July 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > July 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8475. July 31, 1956.] RICARDO Y. SUNGA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VlCTORlANO ALVlAR, Defendant-Appellant.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8475.  July 31, 1956.]

RICARDO Y. SUNGA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VlCTORlANO ALVlAR, Defendant-Appellant.

 

D E C I S I O N

PARAS, J.:

For and in consideration of the sum of P800, the Defendant- Appellant executed in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee a mortgage over a parcel of land situated in the municipality of San Fernando, Province of La Union, and for an indefinite period after May 14, 1941. On April 8, 1944, the Appellant paid to the Appellee in Japanese war notes the amount of the mortgage; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut in the deed of release both the Appellant and the Appellee signed a note stating that “this is subject to the provision of section 8, Article XI of the Philippine Constitution.” The controversy that arose between the parties, and submitted to the Court of First Instance of La Union in this case commenced by the Appellee against the Appellant, was whether or not under the note appended to the deed releasing the mortgage, had the effect of subjecting the payment made in Japanese war notes on April 8, 1944 to any adjustment or settlement contemplated in section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution in force during the Japanese occupation which provided as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “All property rights and privileges acquired by any person, entity, or corporation, since the outbreak of the Great East Asia war shall be subject to adjustment and settlement upon the termination of the said war.” In its decision dated September 27, 1954, the court ruled that the reservation made in the Endnote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary of the deed of release above referred to, could not have been inserted by the parties without any purpose; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand proceeded to conclude that, in view of the fact that the redemption of the mortgage was made by the Appellant on April 8, 1944, when the Japanese war notes were almost valueless, the parties must have intended to adjust and settle Appellant’s mortgage obligation after the war. And since this court, although considering payments made during the Japanese occupation as valid, applied the Ballantyne Scale to obligations which could have been paid during the Japanese occupation, the Court of First Instance of La Union sentenced the Appellant to pay to the Appellee the sum of P711.11 (representing the difference between the amount of the mortgage obligation, P800, and the value of the payment made by the Appellant in Japanese war notes, P88.89), plus legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, and the costs of suit. The Defendant has appealed.

We agree with the appealed decision. If the payment made by the Appellant on April 8, 1944 was meant to be absolute, the Endnote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary in question would not have been inserted in the deed releasing the mortgage; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand considering the very low value of the Japanese war notes at the time of said payment, it was undoubtedly intended as an indirect way on the part of the Appellee to refuse the payment, in which the Appellant readily acquiesced. The situation may be likened to an obligation payable only after the war, which is perfectly valid, with the only difference that the payment made on April 8, 1944 is, by express agreement of the parties, to be adjusted after the war.

The Appellant argues that the insertion of the Endnote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary was a surplusage and unnecessary, inasmuch as the provision of section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution in force during the Japanese occupation was impliedly a part of every contract executed during said period; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand since said Constitution lost its effectiveness in view of the result of the war, it cannot here be considered and the payment made on April 8, 1944, was the same as any payment made during the Japanese occupation which had been held valid by this Court. This contention is of no moment, as the reference to section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution may be deemed as merely descriptive of a condition therein expressed.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed with costs against the Appellant. SO ORDERED.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, 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






July-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-8194. July 11, 1956.] EMERENCIANA M. VDA. DE MEDINA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, ET AL., Defendants. GUILLERMO CRESENCIA, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9575. July 17, 1956.] PEDRO CEREZO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE EMANUEL. M. MU�OZ, Judge Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and PEDRO S. SISON, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6990. July 20, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KAMAD ARINSO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-7872-73. July 20, 1956.] IN RE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF RAYMUNDO PE and FORTUNATO PE. RAYMUNDO PE and FORTUNATO PE, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8750. July 20, 1956.] NATIONAL UNION OF PRINTING WORKERS, Petitioners, vs. ENCLOSED WITH PAY THE ASIA PRINTING AND/OR LU MING, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7578. July 24, 1956.] CRISPULO MALICSE, Petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8753. July 24, 1956.] MRS. CARIDAD DE LA CRUZ DE BERONILLA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SEGUNDO M. MARTINEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and MELCHOR BERONILLA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8878. July 24, 1956.] FELIPE B. OLLADA, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, UNDER-SECRETARY OF FINANCE, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, VICENTE I. CRUZ, SABINA R. SORIANO, NEW WORLD PRINTING PRESS and YAM NAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8604. July 25, 1956.] CANDIDO PANCHO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MANUEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-5079. July 31, 1956.] J. M. TUASON & Co., INC., represented by its managing partner THE GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GERONIMO SANTIAGO, ELENO SANTIAGO PABLO SANTIAGO, CECILIO SANTIAGO and CONSTANTINO SANTIAGO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6204. July 31, 1956.] CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7834. July 31, 1956.] SEVERINO D. VALENCIA and CATALINA S. L. VALENCIA, Petitioners, vs. ROMAN LEONCIO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7983. July 31, 1956.] PETRA BELTRAN, ET ALS., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET ALS., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8157. July 31, 1956.] LIM HU, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-8475. July 31, 1956.] RICARDO Y. SUNGA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VlCTORlANO ALVlAR, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8583. July 31, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO HILVANO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8627. July 31, 1956.] VITALIANO ROBLES, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. CANDIDA SAN JOSE, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8657. July 31, 1956.] ERASMO ALVAREZ and MARCIANO PARANADA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE LUCAS LACSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, CASIANO A. LADIORAY and SERAPIO ARIMBUANGA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8761. July 31, 1956.] INSULAR SAW MILL, INC., Petitioner, vs. CHARLIE HOGAN and DEE C. TAM (As partners in the unregistered partnership Charlie Hogan and Co., doing business under the name and style of �Ganie Enterprises�), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8943. July 31, 1956.] JOSE MIRANDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MALATE GARAGE & TAXICAB, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8964. July 31, 1956.] JUAN EDADES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SEVERINO EDADES, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9037. July 31, 1956.] MARIANO B. VILLANUEVA and CONSUELO PAPA-VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRIMITIVO GONZALES, Judge of the Court of First Instance, and Provincial Fiscal MARIANO B. BENEDICTO, both of Cavite, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9252. July 31, 1956.] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO P. HERNANDO, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9284. July 31, 1956.] TERESA FELIX VDA. DE ROSARIO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CAMILING, TARLAC, MELANIO ROSARIO and MARIA INOVEJAS, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9317. July 31, 1956.] AGAPITO CRUZ CORREA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HERMOGENES PASCUAL, Defendant. JUAN LUCIANO and ARSENIA DE LEON, movants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9572. July 31, 1956.] JOAQUIN GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9667. July 31, 1956.] LUIS MA. ARANETA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, as judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI and EMMA BENITEZ ARANETA, Respondents.