Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > July 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20080 July 30, 1965 - DIEGO BACORDO v. JACINTO ALCANTARA, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20080. July 30, 1965.]

DIEGO BACORDO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACINTO ALCANTARA and PRESENTACION MACATANGAY, Defendants-Appellants.

Crisanto A. Gualberto for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Melanio S. Andal, for Defendants-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION OF PREVIOUS ACTS OF PARTIES COGNIZABLE TO REVEAL INTENTION. — Previous, simultaneous and subsequent acts of the parties are properly cognizable indicia of their true intention.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PREVIOUS MORTGAGE AGREEMENTS EXAMINED TO SHOW INTENTION; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, the previous mortgage agreements between the parties readily show that the parties in the third mortgage agreement did not intend to set back the date of redemption to until nine years later.

3. OBLIGATIONS; RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS; WHERE FULFILLMENT ELECTED RESCISSION CANNOT BE DECLARED. — Where plaintiff elects fulfillment of a reciprocal obligation, rescission thereof may not be declared at the same time.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Diego Bacordo, the plaintiff-appellee, obtained a loan of P1,600.00 on August 15, 1956 from the spouses Jacinto Alcantara and Presentacion Macatangay, Defendants-Appellants. For security a real estate mortgage was executed and notarized, covering a parcel of residential land in Rosario, Batangas, 290 square meters in area. Among other things the mortgage agreement provided:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Ang sanglaan O hiramang ito ay tatagal ng siyam (9) na taon, mula sa petsang ito O ngayon at pagkatapos ng taning na ito ay ako ay manunubos ng nasabing lupa sa naulit na mag-asawang Jacinto Alcantara at Presentacion Macatangay, sa halagang aking hiniram na Isang Libo at Anim na Daang Peso (P1,600.00) pesos, pilak filipino. Kung ako ay magbabayad O babayaran ang halagang aking hiniram sa aking pinagkakautangan sa taning na naulit, ay itong kasunduang ito ay mawawalan na bisa; at ang possession at pakinabang ng nasabing lupa ay muling mababalik sa akin subalit kong hindi ay tuloy ang bisa nito at maaari ako’y singilin sang-ayon sa ipinag-uutos ng Batas." (Exh. A)

About five years later, on March 3,1961, Diego Bacordo received from the Alcantara spouses an additional loan of P150.00. A second notarized deed of mortgage was again executed, covering the same parcel of land, to secure the increased amount of P1,750.00. It was thereunder agreed that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Ang hiramang ito ay tatagal ng siyam (9) na taon mula sa petsang ito, o babayaran ko sa nalolooban ng siyam (9) na taon, o hangang ika 3 ng Marzo, 1970, na kong sakali na pabayaran, at akin namang mabayaran ang naulit na halaga na aking hiniram na halagang P1,750.00 ay mawawalan na ng bisa ang kasulatang ito. Ngunit kong hindi ako makatupad ayon sa aming kasunduan o taning na panahon, ay tuloy ang bisa ng kasulatang ito at maaari akong singilin, at obligado akong magbayad ayon sa ipinag-uutos ng batas. Ang posession ng lupang ito ay malilipat sa aking pinagsanglaan, at ang ano mang pakinabang sa naulit na lupa ay siyang mag-sisilbing wasto at sapat na pakinabang, lumabis man o kumulang man sa porciento legal na 12% na ipinaguutos ng batas." (Exh. B)

After only two months, however, on May 26, 1961, for a further small sum of P100.00 received from the Alcantara spouses, Diego Bacordo executed the third notarial document of mortgage, over the same parcel of land, to secure the same amount but adding thereto said P100.00 thereby making an aggregate sum of P1,850.00. The stipulation on redemption was this time worded as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Ang hiramang ito ay tatagal ng siyam (9) na taon mula sa petsa nito, o babayaran ko sa ika 26 Mayo, 1970, o pagkatapos ng siyam (9) na taon simula ngayon, na kung sakali ng pabayaran, at akin namang mabayaran ang naulit na halaga na aking hiniram na halagang P1,850.00 ay mawawalan na ng bisa ang kasulatang ito, ngunit kung hindi ako makatupad ayon sa aming kasunduan o taning na panahon, ay tuloy ang bisa ng kasulatang ito at maaari akong singilin, at obligado akong magbayad ayon sa ipinaguutos ng batas. Ang possession ng lupang ito ay malilipat sa aking pinagsanglaan, at ang ano mang pakinabang sa naulit na lupa ay siyang magsisilbing wasto at sapat na pakinabang, lumabis man o kumulang man sa porciento legal na 12% na ipinag-uutos ng batas." (Exh. C)

On September 25, 1961 Diego Bacordo filed the present suit against the Alcantara spouses in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. Plaintiff alleged that he and defendant spouses agreed that the property subject of the mortgage can be redeemed any time within the nine-year period stated in the deed of mortgage; that notwithstanding such agreement defendant spouses have refused to receive his tender of payment in the amount of P1,850.00; that he has therefore deposited said amount with the Clerk of Court by way of consignation (See Official receipts, Exhs. E and F). For relief it was prayed that the contract of mortgage be rescinded and defendants be ordered to receive the amount of P1,850.00, deliver possession of the property subject matter of the action to plaintiff, and pay attorney’s fees plus costs.

Defendants, answering the complaint on November 14, 1961, averred that the third contract of mortgage is the only subsisting one; that per its terms the mortgagor can redeem the property mortgaged only on or after, not before, May 26, 1970; that, therefore, defendants properly refused plaintiff’s tender of payment since the obligation is not yet due and payable. A counterclaim for nominal, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, was interposed in the answer.

Plaintiff answered the counter claim on January 14,1962.

After trial the Court of First Instance of Batangas rendered judgment on May 30, 1962, its dispositive part reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring the rescission of the deed of mortgage Exhibit ‘C’, dated May 26, 1961, ordering the defendants (1) to receive the amount of P1,850.00 tendered by the plaintiff and deposited with the Clerk of this Court, (2) to deliver thereafter the possession of the property, subject matter of the mortgage, to the plaintiff, and (3) to pay the costs of this suit. The damages claimed by both parties, not having been supported by evidence, are hereby dismissed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellants contend that the court a quo erred in interpreting the third mortgage document in relation with the first and second mortgage agreements.

Since the failure of the third document to truly express the intent of the parties was raised by plaintiff’s complaint, the trial court rightly considered the previous mortgage contracts in discerning the real intent. It is settled that previous, simultaneous and subsequent acts of the parties are properly cognizable indicia of their true intention (Velasquez v. Teodoro, 46 Phil., 757).

Accordingly, in the light of the previous mortgage agreements entered into between the parties, it will readily be seen that the parties in the third mortgage agreement did not intend to set back the date of redemption to until after nine years thence.

We fully agree with the following observation of the court a quo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The first contract of mortgage was for the sum of P1,600.00 redeemable for a period of nine (9) years, to start on August 15, 1956. With an additional sum of P150.00 obtained by the mortgagor from the mortgagee more than four years thereafter, another contract of mortgage was executed on March 3, 1961, and the redemption of the same could be made by the mortgagor within nine (9) years, from March 3, 1961 which under all circumstances the term is easy or reasonable. The Court could not see any reason why by the additional of P100.00 to P1,750.00, barely two months from March 3, 1961, the terms for redemption as indicated in Exhibit ‘C’ would be made after and not within nine (9) years. This could not have been intended by the mortgagor and if he had signed the said Exhibit ‘C’ it could be as observed by this Court while in the witness stand due to his ignorance and dire need of money. Something suspicious must be considered why for only two months the mortgagor would bind himself to another contract (Exhibit C) with unfavorable terms against him. To the mortgagee nothing would be lost if the mortgagor would be allowed to redeem within nine (9) years because the sum owed would undoubtedly be returned. It could be that the purpose or intention of the parties as indicated above are inconsistent but the one which is compatible with equity shall prevail and in the instant case that of the mortgagor." (R. on A., pp. 47-48)

Parenthetically, we notice that the date of the first document is August 15, 1956. From said date up to the present almost 9 years have elapsed. It appears in the record that possession of the land has always been with the defendants who were authorized under all the contracts to enjoy the fruits of said land. It is very significant that the third contract provided: "Ang possession ng lupang ito ay malilipat sa aking pinagsanglaan, at ang ano mang pakinabang sa naulit na lupa ay siyang magsisilbing wasto at sapat na pakinabang, lumabis man o kumulang man sa porciento legal na 12% na ipinaguutos ng batas."cralaw virtua1aw library

As we said above, considering the three documents in determining the intention of the parties, under equitable considerations the appellants’ investment of P1,850.00 has been fully, if not more than fully, recompensed with the nine years enjoyment of the fruits of the land.

Consequently, as the court a quo stated, interpretation of the third document as allowing redemption within nine years, as is clearly allowed in the second document, is in accord with reason as well as equity.

Since defendants refused to accept plaintiff’s redemption of the mortgage, rescission was available to plaintiff, under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code, for breach of a reciprocal obligation. Nonetheless, plaintiff actually elected to enforce fulfillment of the obligation by the present suit, with the tender of payment and consignation. Rescission, therefore, did not have to be declared.

WHEREFORE, with the elimination of the portion which states: "declaring the rescission of the deed of mortgage Exhibit ‘C’, dated May 26, 1961", the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all other respects. Without costs. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., is on leave.




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-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16631 July 20, 1965 - DEV. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL S. OZARRAGA

  • G.R. No. L-18172 July 20, 1965 - ROSA BUNGAY VDA. DE QUILLOSA, ET AL v. TARCILA SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-20125 July 20, 1965 - NIN BAY MINING CO. v. MUN. OF ROXAS, PROV. OF PALAWAN

  • G.R. No. L-16723 July 30, 1965 - CITY OF CEBU v. TEODORICO LEDESMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16933 July 30, 1965 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. INC. v. VICENTE G. BUNUAN, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17566 July 30, 1965 - TEOTIMO BILLONES, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18001 July 30, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMPARO NABLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18150 July 30, 1965 - SUPERIOR BALDOZ v. SERAPIA PAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18770 July 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO PASILAN

  • G.R. Nos. L-19067-68 July 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19572 July 30, 1965 - DIONISIO B. GALLARDE v. CESAR S. MORAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19574 July 30, 1965 - DONATO M. ATEL v. EMILIO LUMONTAD, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19783 July 30, 1965 - TECLA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19918 July 30, 1965 - VY TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20080 July 30, 1965 - DIEGO BACORDO v. JACINTO ALCANTARA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20749 July 30, 1965 - ROBERTO S. OCA, ET AL. v. LAURO MAIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20751 July 30, 1965 - DOMINGO REBULLO v. NARCISO PALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20838 July 30, 1965 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS & STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20091 July 30, 1965 - PERPETUA ABUAN, ET AL v. EUSTAQUIO S. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20230 July 30, 1965 - SHELL CO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL v. COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20236 July 30, 1965 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOAQUIN BONDOC

  • G.R. No. L-20287 July 30, 1965 - CELESTINO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20567 July 30, 1965 - PNB v. MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20862 July 30, 1965 - FREE EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20876 July 30, 1965 - FRANCISCO JAMAGO, I.D. CHAN, ET AL v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21451 July 30, 1965 - DOMINADOR T. ALMEDA, ET AL v. CONCEPCION A. RUBIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21016 July 30, 1965 - BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION v. PIO MARCOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21472 July 30, 1965 - DOLORES C. VDA. DE GIL v. AGUSTIN CANCIO

  • G.R. No. L-24224 July 30, 1965 - MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA ESSO, ET AL v. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24438 July 30, 1965 - ROSAURO PARAGAS v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17315 July 31, 1965 - OLYMPIA BALTAZAR v. SERGIO SERFINO

  • G.R. No. L-18301 July 31, 1965 - ADRIANO ANTONIO v. BENJAMIN JALANDONI, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19399 July 31, 1965 - RUFINO COLOMA, ET AL v. ATANACIO COLOMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19865 July 31, 1965 - MARIA CARLA PIROVANO, ETC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19885 July 31, 1965 - PEDRO CRISOLOGO, ET AL v. ALFREDO L. DURAL

  • G.R. No. L-20796 July 31, 1965 - IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC. v. PELAGIO B. SIMON

  • G.R. No. L-20808 July 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO DE VENECIA

  • G.R. No. L-23628 July 31, 1965 - FELICISIMA B. SALOMON v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL