April 1962 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > April 1962 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-15499 April 23, 1962 - ANGELA M. BUTTE v. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-15499. April 23, 1962.]
ANGELA M. BUTTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANUEL UY & SONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Delgado, Flores & Macapagal, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Pelaez & Jalandoni, for Defendant-Appellee.
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., has timely asked for a reconsideration of our main decision on the grounds (1) that the consignation of P500,000.00 by appellant Mrs. Butte was actually withdrawn by her on August 24, 1959, as shown by the certification of the Chief Accountant of the Department of Justice under date March 8, 1962, hence Appellee should not be made accountable for rents and profits from and after January 15, 1959 until payment of the redemption price is actually made; (b) that the appellant is not entitled to exercise legal redemption; and (c) that the certificate of title did not show that appellee was a co-owner of the property covered by said certificate.
Appellant Angela M. Butte opposed the reconsideration prayed for on the ground that the withdrawal of the amount consigned does not alter the appellee’s responsibility for damages due to its mora in refusing to allow redemption of the property when the amount was first tendered, and that the other grounds were amply discussed in the briefs and the decision.
The first ground is meritorious. The actual withdrawal of the P500,000 originally consigned in court was not taken into account because it did not appear of record when our main decision was rendered; but the withdrawal is not denied by the appellee, and is supported besides by an official certification; hence, it must be conceded as an actual fact. While the lack or withdrawal of the consignation does not affect appellant’s right of redemption, such redemption being optional and not compulsory, and the price tendered in due time, still the fact remains that no actual redemption would have been legally made until the price is in fact paid to the appellee Uy & Sons, Inc. The latter, therefore, continues to be the owner of the undivided sixth share sold to it by the former co-owner, Marie Garnier Vda. de Ramirez, and is entitled to the fruits and benefits accruing to it by reason of that share, until the redemption price is actually delivered.
Granting that, as contended for appellant, Uy & Sons, Inc. became in mora when it improperly refused to allow the redemption of the undivided share it had purchased from Mrs. Garnier, such mora does not necessarily entitle appellant to recover damages, in the absence of proof as to the reality of such damage and of the extent thereof. Damages are not presumed, specially in this case where there has been no showing that the fruits of the undivided sixth purchased by appellee Uy would exceed the interest and profits that could have been earned by the P500,000 that appellee should have paid over to effectuate the legal redemption.
We find no merit in the other grounds adduced by appellant in its motion to reconsider. The right of appellee to redeem the undivided sixth in question and the timeliness of the tender of the redemption price have been amply discussed in our main decision, and no new arguments are adduced. The fact that the certificate of title covering the Sta. Cruz property did not show that appellee Angela M. Butte was one of the co-owners is irrelevant, since the appellant Uy & Sons, Inc. well knew that it was a stranger to the co-ownership, and that it was buying an undivided interest therein. Under these conditions, the purchaser is in law charged with notice that its acquisition is subject to redemption by any other co-owner within the statutory 30-day period, and the identity of the redemptioner is immaterial so far as the purchaser is concerned.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the dispositive part of our decision of February 28, 1962 is hereby modified to read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) Declaring the tender of P500,000 made by appellant Angela M. Butte duly and properly made;
(b) Declaring that by such tender made in due time, the appellant has preserved her right to redeem the one-sixth (1/6) portion of the land covered by Certificate of Title No. 59363 of the Office of the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila, sold on December 9, 1958 by Marie Garnier Vda. de Ramirez to appellee Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., and that said appellant Angela M. Butte is entitled to a reconveyance of said one-sixth portion upon payment of the amount of P500,000 to Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc.;
(c) Ordering appellee Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., to execute the deed of conveyance of the undivided portion above-referred to in favor of Angela M. Butte upon payment by the latter of the sum of P500,000 within sixty (60) days from the time our decision becomes final;
(d) Ordering the return of the records to the court of origin for execution conformably to this opinion.
Without finding as to costs." So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Paredes, JJ., concur
Appellant Angela M. Butte opposed the reconsideration prayed for on the ground that the withdrawal of the amount consigned does not alter the appellee’s responsibility for damages due to its mora in refusing to allow redemption of the property when the amount was first tendered, and that the other grounds were amply discussed in the briefs and the decision.
The first ground is meritorious. The actual withdrawal of the P500,000 originally consigned in court was not taken into account because it did not appear of record when our main decision was rendered; but the withdrawal is not denied by the appellee, and is supported besides by an official certification; hence, it must be conceded as an actual fact. While the lack or withdrawal of the consignation does not affect appellant’s right of redemption, such redemption being optional and not compulsory, and the price tendered in due time, still the fact remains that no actual redemption would have been legally made until the price is in fact paid to the appellee Uy & Sons, Inc. The latter, therefore, continues to be the owner of the undivided sixth share sold to it by the former co-owner, Marie Garnier Vda. de Ramirez, and is entitled to the fruits and benefits accruing to it by reason of that share, until the redemption price is actually delivered.
Granting that, as contended for appellant, Uy & Sons, Inc. became in mora when it improperly refused to allow the redemption of the undivided share it had purchased from Mrs. Garnier, such mora does not necessarily entitle appellant to recover damages, in the absence of proof as to the reality of such damage and of the extent thereof. Damages are not presumed, specially in this case where there has been no showing that the fruits of the undivided sixth purchased by appellee Uy would exceed the interest and profits that could have been earned by the P500,000 that appellee should have paid over to effectuate the legal redemption.
We find no merit in the other grounds adduced by appellant in its motion to reconsider. The right of appellee to redeem the undivided sixth in question and the timeliness of the tender of the redemption price have been amply discussed in our main decision, and no new arguments are adduced. The fact that the certificate of title covering the Sta. Cruz property did not show that appellee Angela M. Butte was one of the co-owners is irrelevant, since the appellant Uy & Sons, Inc. well knew that it was a stranger to the co-ownership, and that it was buying an undivided interest therein. Under these conditions, the purchaser is in law charged with notice that its acquisition is subject to redemption by any other co-owner within the statutory 30-day period, and the identity of the redemptioner is immaterial so far as the purchaser is concerned.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the dispositive part of our decision of February 28, 1962 is hereby modified to read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) Declaring the tender of P500,000 made by appellant Angela M. Butte duly and properly made;
(b) Declaring that by such tender made in due time, the appellant has preserved her right to redeem the one-sixth (1/6) portion of the land covered by Certificate of Title No. 59363 of the Office of the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila, sold on December 9, 1958 by Marie Garnier Vda. de Ramirez to appellee Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., and that said appellant Angela M. Butte is entitled to a reconveyance of said one-sixth portion upon payment of the amount of P500,000 to Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc.;
(c) Ordering appellee Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., to execute the deed of conveyance of the undivided portion above-referred to in favor of Angela M. Butte upon payment by the latter of the sum of P500,000 within sixty (60) days from the time our decision becomes final;
(d) Ordering the return of the records to the court of origin for execution conformably to this opinion.
Without finding as to costs." So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Paredes, JJ., concur
