the 5 per cent could refer only to the assessed value, for that was the only value then known to the parties to the contract, said value appearing in the inventory of the estate of the decedent. The market value of a property is, as correctly said by the lower court, too speculative. From experience, we know that the determination of the actual or market value or real property is quite difficult. This difficulty is best exemplified cases of expropriation. Because the parties almost invariably cannot agree as to the market value of the property to be expropriated, the court appoints commissioners to hold hearings and receive evidence, and even then, the commissioners not infrequently cannot agree among themselves. One commissioner may fix the fair market value of the property, say at P2.00 per square meter. Another commissioner claims that it si only P.30 per square meter, and the third commissioner might give a figure that falls between the estimates of his co-commissioners. Bearing this in mind, the parties to the contract could not have had in mind the market value of the properties to be adjudicated to the five heirs, which market value was then unknown and whose determination would be attended with difficulties and disagreements. But there was one value which they all knew, and that was the assessed value appearing in the inventory and on the basis of which the partition was to be made. That must have been the value and the only value which they agreed upon.

Moreover, if following the theory of the plaintiff, the contract referred to the market value, at what time was said market value to be ascertained, considering that real estate values fluctuate from time to time, depending on the need for real estate, say for building purposes if urban, or for agricultural purposes if rural, and also upon whether there is plenty of money in circulation or not. Was this time of the determination of the market value, the date when the contract was entered into, or the date when the partition was actually made, or the day when the plaintiff made a demand for the payment of his legal services? It is a well known fact that the tendency of real estate values is to up with the years, and naturally if the market value of the properties in question was to be ascertained not at the time that the contract was entered into, but on the day that the partition proceedings were terminated and the legal services of the plaintiff were ended, them there might, nay, would be a real and substantial difference in the two values, and it is not likely that the defendants-appellees herein would have assumed that hazard or risk. This, aside from the consideration that because of this tendency of real estate values to rise, if the determination of the market value is to be made upon the termination of the partition proceedings, then any undue delay in the said proceedings would tend to increase said market value and might constitute a temptation for a lawyer similarly situated to agree to, if not actually work for said delay.

Another aspect of the case bears consideration. It was the plaintiff-appellant who prepared the contract for services. Being a lawyer, he knew the meaning and value of every word or phrase used in said contract. If the parties, including himself, really had in mind not the parties, including himself, really had in mind not the assessed value but the market value, it would have been to easy for him to have used and inserted said phrase, "market value", in order to remove and avoid all ambiguity and uncertainly. We reproduce with favor what the lower court said on this point:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It has been proven that the plaintiff was the very person who prepared the document, Exhibit A. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity or obscurity in the interpretation and meaning of said contract, the same "shall not favor the party who cause the obscurity" (Art. 1377 of the Civil Code corresponding to Art. 1288 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889) Yatco v. El Hogar Filipino 67 Phil., 610; Calanoc v. Phil. American Life Insurance Co., 52 Off. Gaz., 191, 792."cralaw virtua1aw library

The lower court considered the claim of plaintiff for legal services as exhorbitant and unconscionable. After considering the circumstances in the case, we cannot say that the lower court was wrong. The lawyer who represented the administrator from the very beginning and rendered legal services in connection with the administration not only of the properties to be adjudicated to the defendants herein but to the whole estate, was paid only about P30,000. Plaintiff-appellant whose legal services were relatively much less may not claim fees more than what was received by the attorney for the administration.

We understand that plaintiff-appellant has already received about P5,000 as his fees from the estate of Marcial de la Cruz against which he filed a separate case. On the basis of the assessed value of the properties adjudicated to the four remaining heirs, in the present case, which is P149,685.69, 5 per cent of the same would be almost P8,000. If we add this sum plus its legal interest from the filing of the complaint as ordered by the court, to the P5,000 plaintiff had received from the estate of Marcial de la Cruz, he would have a total of around P14,000 which in our opinion is sufficient, even more sufficient and adequate payment for his legal services in this case.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Padilla, Reyes, A. Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, J., concurs in the result.




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






March-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12163 March 4, 1959 - PAZ FORES v. IRENEO MIRANDA

    105 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-10460 March 11, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUANA B. VDA. DE DEL ROSARIO

    105 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-10611 March 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO DIVINAGRACIA

    105 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. L-11223 March 16, 1959 - PABLO C. VENTURA v. JUDGE NICASIO YATCO

    105 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-11596 March 16, 1959 - ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO. INC. v. ELEUTERIO LIMCACO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-11981 March 17, 1959 - CIRIACO SANTIAGO v. MANUEL CONDE

    105 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-11315 March 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO HINAUT

    105 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-11741 March 18, 1959 - EL AHORRO INSULAR, ET AL. v. VICTORINO T. AQUINO

    105 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-14891 March 19, 1959 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. PELAGIO CRUZ

    105 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. L-13204 March 20, 1959 - ENRIQUE C. SERVO v. MARIANO ALCANABA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-9724 March 23, 1959 - TOMAS B. BERVA v. THE CITY MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER OF NAGA CITY

    105 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-12343 March 23, 1959 - LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY v. ALFONSO LOPEZ

    105 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-12497 March 23, 1959 - PRIMITIVO A. MACARAIG v. VICENTE DY SUN

    105 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-12695 March 23, 1959 - CITY OF ILOILO v. REMEDIOS SIAN VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-12698 March 23, 1959 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY

    105 Phil 344

  • G.R. Nos. 11928-11930 March 24, 1959 - VEDASTO JESALVA, ET AL. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-10883 March 25, 1959 - TERESA REALTY v. STATE CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY CO., ET AL.

    105 Phil 353

  • G.R. Nos. L- 12078-79 March 25, 1959 - MATIAS BELARMINO v. PANTALEON F. ALIHAN

    105 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-12703 March 25, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMA ORPILLA-MOLINA

    105 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-11472 March 30, 1959 - OBDULIA ARAGON, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL.

    105 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-11569 March 30, 1959 - ROGERIO GENDRALA v. TEOFISTO CORDOVA

    105 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. L-12729 March 30, 1959 - ARSENIO R. REYES v. MARCIAL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    105 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. L-12944 March 30, 1959 - MARIA NATIVIDAD VDA. DE TAN v. VETERANS BACKPAY COMMISSION

    105 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-13298 March 30, 1959 - JOSE U. OCHATE v. DIEGO H. TY DELING, ET AL.

    105 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-7954 March 31, 1959 - B. A. CRUMB v. MARGARITO RODRIGUEZ

    105 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-10884 March 31, 1959 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PHILIPPINE LEATHER CO. INC.

    105 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. L-11785 March 31, 1959 - GABINO BACHOCO v. IGNACIA ESPERANCILLA

    105 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-12064 March 31, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    105 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-12104 March 31, 1959 - CASIMIRO GARGANTA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. L-12128 March 31, 1959 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ANTONIO NOBLEJAS

    105 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-12282 March 31, 1959 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    105 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-12592 March 31, 1959 - TIBURCIO SOMERA, ET AL. v. AGRIPINO GALMAN, ET AL.

    105 Phil 431