SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-3439 July 31, 1951

ALEJANDRO SAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AGAPITO B. ANDAL, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Engracio Cleme�a for plaintiff and appellee.
Pedro P. Colina and Ramon C. Aquino for defendants and appellants.

R E S O L U T I O N chanrobles virtual law library

JUGO, J.:

The appeal in the above-entitled case was taken directly from the Court of First Instance of Manila to the Supreme Court. However, it is to be noticed that the second assignment of error raises a question of fact. It reads as follows:

The lower court erred:chanrobles virtual law library

II. In finding that on October 25, 1945, when the obligation became due, plaintiff offered to pay the loan in Philippine Currency based on the value of the Philippine peso on the date the loan was obtained.

Two pages of the appellants' brief are devoted to the discussion of said alleged error of fact.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appellee also discusses said assignment of error, and in substance, tries to show that same is immaterial in view of the fact that he prays for declaratory relief. Said assignment deals with the alleged rejected offer to comply with the contract; or, in other words, raises the question whether there has been a violation thereof. If there has been a violation, declaratory relief cannot be granted, for the reason that section 2, Rule 66, relative to said remedy, provides that "A contract or statute may be construed before there has been a breach thereof." After breach, the regular remedy obtains.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The court below must have on valid grounds considered said question material to the case when it made in its decision the statement which is traversed by the appellant and defended by the appellee. Non-compliance with the contract in this case would give rise to attorney's fees amounting to twenty-five per cent (25%) of the principal of the loan plus the interest that meanwhile accrued. There being a question of fact, this case is hereby ordered remanded to the Court of Appeals for its decision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Paras, Bengzon, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.