Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > August 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20612 August 31, 1965 - FELIX A. YUBOCO, ET AL v. JOSE L. MATIAS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20612. August 31, 1965.]

FELIX A. YUBOCO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOSE L. MATIAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Ramon C. Fernandez, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Antonio Enrile Inton for defendant-appellee Company.

Jose L. Matias in his own behalf.


SYLLABUS


1. ACTIONS; DEFENSES; CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH FURNISH A VALID DEFENSE. — Where plaintiffs failed to comply with condition No. 4 of the agreement about assuming responsibility for the estate and inheritance taxes by virtue of which the check for P20,000.00 given as earnest money was offered to be returned by defendants, and there was subsequent withdrawal of the funds for such check after the case had been filed, there is strong ground to suppose that in fact the non- fulfillment of the agreement which defendants asserted as defense had actually occurred or facts which very probably will defeat plaintiffs’ cause of action, because the withdrawal of the funds for the check is a virtual rescission of the contract by the plaintiffs themselves which could properly be regarded as a valid defense to the action.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


This is an appeal from the order of the Manila court of first instance dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint. The reason was failure to prosecute.

Such complaint was filed September 28, 1959. The defendant Caiman Plantation Co. answered November 9, 1959, alleging a counterclaim, to which plaintiffs replied November 12, 1959. The next pleading of record is the motion to dismiss submitted by Caiman Plantation on August 5, 1960. Three days afterwards, the plaintiffs presented their written "opposition" to the motion to dismiss. During that month, a reply and rejoinder were filed by plaintiffs and defendants respectively. Again, the motion to dismiss still pending, the plaintiffs filed on August 30, 1960, a petition for injunction to prevent the defendant Caiman Plantation from disposing of its properties. Despite opposition of defendants, the court granted the petition, and upon a bond of P10,000.00, it issued a preliminary writ on September 15, 1960. Then on January 26, 1961, setting forth several reasons, the court denied the motion to dismiss. Four days afterwards, the defendant Caiman Plantation presented a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, and to repeat its previous move to dismiss. There was opposition; and acting on the incident, the court decreed that the injunction may be dissolved if the defendants filed a counterbond in the amount of P10,000.00. This was June 1961.

Thereafter, i. e., in June 1962, the court motu proprio dismissed the case, upon finding that for one full year, plaintiffs did nothing to prosecute their claim.

Having failed to secure reinstatement of their case, plaintiffs appealed to this Court.

Observing that the period of plaintiffs’ inaction lasted for only one year, but bearing in mind the presumption in favor of the correctness of the judge’s ruling, 1 our first impulse was to approve the dismissal with the proviso that it shall be without prejudice. However, as the record exhibits some facts which very probably will defeat plaintiffs’ cause of action, we have elected to affirm the order of dismissal. Our reasons follow:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Plaintiffs seek to require defendants to comply with a preliminary contract the terms of which, in part, read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) Phil. Trust Co. Check No. EB 394206 A, is hereby tendered and paid as earnest money, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged;

"2. That the sum of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) will be paid upon execution of the formal documents signed by all the parties concerned;

x       x       x


"4. That the sum of One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P110,000.00) will be the amount assumed to pay the estate and inheritance taxes due and Bureau of Internal Revenue if feasible or any other party concerned thru the assurance and guarantee of Mr. Mariano Y. Santos."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendants answered that certain conditions in the agreement had failed to materialize, namely, the condition (4) about assuming responsibility for inheritance taxes described above. For that failure, defendants had offered on September 1, 1959, the return of the check for P20,000.00 (given as earnest money), which offer to return, the plaintiffs themselves admitted in their complaint.

Now then, it appears from the pleadings that up to July, 1962, the check for P20,000.00, had not been cashed by defendants. Indeed, they found in August, 1962, from the drawee bank that the drawer — plaintiffs — had no funds; so plaintiffs had to admit before the court that they had withdrawn the funds from the bank after the case had been filed, because there was no "sense in freezing the amount of P20,000.00 during the pendency of the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

Those circumstances furnish strong ground to suppose that in fact the hitch which defendants asserted as defense, (the non-fulfillment of condition No. 4) had actually occurred. Anyway, the subsequent withdrawal of the funds covering the check (earnest money) could properly be regarded as a valid defense to the action, or as a virtual rescission of the contract by the plaintiffs themselves.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Not to mention the existence of preliminary injunction which made prompt decision imperative.




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-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-24012 & L-24040 August 9, 1965 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19807 August 10, 1965 - AGUSTIN O. CASENAS v. DIONISIO CABIGUEN

  • G.R. No. L-20170 August 10, 1965 - BERT R. BAGANO v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17022 August 14, 1965 - SOLIS & YARISANTOS v. LIBERATO SALVADOR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18833 August 14, 1965 - HONESTO ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. PEDRO K. ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-19072 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. L-19598 August 14, 1965 - ILUMINADA SANTIAGO, ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19940 August 14, 1965 - FERNANDEZ KIDPALOS v. BAGUIO GOLD MINING CO.

  • G.R. No. L-20124 August 14, 1965 - NELITA MORENO VDA. DE BACALING v. GSIS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20735 August 14, 1965 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-20806-07 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO DAYDAY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20986 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20844 August 14, 1965 - ANGELITA F. RIVERA v. LORETO LUCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-21014 August 14, 1965 - PHIL. FARMING CORP. LTD. v. ALEJANDRO LLANOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21506 August 14, 1956

    FELICISIMA MANUBAY v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16903 August 31, 1965 - MANILA PENCIL CO., INC., ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17517 August 31, 1965 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL v. ENRIQUE BALMOJA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18087 August 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO A. CONSIGNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18156 August 31, 1965 - MAXIMO BAQUIRAN v. HON. WENCESLAO ORTEGA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18404 August 31, 1965 - CESAR LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION VDA. DE OPINION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18786 August 31, 1965 - ROMAN F. DIONISIO v. SOCORRO FRANCISCO VDA. DE DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. L-19207 August 31, 1965 - MARSMAN & CO., INC., ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO SYQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19382 August 31, 1965 - FILOMENA ABELLANA DE BACAYO v. GAUDENCIA FERRARIS DE BORROMEO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19445 August 31, 1965 - CIR v. BISHOP OF THE MISSIONARY DIST. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19766 August 31, 1965 - FERMIN DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19922 August 31, 1965 - ERNESTO CLOMA, ET AL v. AGUINALDO INDUSTRIES CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20290 August 31, 1965 - IN RE: PANTALEON SIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20469 August 31, 1965 - PEDRO C. PASTORAL v. MUTUAL SEC. INS. CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20482 August 31, 1965 - IN RE: SATURNINO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20491 August 31, 1965 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MFTG. CO., INC. v. NAT. ADMI. OF REG’L. OFF. No. 2, Dept. of Labor, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20612 August 31, 1965 - FELIX A. YUBOCO, ET AL v. JOSE L. MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20630 August 31, 1965 - C. N. HODGES, ET AL v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20685 August 31, 1965 - CATALINA VDA. DE VISMANOS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20901 August 31, 1965 - CIRIACA SANTOS v. TEODORICA DUATA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20998 August 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. DEMETRIA OQUERIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21186 August 31, 1965 - ZOSIMO ARROYO v. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22221 August 31, 1965 - PARKE, DAVIS & CO. v. DOCTORS’ PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22425 August 31, 1965 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. NICOLAS L. CUENCA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23476 August 31, 1965 - ARISTOTLE TUASON v. HON. CALIXTO O. ZALDIVAR