ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 128497.February 14, 2001]

VALERIO vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 14 2001.

G.R. No. 128497(Jose Ad. Valerio vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Rafael Santos, et al.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the regional trial court which held the Spouses Jose and Josefa Calderon and herein petitioner jointly and severally liable to private respondents for a number of damages aside from the cost of the building demolished (p. 49, Rollo).

The antecedent facts are as follows:

On February 15, 1973, private respondents entered into a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage with Jose Calderon and his wife involving a 445 sq. m. parcel of land with a one-storey building housing a rice mill built of strong materials and a complete rice mill consisting of machinery and equipment.

The Deed expressly stipulated that the spouses Calderon shall assume the obligation of private respondents with the Development Bank of the Philippines amounting to P56,895.00 and that petitioner should present to said bank an additional collateral consisting of a parcel of land acceptable to the bank; and that they shall pay private respondents the sum of P8,141.90.

Other than the payment of only P3,000.00, the spouses Calderon failed to comply with their undertaking and in utter disregard of the subject contract, sold the mortgaged building and rice mill to petitioner Jose AD. Valerio unknown to and without the consent of private respondents.

Thereafter, petitioner Valerio caused the demolition of the building, dismantled the rice mill and carted away the machinery and equipment housed therein.

Aggrieved, private respondents filed an action for damages alleging that they incurred the following damages: P50,000.00 corresponding to the actual value of the building and rice mill; P500.00 representing the daily earning of the rice mill starting November 1974; P30,000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish and besmirched reputation they suffered; and P500.00 as attorney's fees.

The trial court decided in favor of private respondents and a subsequent motion for reconsideration proved to be unavailing.

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Thus, the instant petition which much necessarily fail.

The Court finds no reversible error committed by both lower courts declaring petitioner solidarily liable with the Calderon spouses to private respondents for the damages, for as correctly ruled, petitioner's claim that he is a buyer in good faith is belied by his own admission that at the time of the negotiation of the sale of the chattels with the spouses Calderon, he knew of the existing mortgage thereon with DBP and the fact that he even accompanied the Calderons to the bank to inquire about the encumbrance.

Article 1170 of the Civil Code pertinently provides that:

Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay and those who in any manner contravene the teneor thereof, are liable for damages.

The spouses Calderon's breach is as clear as day and for his part, if petitioner really acted in good faith as he claims, before demolishing the subject building and dismantling the rice mill, he should have first verified whether or not the Calderons have redeemed said property from the bank. For it would take less than common sense to realize that the real owners, private respondents in the case at bar, would be prejudiced by the demolition and dismantling of the subject property.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE