Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > August 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16411 August 31, 1963 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. DOMINGO DE JESUS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16411. August 31, 1963.]

RODRIGO COLOSO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOMINGO DE JESUS, as Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus, LILIA DE JESUS-SEVILLA and HERMAN SEVILLA, Defendants-Appellees.

Salonga, Ordoñez & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Recto Law Offices and Andres T. Velarde for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. DAMAGES; NO INJURY FROM EXERCISE BY OWNER OF RIGHT NOT TO AGREE TO PRICE OFFERED. — A lessee with option to purchase a piece of land who has not yet exercised his right of option by depositing the price fixed for the property has only an inchoate right to the land; he cannot complain even if the cause of the failure of the negotiation for the purchase by the Land Tenure Administration was the refusal of the owner to agree to the offer of said administrative agency to the price, with which the said lessee was already in conformity, because the owner was only exercising her right to the property; failure of the deal may not be said to have caused any damage to the lessee subject to be repaired.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Magno Gatmaitan, presiding, dismissing the complaint filed by plaintiff-appellant for damages and condemning the defendants to execute a deed of sale in favor of the plaintiff of the property subject of the action for the amount of P60,000 within the period of the duration of the contract, or 10 years.

The record discloses that on February 12, 1955 Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus and Rodrigo Coloso entered into an agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to manage a parcel of land belonging to her containing 315 hectares and located in Samal, Bataan, with power to cut all trees and introduce productive improvements, and to appoint tenants or hire persons to work in the land. The parties agreed that they will divide the fruits of the trees and plants planted on the land on a fifty-fifty basis. It was further agreed that Coloso will commence the work and introduce improvements within two years from the date of the contract and upon failure to do so the contract will become of no force and effect.

The plaintiff entered the land in accordance with the contract, clearing out the land for planting with the necessary improvements thereon. On January 14, 1956 a letter was sent to the President of the Philippines, signed by various individuals supposed to be working on the land, asking the President to purchase the property for re-sale to them. The letter was referred to the Land Tenure Administration, which received it on January 14, 1956. Thereupon said office proceeded to evaluate the land, and at the same time tried to secure from the owner and the plaintiff-appellant information as to the price that the latter would be willing to sell the property to the Land Tenure Administration. Meetings were had between the representatives of the Land Tenure Administration and Atty. Lilia de Jesus-Sevilla who represented her deceased mother, and Rodrigo Coloso.

De Jesus and Coloso at first expressed their willingness to sell the property at P3,000 per hectare, which price Coloso later reduced to P2,685 and then to P2,500. On September 30, 1957 another meeting was held between the parties in which Lilia de Jesus did not appear. At this time Coloso reduced his price to P770 per hectare. Later in another meeting on October 21, 1957, Lilia de Jesus being present, she gave her price as P2,000.

The committee appointed by the Land Tenure Administration to make the appraisal of the value of the property fixed the said value at P700, but as Lilia de Jesus insisted on the price of P2,000 per hectare and questioned the right of Coloso to enforce his right of option on the Land Tenure Administration, no final agreement could be made.

In view of this stalemate Coloso brought this action for damages against the estate of Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus, alleging that by reason of the obstruction placed by Lilia de Jesus to the perfection of an agreement he has suffered the following damages: P161,050 actual damages, P40,000 moral damages, P30,000 compensatory damages, P20,000 exemplary damages, and P10,000 attorney’s fees, or a total of P261,050.

The heirs of Florentina de Jesus submitted their respective answers. Lilia de Jesus-Sevilla denied the right of action of the plaintiff alleging that the latter’s action in participating in the conferences for the purchase of the property by the Land Tenure Administration was not justified by any rights; that no definite or final offer was made by the Land Tenure Administration to acquire the property at any stated price; that the plaintiff had no authority to negotiate with the Land Tenure Administration for the sale of the property and that the property could not be sold without prior approval of the court of first instance because of the pendency of a proceeding for administration of the estate of the deceased Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus. The other defendant Domingo de Jesus presented practically the same defenses. The parties went to trial and thereafter the judge rendered the decision already stated above.

In finding for the defendants, the court declared that the negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendants with the Land Tenure Administration was only preliminary, to find out at what price the owners would be willing to part with the property at a negotiated sale; that the heir Lilia de Jesus was at liberty to agree or not to agree with the price offered by the plaintiff Coloso and that if the Land Tenure Administration desisted from concluding the agreement, the result of which would deprive Coloso of the chance to gain, Coloso could not complain because Lilia de Jesus, if she obstructed the sale, was only exercising her right to the property, and furthermore, because it is not clear that because of her obstruction the deal was not consummated, thereby depriving Coloso of an opportunity to gain from the intended transaction.

However, the court recognized the right of Coloso to exercise his right to buy the property and ordered the defendants to execute the corresponding deed of sale of the property upon payment by Coloso of the sum of P60,000 as agreed upon. The above decision is the subject of the present appeal of plaintiff-appellant.

Plaintiff claims in his first assignment of error that the lower court erred in finding that the Land Tenure Administration merely held preliminary negotiations for the said purchase of the property. In support of this supposed error it is argued that in October 1957 the Land Tenure Administration had sent out notices to the parties to attend "a final negotiation." This took place on October 22, 1961. Aside from this fact the committee appointed to assess the property had recommended a fixed price of the property at P700 per hectare. This is all that transpired.

It is to be noted that there was no formal offer made by the Land Tenure Administration to purchase the property for P700 a hectare. All that was held was a conference at which neither the Land Tenure Administration nor its officials expressed readiness and willingness to pay for the Land at the rate of P700 per hectare, or actually offered such price for the purchase of the property. It can not be deduced from these facts, therefore, that the Land Tenure Administration was ready and willing to pay P700 per hectare as no actual offer to purchase for that amount was made in the negotiations, either verbally or in writing thereafter.

But assuming for the sake of argument that the negotiations failed because the price offered by Lilia de Jesus was P2,000, we agree with the court below that it was her right to demand the price that she wanted. At the time of the negotiations Coloso had not yet become the owner of that property as he had not exercised the right of option by depositing the price fixed for the property. The interest of Coloso was not an absolute right to the property; it was a mere inchoate right dependent upon the exercise of the option and the payment by him of the agreed price. We further agree with the trial court that if the cause of the failure of the negotiations was the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to agree to the of P700, as she was still the owner of the property at that time, her refusal could not have caused any damage to Coloso subject to be repaired.

It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the court below erred in finding that there was no proof that the proximate and immediate cause of the failure of the negotiations was the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to come to terms and lower her price to P700. Neither do we find this supposed error to have been committed by the court below, no competent person testifying for the Land Tenure Administration having testified in court that the failure of the negotiations was due to the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to the price of P700 to which Rodrigo Coloso had agreed. The claim of the plaintiff- appellant that the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to conform to the price of P700 is the cause of the failure of the negotiations is, therefore, without foundation in fact. It was merely a surmise of plaintiff-appellant or his lawyer. We, therefore, find that the conclusion of the court that there was no sufficient proof that the cause of the failure of the negotiations was the fault of Lilia de Jesus, is sustained by the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence.

Finding no error in the decision appealed from, we hereby affirm it, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




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






August-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18439 August 21, 1963 - MARIA VDA. DE SOTTO v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20864 August 23, 1963 - ELPIDIO VALENCIA v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-17290 August 29, 1963 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. L-18782 August 29, 1963 - BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-15255 August 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN MALAT

  • G.R. No. L-17011 August 30, 1963 - EMMA S. ACENAS, ET AL. v. ANGELA SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17327 August 30, 1963 - C. N. HODGES v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA

  • G.R. No. L-17992 August 30, 1963 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSP. CO., INC. v. EMILIANO DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-18352 August 30, 1963 - AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ETC., ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-19250 August 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO MESSIAS

  • G.R. No. L-16251 August 31, 1963 - ROSA M. VDA. DE ZABALJAURREGUI v. LUZON SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16411 August 31, 1963 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. DOMINGO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. L-17343 August 31, 1963 - ISIDRO SORIENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-17402 August 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-17815 August 31, 1963 - CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, SR., ET AL., v. SEBASTIAN C. PALANCA

  • G.R. No. L-17828 August 31, 1963 - LIGAYA MINA, ET AL., v. ANTONIO PACSON, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17874 August 31, 1963 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS & STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17994 August 31, 1963 - FEDERICO BATOLANON, ET AL., v. ROMAN A. LEORENTE

  • G.R. No. L-18011 August 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO LADISLA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18137 August 31, 1963 - ROSELLER T. LIM, ET AL., v. PACITA DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18170 August 31, 1963 - NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION OF THE PHIL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18247 August 31, 1963 - FLORENTINO GALLEGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18277 August 31, 1963 - GUALBERTO CRUZ v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-18334 August 31, 1963 - FILEMON DIONELA, ET AL., v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-18373 August 31, 1963 - TEOFILO TALAVERA v. VICTOR MAÑGOBA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18532 August 31, 1963 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. NARCISO VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-18667 August 31, 1963 - ANDRES VIVAR v. ANTONIO VIVAR

  • G.R. No. L-20783 August 31, 1963 - EMILIANO M. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS