G.R. No. L-26872 July 25, 1975

VILLONCO REALTY COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee and EDITH PEREZ DE TAGLE, intervenor-appellee, vs.

BORMAHECO, INC., FRANCISCO N. CERVANTES and ROSARIO N. CERVANTES, defendants-appellants. Meer, Meer & Meer for plaintiff-appellee.

AQUINO, J.:

This action was instituted by Villonco Realty Company against Bormaheco, Inc. and the spouses Francisco N. Cervantes and Rosario N. Cervantes for the specific performance of a supposed contract for the sale of land and the improvements thereon for one million four hundred thousand pesos. Edith Perez de Tagle, as agent, intervened in order to recover her commission. The lower court enforced the sale. Bormaheco, Inc. and the Cervantes spouses, as supposed vendors, appealed.

This Court took cognizance of the appeal because the amount involved is more than P200,000 and the appeal was perfected before Republic Act No. 5440 took effect on September 9, 1968. The facts are as follows:

Francisco N. Cervantes and his wife, Rosario P. Navarra-Cervantes, are the owners of lots 3, 15 and 16 located at 245 Buendia Avenue, Makati, Rizal with a total area of three thousand five hundred square meters (TCT Nos. 43530, 43531 and 43532, Exh. A, A-1 and A-2). The lots were mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Phil (DBP) on April 21, 1959 as security for a loan of P441,000. The mortgage debt was fully paid on July 10, 1969.

Cervantes is the president of Bormaheco, Inc., a dealer and importer of industrial and agricultural machinery. The entire lots are occupied by the building, machinery and equipment of Bormaheco, Inc. and are adjacent to the property of Villonco Realty Company situated at 219 Buendia Avenue.

In the early part of February, 1964 there were negotiations for the sale of the said lots and the improvements thereon between Romeo Villonco of Villonco Realty Company "and Bormaheco, Inc., represented by its president, Francisco N. Cervantes, through the intervention of Edith Perez de Tagle, a real estate broker".

In the course of the negotiations, the brothers Romeo Villonco and Teofilo Villonco conferred with Cervantes in his office to discuss the price and terms of the sale. Later, Cervantes "went to see Villonco for the same reason until some agreement" was arrived at. On a subsequent occasion, Cervantes, accompanied by Edith Perez de Tagle, discussed again the terms of the sale with Villonco.

During the negotiations, Villonco Realty Company assumed that the lots belonged to Bormaheco, Inc. and that Cervantes was duly authorized to sell the same. Cervantes did not disclose to the broker and to Villonco Realty Company that the lots were conjugal properties of himself and his wife and that they were mortgaged to the DBP.

Bormaheco, Inc., through Cervantes, made a written offer dated February 12, 1964, to Romeo Villonco for the sale of the property. The offer reads (Exh. B):

BORMAHECO, INC.

February 12, 1964

Mr. Romeo Villonco Villonco Building Buendia AvenueMakati, Rizal.

Dear Mr. Villonco:

This is with reference to our telephone conversation this noon on the matter of the sale of our property located at Buendia Avenue, with a total area of 3,500 sq. m., under the following conditions:

(1) That we are offering to sell to you the above property at the price of P400.00 per square meter;

(2) That a deposit of P100,000.00 must be placed as earnest money on the purchase of the above property which will become part payment of the property in the event that the sale is consummated;

(3) That this sale is to be consummated only after I shall have also consummated my purchase of another property located at Sta. Ana, Manila;

(4) That if my negotiations with said property will not be consummated by reason beyond my control, I will return to you your deposit of P100,000 and the sale of my property to you will not also be consummated; and

(5) That final negotiations on both properties can be definitely known after 45 days.

If the above terms is (are) acceptable to your Board, please issue out the said earnest money in favor of Bormaheco, Inc., and deliver the same thru the bearer, Miss Edith Perez de Tagle.

Very truly yours,

SGD. FRANCISCO N. CERVANTESPresident

The property mentioned in Bormaheco's letter was the land of the National Shipyards & Steel Corporation (Nassco), with an area of twenty thousand square meters, located at Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila. At the bidding held on January 17, 1964 that land was awarded to Bormaheco, Inc., the highest

bidder, for the price of P552,000. The Nassco Board of Directors in its resolution of February 18, 1964 authorized the General Manager to sign the necessary contract (Exh. H).

On February 28, 1964, the Nassco Acting General Manager wrote a letter to the Economic Coordinator, requesting approval of that resolution. The Acting Economic Coordinator approved the resolution on March 24, 1964 (Exh. 1).

In the meanwhile, Bormaheco, Inc. and Villonco Realty Company continued their negotiations for the sale of the Buendia Avenue property. Cervantes and Teofilo Villonco had a final conference on February 27, 1964. As a result of that conference Villonco Realty Company, through Teofilo Villonco, in its letter of March 4, 1964 made a revised counter- offer (Romeo Villonco's first counter-offer was dated February 24, 1964, Exh. C) for the purchase of the property. The counter-offer was accepted by Cervantes as shown in Exhibit D, which is quoted below:

VILLONCO REALTY COMPANYV. R. C. Building219 Buendia Avenue, Makati,Rizal, Philippines

March 4, 1964

Mr. Francisco Cervantes.Bormaheco, Inc.245 Buendia AvenueMakati, Rizal

Dear Mr. Cervantes:

In reference to the letter of Miss E. Perez de Tagle dated February 12th and 26, 1964 in respect to the terms and conditions on the purchase of your property located at Buendia Ave., Makati, Rizal, with a total area of 3,500 sq. meters., we hereby revise our offer, as follows:

1. That the price of the property shall be P400.00 per sq. m., including the improvements thereon;

2. That a deposit of P100,000.00 shall be given to you as earnest money which will become as part payment in the event the sale is consummated;

3. This sale shall be cancelled, only if your deal with another property in Sta. Ana shall not be consummated and in such case, the P100,000-00 earnest money will be returned to us with a 10% interest p.a. However, if our deal with you is finalized, said P100,000.00 will become as part payment for the purchase of your property without interest:

4. The manner of payment shall be as follows:

a. P100,000.00 earnest money and650,000.00 as part of the down payment, or P750,000.00 as total down payment

b. The balance is payable as follows: P100,000.00 after 3 months125,000.00 -do- 212,500.00 -do-P650,000.00 Total

As regards to the other conditions which we have discussed during our last conference on February 27, 1964, the same shall be finalized upon preparation of the contract to sell.*

If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you, kindly sign your conformity hereunder. Enclosed is our check for ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS, MBTC Check No. 448314, as earnest money.

Very truly yours,

VILLONCO REALTY COMPANY(Sgd.) TEOFILO VILLONCO

CONFORME:

BORMAHECO, INC.(Sgd.) FRANCISCO CERVANTES

That this sale shall be subject to favorable consummation of a property in Sta. Ana we are negotiating.

(Sgd.) FRANCISCO CERVANTES

The check for P100,000 (Exh. E) mentioned in the foregoing letter-contract was delivered by Edith Perez de Tagle to Bormaheco, Inc. on March 4, 1964 and was received by Cervantes. In the voucher-receipt evidencing the delivery the broker indicated in her handwriting that the earnest money was "subject to the terms and conditions embodied in Bormaheco's letter" of February 12 and Villonco Realty Company's letter of March 4, 1964 (Exh. E-1; 14 tsn).

Then, unexpectedly, in a letter dated March 30, 1964, or twenty-six days after the signing of the contract of sale, Exhibit D, Cervantes returned the earnest money, with interest amounting to P694.24 (at ten percent per annum). Cervantes cited as an excuse the circumstance that "despite the lapse of 45 days from February 12, 1964 there is no certainty yet" for the acquisition of the Punta property (Exh. F; F-I and F-2). Villonco Realty Company refused to accept the letter and the checks of Bormaheco, Inc.

Cervantes sent them by registered mail. When he rescinded the contract, he was already aware that the Punta lot had been awarded to Bormaheco, Inc. (25-26 tsn).

Edith Perez de Tagle, the broker, in a letter to Cervantes dated March 31, 1964 articulated her shock and surprise at Bormaheco's turnabout. She reviewed the history of the deal and explained why Romeo Villonco could not agree to the rescission of the sale (Exh. G).**

Cervantes in his letter of April 6, 1964, a reply to Miss Tagle's letter, alleged that the forty-five day period had already expired and the sale to Bormaheco, Inc. of the Punta property had not been consummated. Cervantes said that his letter was a "manifestation that we are no longer interested to sell" the Buendia Avenue property to Villonco Realty Company (Annex I of Stipulation of Facts). The latter was furnished with a copy of that letter.

In a letter dated April 7, 1964 Villonco Realty Company returned the two checks to Bormaheco, Inc., stating that the condition for the cancellation of the contract had not arisen and at the same time announcing that an action for breach of contract would be filed against Bormaheco, Inc. (Annex G of Stipulation of Facts).1äwphï1.ñët

On that same date, April 7, 1964 Villonco Realty Company filed the complaint (dated April 6) for specific performance against Bormaheco, Inc. Also on that same date, April 7, at eight-forty-five in the morning, a notice of lis pendens was annotated on the titles of the said lots.

Bormaheco, Inc. in its answers dated May 5 and 25, 1964 pleaded the defense that the perfection of the contract of sale was subject to the conditions (a) "that final acceptance or not shall be made after 45 days" (sic) and (b) that Bormaheco, Inc. "acquires the Sta. Ana property".

On June 2, 1964 or during the pendency of this case, the Nassco Acting General Manager wrote to Bormaheco, Inc., advising it that the Board of Directors and the Economic Coordinator had approved the sale of the Punta lot to Bormaheco, Inc. and requesting the latter to send its duly authorized representative to the Nassco for the signing of the deed of sale (Exh. 1).

The deed of sale for the Punta land was executed on June 26, 1964. Bormaheco, Inc. was represented by Cervantes (Exh. J. See Bormaheco, Inc. vs. Abanes, L-28087, July 31, 1973, 52 SCRA 73).

In view of the disclosure in Bormaheco's amended answer that the three lots were registered in the names of the Cervantes spouses and not in the name of Bormaheco, Inc., Villonco Realty Company on July 21, 1964 filed an amended complaint impleading the said spouses as defendants. Bormaheco, Inc. and the Cervantes spouses filed separate answers.

As of January 15, 1965 Villonco Realty Company had paid to the Manufacturers' Bank & Trust Company the sum of P8,712.25 as interests on the overdraft line of P100,000 and the sum of P27.39 as interests daily on the same loan since January 16, 1965. (That overdraft line was later settled by Villonco Realty Company on a date not mentioned in its manifestation of February 19, 1975).

Villonco Realty Company had obligated itself to pay the sum of P20,000 as attorney's fees to its lawyers. It claimed that it was damaged in the sum of P10,000 a month from March 24, 1964 when the award of the Punta lot to Bormaheco, Inc. was approved. On the other hand, Bormaheco, Inc. claimed that it had

sustained damages of P200,000 annually due to the notice of lis pendens which had prevented it from constructing a multi-story building on the three lots. (Pars. 18 and 19, Stipulation of Facts).1äwphï1.ñët

Miss Tagle testified that for her services Bormaheco, Inc., through Cervantes, obligated itself to pay her a three percent commission on the price of P1,400,000 or the amount of forty-two thousand pesos (14 tsn).

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision ordering the Cervantes spouses to execute in favor of Bormaheco, Inc. a deed of conveyance for the three lots in question and directing Bormaheco, Inc. (a) to convey the same lots to Villonco Realty Company, (b) to pay the latter, as consequential damages, the sum of P10,000 monthly from March 24, 1964 up to the consummation of the sale, (c) to pay Edith Perez de Tagle the sum of P42,000 as broker's commission and (d) pay P20,000 as to attorney's fees (Civil Case No. 8109).

Bormaheco, Inc. and the Cervantes spouses appealed. Their principal contentions are (a) that no contract of sale was perfected because Cervantes made a supposedly qualified acceptance of the revised offer contained in Exhibit D, which acceptance amounted to a counter-offer, and because the condition that Bormaheco, inc. would acquire the Punta land within the forty-five-day period was not fulfilled; (2) that Bormaheco, Inc. cannot be compelled to sell the land which belongs to the Cervantes spouses and (3) that Francisco N. Cervantes did not bind the conjugal partnership and his wife when, as president of Bormaheco, Inc., he entered into negotiations with Villonco Realty Company regarding the said land.

We hold that the appeal, except as to the issue of damages, is devoid of merit.

"By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determining thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional" (Art. 1458, Civil Code).

"The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts" (Art. 1475, Ibid.).

"Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law" (Art. 1315, Civil Code).

"Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer" (Art. 1319, Civil Code). "An acceptance may be express or implied" (Art. 1320, Civil Code).

Bormaheco's acceptance of Villonco Realty Company's offer to purchase the Buendia Avenue property, as shown in Teofilo Villonco's letter dated March 4, 1964 (Exh. D), indubitably proves that there was a meeting of minds upon the subject matter and consideration of the sale. Therefore, on that date the sale was perfected. (Compare with McCullough vs. Aenlle & Co., 3 Phil. 285; Goyena vs. Tambunting, 1 Phil. 490). Not only that Bormaheco's acceptance of the part payment of one hundred ,thousand pesos

shows that the sale was conditionally consummated or partly executed subject to the purchase by Bormaheco, Inc. of the Punta property. The nonconsummation of that purchase would be a negative resolutory condition (Taylor vs. Uy Tieng Piao, 43 Phil. 873).

On February 18, 1964 Bormaheco's bid for the Punta property was already accepted by the Nassco which had authorized its General Manager to sign the corresponding deed of sale. What was necessary only was the approval of the sale by the Economic Coordinator and a request for that approval was already pending in the office of that functionary on March 4, 1964.

Bormaheco, Inc. and the Cervantes spouses contend that the sale was not perfected because Cervantes allegedly qualified his acceptance of Villonco's revised offer and, therefore, his acceptance amounted to a counter-offer which Villonco Realty Company should accept but no such acceptance was ever transmitted to Bormaheco, Inc. which, therefore, could withdraw its offer.

That contention is not well-taken. It should be stressed that there is no evidence as to what changes were made by Cervantes in Villonco's revised offer. And there is no evidence that Villonco Realty Company did not assent to the supposed changes and that such assent was never made known to Cervantes.

What the record reveals is that the broker, Miss Tagle, acted as intermediary between the parties. It is safe to assume that the alleged changes or qualifications made by Cervantes were approved by Villonco Realty Company and that such approval was duly communicated to Cervantes or Bormaheco, Inc. by the broker as shown by the fact that Villonco Realty Company paid, and Bormaheco, Inc. accepted, the sum of P100,000 as earnest money or down payment. That crucial fact implies that Cervantes was aware that Villonco Realty Company had accepted the modifications which he had made in Villonco's counter-offer. Had Villonco Realty Company not assented to those insertions and annotations, then it would have stopped payment on its check for P100,000. The fact that Villonco Realty Company allowed its check to be cashed by Bormaheco, Inc. signifies that the company was in conformity with the changes made by Cervantes and that Bormaheco, Inc. was aware of that conformity. Had those insertions not been binding, then Bormaheco, Inc. would not have paid interest at the rate of ten percent per annum, on the earnest money of P100,000.

The truth is that the alleged changes or qualifications in the revised counter — offer (Exh. D) are not material or are mere clarifications of what the parties had previously agreed upon.

Thus, Cervantes' alleged insertion in his handwriting of the figure and the words "12th and" in Villonco's counter-offer is the same as the statement found in the voucher-receipt for the earnest money, which reads: "subject to the terms and conditions embodied in Bormaheco's letter of Feb. 12, 1964 and your letter of March 4, 1964" (Exh. E-1).

Cervantes allegedly crossed out the word "Nassco" in paragraph 3 of Villonco's revised counter-offer and substituted for it the word "another" so that the original phrase, "Nassco's property in Sta. Ana", was made to read as "another property in Sta. Ana". That change is trivial. What Cervantes did was merely to adhere to the wording of paragraph 3 of Bormaheco's original offer (Exh. B) which mentions "another property located at Sta. Ana." His obvious purpose was to avoid jeopardizing his negotiation with the Nassco for the purchase of its Sta. Ana property by unduly publicizing it.

It is noteworthy that Cervantes, in his letter to the broker dated April 6, 1964 (Annex 1) or after the Nassco property had been awarded to Bormaheco, Inc., alluded to the "Nassco property". At that time, there was no more need of concealing from the public that Bormaheco, Inc. was interested in the Nassco property.

Similarly, Cervantes' alleged insertion of the letters "PA" ( per annum) after the word "interest" in that same paragraph 3 of the revised counter-offer (Exh. D) could not be categorized as a major alteration of that counter-offer that prevented a meeting of the minds of the parties. It was understood that the parties had contemplated a rate of ten percent per annum since ten percent a month or semi-annually would be usurious.

Appellants Bormaheco, Inc. and Cervantes further contend that Cervantes, in clarifying in the voucher for the earnest money of P100,000 that Bormaheco's acceptance thereof was subject to the terms and conditions embodied in Bormaheco's letter of February 12, 1964 and your (Villonco's) letter of March 4, 1964" made Bormaheco's acceptance "qualified and conditional".

That contention is not correct. There is no incompatibility between Bormaheco's offer of February 12, 1964 (Exh. B) and Villonco's counter-offer of March 4, 1964 (Exh. D). The revised counter-offer merely amplified Bormaheco's original offer.

The controlling fact is that there was agreement between the parties on the subject matter, the price and the mode of payment and that part of the price was paid. "Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract" (Art. 1482, Civil Code).

"It is true that an acceptance may contain a request for certain changes in the terms of the offer and yet be a binding acceptance. 'So long as it is clear that the meaning of the acceptance is positively and unequivocally to accept the offer, whether such request is granted or not, a contract is formed.' " (Stuart vs. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 165 Fed. 2nd 965, citing Sec. 79, Williston on Contracts).

Thus, it was held that the vendor's change in a phrase of the offer to purchase, which change does not essentially change the terms of the offer, does not amount to a rejection of the offer and the tender of a counter-offer (Stuart vs. Franklin Life Ins. Co., supra).

The instant case is not governed by the rulings laid down in Beaumont vs. Prieto, 41 Phil. 670, 985, 63 L. Ed. 770, and Zayco vs. Serra, 44 Phil. 326. In those two cases the acceptance radically altered the offer and, consequently, there was no meeting of the minds of the parties.

Thus, in the Zayco case, Salvador Serra offered to sell to Lorenzo Zayco his sugar central for P1,000,000 on condition that the price be paid in cash, or, if not paid in cash, the price would be payable within three years provided security is given for the payment of the balance within three years with interest. Zayco, instead of unconditionally accepting those terms, countered that he was going to make a down payment of P100,000, that Serra's mortgage obligation to the Philippine National Bank of P600,000 could be transferred to Zayco's account and that he (plaintiff) would give a bond to secure the payment of the balance of the price. It was held that the acceptance was conditional or was a counter-offer which had to be accepted by Serra. There was no such acceptance. Serra revoked his offer. Hence, there was no perfected contract.

In the Beaumont case, Benito Valdes offered to sell to W Borck the Nagtahan Hacienda owned by Benito Legarda, who had empowered Valdes to sell it. Borck was given three months from December 4, 1911 to buy the hacienda for P307,000. On January 17, 1912 Borck wrote to Valdes, offering to purchase the hacienda for P307,000 payable on May 1, 1912. No reply was made to that letter. Borck wrote other letters modifying his proposal. Legarda refused to convey the property.

It was held that Borck's January 17th letter plainly departed from the terms of the offer as to the time of payment and was a counter-offer which amounted to a rejection of Valdes' original offer. A subsequent unconditional acceptance could not revive that offer.

The instant case is different from Laudico and Harden vs. Arias Rodriguez, 43 Phil. 270 where the written offer to sell was revoked by the offer or before the offeree's acceptance came to the offeror's knowledge.

Appellants' next contention is that the contract was not perfected because the condition that Bormaheco, Inc. would acquire the Nassco land within forty-five days from February 12, 1964 or on or before March 28, 1964 was not fulfilled. This contention is tied up with the following letter of Bormaheco, Inc. (Exh. F):

BORMAHECO, INC.

March 30, 1964

Villonco Realty CompanyV.R.C. Building219 Buendia Ave.,Makati, Rizal

Gentlemen:

We are returning herewith your earnest money together with interest thereon at 10% per annum. Please be informed that despite the lapse of the 45 days from February 12, 1964 there is no certainty yet for us to acquire a substitute property, hence the return of the earnest money as agreed upon.

Very truly yours,

SGD. FRANCISCO N. CERVANTESPresident

Encl.: P.N.B. Check No. 112994 JP.N.B. Check No. 112996J

That contention is predicated on the erroneous assumption that Bormaheco, Inc. was to acquire the Nassco land within forty-five days or on or before March 28, 1964.

The trial court ruled that the forty-five-day period was merely an estimate or a forecast of how long it would take Bormaheco, Inc. to acquire the Nassco property and it was not "a condition or a deadline set for the defendant corporation to decide whether or not to go through with the sale of its Buendia property".

The record does not support the theory of Bormaheco, Inc. and the Cervantes spouses that the forty-five-day period was the time within which (a) the Nassco property and two Pasong Tamo lots should be acquired, (b) when Cervantes would secure his wife's consent to the sale of the three lots and (c) when Bormaheco, Inc. had to decide what to do with the DBP encumbrance.

Cervantes in paragraph 3 of his offer of February 12, 1964 stated that the sale of the Buendia lots would be consummated after he had consummated the purchase of the Nassco property. Then, in paragraph 5 of the same offer he stated "that final negotiations on both properties can be definitely known after forty-five days" (See Exh. B).

It is deducible from the tenor of those statements that the consummation of the sale of the Buendia lots to Villonco Realty Company was conditioned on Bormaheco's acquisition of the Nassco land. But it was not spelled out that such acquisition should be effected within forty-five days from February 12, 1964. Had it been Cervantes' intention that the forty-five days would be the period within which the Nassco land should be acquired by Bormaheco, then he would have specified that period in paragraph 3 of his offer so that paragraph would read in this wise: "That this sale is to be consummated only after I shall have consummated my purchase of another property located at Sta. Ana, Manila within forty-five days from the date hereof ." He could have also specified that period in his "conforme" to Villonco's counter-offer of March 4, 1964 (Exh. D) so that instead of merely stating "that this sale shall be subject to favorable consummation of a property in Sta. Ana we are negotiating" he could have said: "That this sale shall be subject to favorable consummation within forty-five days from February 12, 1964 of a property in Sta. Ana we are negotiating".

No such specification was made. The term of forty-five days was not a part of the condition that the Nassco property should be acquired. It is clear that the statement "that final negotiations on both property can be definitely known after 45 days" does not and cannot mean that Bormaheco, Inc. should acquire the Nassco property within forty-five days from February 12, 1964 as pretended by Cervantes. It is simply a surmise that after forty-five days (in fact when the forty-five day period should be computed is not clear) it would be known whether Bormaheco, Inc. would be able to acquire the Nassco property and whether it would be able to sell the Buendia property. That aforementioned paragraph 5 does not even specify how long after the forty-five days the outcome of the final negotiations would be known.

It is interesting to note that in paragraph 6 of Bormaheco's answer to the amended complaint, which answer was verified by Cervantes, it was alleged that Cervantes accepted Villonco's revised counter-offer of March 4, 1964 subject to the condition that "the final negotiations (acceptance) will have to be made by defendant within 45 days from said acceptance" (31 Record on Appeal). If that were so, then the consummation of Bormaheco's purchase of the Nassco property would be made within forty-five days from March 4, 1964.

What makes Bormaheco's stand more confusing and untenable is that in its three answers it invariably articulated the incoherent and vague affirmative defense that its acceptance of Villonco's revised counter-offer was conditioned on the circumstance "that final acceptance or not shall be made after 45

days" whatever that means. That affirmative defense is inconsistent with the other aforequoted incoherent statement in its third answer that "the final negotiations (acceptance) will have to be made by defendant within 45 days from said acceptance" (31 Record on Appeal).1äwphï1.ñët

Thus, Bormaheco's three answers and paragraph 5 of his offer of February 12, 1964 do not sustain at all its theory that the Nassco property should be acquired on or before March 28, 1964. Its rescission or revocation of its acceptance cannot be anchored on that theory which, as articulated in its pleadings, is quite equivocal and unclear.

It should be underscored that the condition that Bormaheco, Inc. should acquire the Nassco property was fulfilled. As admitted by the appellants, the Nassco property was conveyed to Bormaheco, Inc. on June 26, 1964. As early as January 17, 1964 the property was awarded to Bormaheco, Inc. as the highest bidder. On February 18, 1964 the Nassco Board authorized its General Manager to sell the property to Bormaheco, Inc. (Exh. H). The Economic Coordinator approved the award on March 24, 1964. It is reasonable to assume that had Cervantes been more assiduous in following up the transaction, the Nassco property could have been transferred to Bormaheco, Inc. on or before March 28, 1964, the supposed last day of the forty-five-day period.

The appellants, in their fifth assignment of error, argue that Bormaheco, Inc. cannot be required to sell the three lots in question because they are conjugal properties of the Cervantes spouses. They aver that Cervantes in dealing with the Villonco brothers acted as president of Bormaheco, Inc. and not in his individual capacity and, therefore, he did not bind the conjugal partnership nor Mrs. Cervantes who was allegedly opposed to the sale.

Those arguments are not sustainable. It should be remembered that Cervantes, in rescinding the contract of sale and in returning the earnest money, cited as an excuse the circumstance that there was no certainty in Bormaheco's acquisition of the Nassco property (Exh. F and Annex 1). He did not say that Mrs. Cervantes was opposed to the sale of the three lots. He did not tell Villonco Realty Company that he could not bind the conjugal partnership. In truth, he concealed the fact that the three lots were registered "in the name of FRANCISCO CERVANTES, Filipino, of legal age, married to Rosario P. Navarro, as owner thereof in fee simple". He certainly led the Villonco brothers to believe that as president of Bormaheco, Inc. he could dispose of the said lots. He inveigled the Villoncos into believing that he had untrammelled control of Bormaheco, Inc., that Bormaheco, Inc. owned the lots and that he was invested with adequate authority to sell the same.

Thus, in Bormaheco's offer of February 12, 1964, Cervantes first identified the three lots as " our property" which "we are offering to sell ..." (Opening paragraph and par. 1 of Exh. B). Whether the prounoun "we" refers to himself and his wife or to Bormaheco, Inc. is not clear. Then, in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the offer, he used the first person and said: "I shall have consummated my purchase" of the Nassco property; "... my negotiations with said property" and "I will return to you your deposit". Those expressions conveyed the impression and generated the belief that the Villoncos did not have to deal with Mrs. Cervantes nor with any other official of Bormaheco, Inc.

The pleadings disclose that Bormaheco, Inc. and Cervantes deliberately and studiously avoided making the allegation that Cervantes was not authorized by his wife to sell the three lots or that he acted merely as president of Bormaheco, Inc. That defense was not interposed so as not to place Cervantes in the

ridiculous position of having acted under false pretenses when he negotiated with the Villoncos for the sale of the three lots.

Villonco Realty Company, in paragraph 2 of its original complaint, alleged that "on February 12, 1964, after some prior negotiations, the defendant (Bormaheco, Inc.) made a formal offer to sell to the plaintiff the property of the said defendant situated at the abovenamed address along Buendia Avenue, Makati, Rizal, under the terms of the letter-offer, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex A hereof", now Exhibit B (2 Record on Appeal).

That paragraph 2 was not, repeat, was not denied by Bormaheco, Inc. in its answer dated May 5, 1964. It did not traverse that paragraph 2. Hence, it was deemed admitted. However, it filed an amended answer dated May 25, 1964 wherein it denied that it was the owner of the three lots. It revealed that the three lots "belong and are registered in the names of the spouses Francisco N. Cervantes and Rosario N. Cervantes."

The three answers of Bormaheco, Inc. contain the following affirmative defense:

13. That defendant's insistence to finally decide on the proposed sale of the land in question after 45 days had not only for its purpose the determination of its acquisition of the said Sta. Ana (Nassco) property during the said period, but also to negotiate with the actual and registered owner of the parcels of land covered by T.C.T. Nos. 43530, 43531 and 43532 in question which plaintiff was fully aware that the same were not in the name of the defendant (sic; Par. 18 of Answer to Amended Complaint, 10, 18 and 34, Record on Appeal).

In that affirmative defense, Bormaheco, Inc. pretended that it needed forty- five days within which to acquire the Nassco property and "to negotiate" with the registered owner of the three lots. The absurdity of that pretension stands out in bold relief when it is borne in mind that the answers of Bormaheco, Inc. were verified by Cervantes and that the registered owner of the three lots is Cervantes himself. That affirmative defense means that Cervantes as president of Bormaheco, Inc. needed forty-five days in order to "negotiate" with himself (Cervantes).

The incongruous stance of the Cervantes spouses is also patent in their answer to the amended complaint. In that answer they disclaimed knowledge or information of certain allegations which were well-known to Cervantes as president of Bormaheco, Inc. and which were admitted in Bormaheco's three answers that were verified by Cervantes.

It is significant to note that Bormaheco, Inc. in its three answers, which were verified by Cervantes, never pleaded as an affirmative defense that Mrs. Cervantes opposed the sale of the three lots or that she did not authorize her husband to sell those lots. Likewise, it should be noted that in their separate answer the Cervantes spouses never pleaded as a defense that Mrs. Cervantes was opposed to the sale of three lots or that Cervantes could not bind the conjugal partnership. The appellants were at first hesitant to make it appear that Cervantes had committed the skullduggery of trying to sell property which he had no authority to alienate.

It was only during the trial on May 17, 1965 that Cervantes declared on the witness stand that his wife was opposed to the sale of the three lots, a defense which, as already stated, was never interposed in

the three answers of Bormaheco, Inc. and in the separate answer of the Cervantes spouses. That same viewpoint was adopted in defendants' motion for reconsideration dated November 20, 1965.

But that defense must have been an afterthought or was evolved post litem motam since it was never disclosed in Cervantes' letter of rescission and in his letter to Miss Tagle (Exh. F and Annex 1). Moreover, Mrs. Cervantes did not testify at the trial to fortify that defense which had already been waived for not having been pleaded (See sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court).

Taking into account the situation of Cervantes vis-a-vis Bormaheco, Inc. and his wife and the fact that the three lots were entirely occupied by Bormaheco's building, machinery and equipment and were mortgaged to the DBP as security for its obligation, and considering that appellants' vague affirmative defenses do not include Mrs. Cervantes' alleged opposition to the sale, the plea that Cervantes had no authority to sell the lots strains the rivets of credibility (Cf. Papa and Delgado vs. Montenegro, 54 Phil. 331; Riobo vs. Hontiveros, 21 Phil. 31).

"Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith" (Art. 1159, Civil Code). Inasmuch as the sale was perfected and even partly executed, Bormaheco, Inc., and the Cervantes spouses, as a matter of justice and good faith, are bound to comply with their contractual commitments.

Parenthetically, it may be observed that much misunderstanding could have been avoided had the broker and the buyer taken the trouble of making some research in the Registry of Deeds and availing themselves of the services of a competent lawyer in drafting the contract to sell.

Bormaheco, Inc. and the Cervantes spouses in their sixth assignment of error assail the trial court's award to Villonco Realty Company of consequential damage amounting to ten thousand pesos monthly from March 24, 1964 (when the Economic Coordinator approved the award of the Nassco property to Bormaheco, Inc.) up to the consummation of the sale. The award was based on paragraph 18 of the stipulation of facts wherein Villonco Realty Company "submits that the delay in the consummation of the sale" has caused it to suffer the aforementioned damages.

The appellants contend that statement in the stipulation of facts simply means that Villonco Realty Company speculates that it has suffered damages but it does not mean that the parties have agreed that Villonco Realty Company is entitled to those damages.

Appellants' contention is correct. As rightly observed by their counsel, the damages in question were not specifically pleaded and proven and were "clearly conjectural and speculative".

However, appellants' view in their seventh assignment of error that the trial court erred in ordering Bormaheco, Inc. to pay Villonco Realty Company the sum of twenty thousand pesos as attorney's fees is not tenable. Under the facts of the case, it is evident that Bormaheco, Inc. acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the valid and just demand of Villonco Realty Company for specific performance. It compelled Villonco Realty Company to incure expenses to protect its interest. Moreover, this is a case where it is just and equitable that the plaintiff should recover attorney's fees (Art. 2208, Civil Code).

The appellants in their eighth assignment of error impugn the trial court's adjudication of forty-two thousand pesos as three percent broker's commission to Miss Tagle. They allege that there is no evidence that Bormaheco, Inc. engaged her services as a broker in the projected sale of the three lots and the improvements thereon. That allegation is refuted by paragraph 3 of the stipulation of facts and by the documentary evidence. It was stipulated that Miss Tagle intervened in the negotiations for the sale of the three lots. Cervantes in his original offer of February 12, 1964 apprised Villonco Realty Company that the earnest money should be delivered to Miss Tagle, the bearer of the letter-offer. See also Exhibit G and Annex I of the stipulation of facts.

We hold that the trial court did not err in adjudging that Bormaheco, Inc. should pay Miss Tagle her three percent commission.

WHEREFORE, the trial court's decision is modified as follows:

1. Within ten (10) days from the date the defendants-appellants receive notice from the clerk of the lower court that the records of this case have been received from this Court, the spouses Francisco N. Cervantes and Rosario P. Navarra-Cervantes should execute a deed conveying to Bormaheco, Inc. their three lots covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 43530, 43531 and 43532 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal.

2. Within five (5) days from the execution of such deed of conveyance, Bormaheco, Inc. should execute in favor of Villonco Realty Company, V. R. C. Building, 219 Buendia Avenue, Makati, Rizal a registerable deed of sale for the said three lots and all the improvements thereon, free from all lien and encumbrances, at the price of four hundred pesos per square meter, deducting from the total purchase price the sum of P100,000 previously paid by Villonco Realty Company to Bormaheco, Inc.

3. Upon the execution of such deed of sale, Villonco Realty Company is obligated to pay Bormaheco, Inc. the balance of the price in the sum of one million three hundred thousand pesos (P1,300,000).

4. Bormaheco, Inc. is ordered (a) to pay Villonco Realty Company twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) as attorney's fees and (b) to pay Edith Perez de Tagle the sum of forty-two thousand pesos (P42,000) as commission. Costs against the defendants-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-36083 September 5, 1975

Spouses RAMON DOROMAL, SR., and ROSARIO SALAS, and Spouses RAMON DOROMAL, JR., and GAUDELIA VEGA, petitioners,

vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FILOMENA JAVELLANA, respondents.

BARREDO, J.:

Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 47945-R entitled Filomena Javellana vs. Spouses Ramon Doromal, Sr., et al. which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo that had in turn dismissed herein private respondent Filomena Javellana's action for redemption of a certain property sold by her co-owners to herein petitioners for having been made out of time.

The factual background found by the Court of Appeals and which is binding on this Court, the same not being assailed by petitioners as being capricious, is as follows:

IT RESULTING: That the facts are quite simple; Lot 3504 of the cadastral survey of Iloilo, situated in the poblacion of La Paz, one of its districts, with an area of a little more than 2-½ hectares was originally decreed in the name of the late Justice Antonio Horilleno, in 1916, under Original Certificate of Title No. 1314, Exh. A; but before he died, on a date not particularized in the record, he executed a last will and testament attesting to the fact that it was a co-ownership between himself and his brothers and sisters, Exh. C; so that the truth was that the owners or better stated, the co-owners were; beside Justice Horilleno,

"Luis, Soledad, Fe, Rosita, Carlos and Esperanza,"

all surnamed Horilleno, and since Esperanza had already died, she was succeeded by her only daughter and heir herein plaintiff. Filomena Javellana, in the proportion of 1/7 undivided ownership each; now then, even though their right had not as yet been annotated in the title, the co-owners led by Carlos, and as to deceased Justice Antonio Horilleno, his daughter Mary, sometime since early 1967, had wanted to sell their shares, or if possible if Filomena Javellana were agreeable, to sell the entire property, and they hired an acquaintance Cresencia Harder, to look for buyers, and the latter came to interest defendants, the father and son, named Ramon Doromal, Sr. and Jr., and in preparation for the execution of the sale, since the brothers and sisters Horilleno were scattered in various parts of the country, Carlos in Ilocos Sur, Mary in Baguio,

Soledad and Fe, in Mandaluyong, Rizal, and Rosita in Basilan City, they all executed various powers of attorney in favor of their niece, Mary H. Jimenez Exh. 1-8, they also caused preparation of a power of attorney of identical tenor for signature by plaintiff, Filomena Javellana, Exh. M, and sent it with a letter of Carlos, Exh. 7 dated 18 January, 1968 unto her thru Mrs. Harder, and here, Carlos informed her that the price was P4.00 a square meter, — although it now turns out according to Exh. 3 that as early as 22 October, 1967, Carlos had received in check as earnest money from defendant Ramon Doromal, Jr., the sum of P5,000.00 and the price therein agreed upon was five (P5.00) pesos a square meter as indeed in another letter also of Carlos to Plaintiff in 5 November, 1967, Exh. 6, he had told her that the Doromals had given the earnest money of P5,000.00 at P5.00 a square meter, — at any rate, plaintiff not being agreeable, did not sign the power of attorney, and the rest of the co-owners went ahead with their sale of their 6/7, Carlos first seeing to it that the deed of sale by their common attorney in fact, Mary H. Jimenez be signed and ratified as it was signed and ratified in Candon, Ilocos Sur, on 15 January, 1968, Exh. 2, then brought to Iloilo by Carlos in the same month, and because the Register of Deeds of Iloilo refused to register right away, since the original registered owner, Justice Antonio Horilleno was already dead, Carlos had to ask as he did, hire Atty. Teotimo Arandela to file a petition within the cadastral case, on 26 February, 1968, for the purpose, Exh. C, after which Carlos returned to Luzon, and after compliance with the requisites of publication, hearing and notice, the petition was approved, and we now see that on 29 April, 1968, Carlos already back in Iloilo went to the Register of Deeds and caused the registration of the order of the cadastral court approving the issuance of a new title in the name of the co-owners, as well as of the deed of sale to the Doromals, as a result of which on that same date, a new title was issued TCT No. 23152, in the name of the Horillenos to 6/7 and plaintiff Filomena Javellana to 1/7, Exh. D, only to be cancelled on the same day under TCT No. 23153, Exh. 2, already in the names of the vendees Doromals for 6/7 and to herein plaintiff, Filomena Javellana, 1/7, and the next day 30 April, 1968, the Doromals paid unto Carlos by check, the sum of P97,000.00 Exh. 1, of Chartered Bank which was later substituted by check of Phil. National Bank, because there was no Chartered Bank Branch in Ilocos Sur, but besides this amount paid in check, the Doromals according to their evidence still paid an additional amount in cash of P18,250.00 since the agreed price was P5.00 a square meter; and thus was consummated the transaction, but it is here where complications set in,

On 10 June, 1968, there came to the residence of the Doromals in Dumangas, Iloilo, plaintiff's lawyer, Atty. Arturo H. Villanueva, bringing with him her letter of that date, reading,

"P.O. Box 189, Bacolod CityJune 10, 1968

Mr. & Mrs. Ramon Doromal, Sr.and Mr. and Mrs. Ramon Doromal, Jr.

"Dumangas Iloilo

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Doromal:

The bearer of this letter is my nephew, Atty. Arturo H. Villanueva, Jr., of this City. Through him, I am making a formal offer to repurchase or redeem from you the 6/7 undivided share in Lot No. 3504, of the Iloilo Cadastre, which you bought from my erstwhile co-owners, the Horillenos, for the sum of P30,000.00, Atty. Villanueva has with him the sum of P30,000.00 in cash, which he will deliver to you as soon as you execute the contract of sale in my favor.

Thank you very much for whatever favorable consideration you can give this request.

Very truly yours,

(SIGNED)Mrs. FILOMENA JAVELLANA"

p. 26, Exh. "J", Manual of Exhibits.

and then and there said lawyer manifested to the Doromals that he had the P30,000.00 with him in cash, and tendered it to them, for the exercise of the legal redemption, the Doromals were aghast, and refused. and the very next day as has been said. 11 June, 1968, plaintiff filed this case, and in the trial, thru oral and documentary proofs sought to show that as co-owner, she had the right to redeem at the price stated in the deed of sale, Exh. 2, namely P30,000.00 of the but defendants in answer, and in their evidence, oral and documentary sought to show that plaintiff had no more right to redeem and that if ever she should have, that it should be at the true and real price by them paid, namely, the total sum of P115,250.00, and trial judge, after hearing the evidence, believed defendants, that plaintiff had no more right, to redeem, because,

"Plaintiff was informed of the intended sale of the 6/7 share belonging to the Horillenos."

and that,

"The plaintiff have every reason to be grateful to Atty. Carlos Horilleno because in the petition for declaration of heirs of her late uncle Antonio Horilleno in whose name only the Original Certificate of Title covering the Lot in question was issued, her uncle Atty. Carlos Horilleno included her as one of the heirs of said Antonio Horilleno. Instead, she filed this case to redeem the 6/7 share sold to the Doromals for the simple reason that the consideration in the deed of sale is the sum of P30,000.00 only instead of P115,250.00 approximately which was actually paid by the defendants to her co-owners, thus she wants to enrich herself at the expense of her own blood relatives who are her aunts, uncles and cousins. The consideration of P30,000.00 only was placed in the deed of sale to minimize the payment of the registration fees, stamps, and sales tax. pp. 77-78, R.A.,

and dismiss and further condemned plaintiff to pay attorney's fees, and moral and exemplary damages as set forth in few pages back, it is because of this that plaintiff has come here and contends, that Lower Court erred:

"I. ... in denying plaintiff-appellant, as a co-owner of Lot No. 3504, of the Iloilo Cadastre, the right of legal redemption under Art. 1620, of the Civil Code:

"II. ... as a consequence of the above error, in refusing to order the defendants-appellees, the vendees of a portion of the aforesaid Lot No. 3504 which they bought from the co-owners of the plaintiff-appellant, to reconvey the portion they purchased to the herein plaintiff-appellant..

"III. ... in admitting extrinsic evidence in the determination of the consideration of the sale, instead of simply adhering to the purchase price of P30,000.00, set forth in the pertinent Deed of Sale executed by the vendors and owners of the plaintiff-appellant in favor of the defendants-appellees.

"IV. ... in dismissing the complaint filed in this case." pp. 1-3, Appellant's Brief,.

which can be reduced to the simple question of whether or not on tile basis of the evidence and the law, the judgment appealed from should be maintained; (Pp. 16-22, Record.) .

Upon these facts, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and held that although respondent Javellana was informed of her co-owners' proposal to sell the land in question to petitioners she was, however, "never notified ... least of all, in writing", of the actual execution and registration of the corresponding deed of sale, hence, said respondent's right to redeem had not yet expired at the time she made her offer for that purpose thru her letter of June 10, 1968 delivered to petitioners on even date. The intermediate court further held that the redemption price to be paid by respondent should be that stated in the deed of sale which is P30,000 notwithstanding that the preponderance of the evidence proves that the actual price paid by petitioners was P115,250. Thus, in their brief, petitioners assign the following alleged errors:

I

IT IS ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO HOLD THAT THE NOTICE IN WRITING OF THE SALE CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 1623 OF THE CIVIL CODE REFERS TO A NOTICE IN WRITING AFTER THE EXECUTION AND REGISTRATION OF THE INSTRUMENT OF SALE, HENCE, OF THE DOCUMENT OF SALE.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE INSCRIPTION OF THE SALE IN THE REGISTRY OF PROPERTY TAKES EFFECT AS AGAINST THIRD PERSONS INCLUDING CLAIMS OF POSSIBLE REDEMPTIONERS.

ASSUMING, ARGUENDO THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO REDEEM, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REDEMPTION PRICE SHOULD BE THAT STATED IN THE DEED OF SALE. (Pp. 1-2, Brief for Petitioner, page 74-Rec.)

We cannot agree with petitioners.

Petitioners do not question respondent's right to redeem, she being admittedly a 1/7 co-owner of the property in dispute. The thrust of their first assignment of error is that for purposes of Article 1623 of the Civil Code which provides that:

ART. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.

The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners.

the letters sent by Carlos Horilleno to respondent and dated January 18, 1968, Exhibit 7, and November 5, 1967, Exhibit 6, constituted the required notice in writing from which the 30-day period fixed in said provision should be computed. But to start with, there is no showing that said letters were in fact received by respondent and when they were actually received. Besides, petitioners do not pinpoint which of these two letters, their dates being more than two months apart, is the required notice. In any event, as found by the appellate court, neither of said letters referred to a consummated sale. As may be observed, it was Carlos Horilleno alone who signed them, and as of January 18, 1968, powers of attorney from the various co-owners were still to be secured. Indeed, the later letter of January 18, 1968 mentioned that the price was P4.00 per square meter whereas in the earlier letter of November 5, 1967 it was P5.00, as in fact, on that basis, as early as October 27, 1967, Carlos had already received P5,000 from petitioners supposedly as earnest money, of which, however, mention was made by him to his niece only in the later letter of January 18, 1968, the explanation being that "at later negotiation it was increased to P5.00 per square meter." (p. 4 of petitioners' brief as appellees in the Court of Appeals quoting from the decision of the trial court.) In other words, while the letters relied upon by petitioners could convey the idea that more or less some kind of consensus had been arrived at among the other co-owners to sell the property in dispute to petitioners, it cannot be said definitely that such a sale had even been actually perfected. The fact alone that in the later letter of January 18, 1968 the price indicated was P4.00 per square meter while in that of November 5, 1967, what was stated was P5.00 per square meter negatives the possibility that a "price definite" had already been agreed upon. While P5,000 might have indeed been paid to Carlos in October, 1967, there is nothing to show that the same was in the concept of the earnest money contemplated in Article 1482 of the Civil Code, invoked by petitioner, as signifying perfection of the sale. Viewed in the backdrop of the factual milieu thereof extant in the record, We are more inclined to believe that the said P5,000 were paid in the concept of earnest money as the term was understood under the Old Civil Code, that is, as a guarantee that the buyer would not back out, considering that it is not clear that there was already a definite agreement as to the price then and that petitioners were decided to buy 6/7 only of the property should respondent Javellana refuse to agree to part with her 1/7 share.

In the light of these considerations, it cannot be said that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the letters aforementioned sufficed to comply with the requirement of notice of a sale by co-owners under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. We are of the considered opinion and so hold that for purposes of the co-owner's right of redemption granted by Article 1620 of the Civil Code, the notice in writing which Article 1623 requires to be made to the other co-owners and from receipt of which the 30-day period to redeem should be counted is a notice not only of a perfected sale but of the actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale. This is implied from the latter portion of Article 1623 which requires that before a register of deeds can record a sale by a co-owner, there must be presented to him, an affidavit to the effect that the notice of the sale had been sent in writing to the other co-owners. A sale may not be presented to the register of deeds for registration unless it be in the form of a duly executed public instrument. Moreover, the law prefers that all the terms and conditions of the sale should be definite and in writing. As aptly observed by Justice Gatmaitan in the decision under review, Article 1619 of the Civil Code bestows unto a co-owner the right to redeem and "to be subrogated under the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract", and to avoid any controversy as to the terms and conditions under which the right to redeem may be exercised, it is best that the period therefor should not be deemed to have commenced unless the notice of the disposition is made after the formal deed of disposal has been duly executed. And it being beyond dispute that respondent herein has never been notified in writing of the execution of the deed of sale by which petitioners acquired the subject property, it necessarily follows that her tender to redeem the same made on June 10, 1968 was well within the period prescribed by law. Indeed, it is immaterial when she might have actually come to know about said deed, it appearing she has never been shown a copy thereof through a written communication by either any of the petitioners-purchasers or any of her co-owners-vendees. (Cornejo et al. vs. CA et al., 16 SCRA 775.)

The only other pivotal issue raised by petitioners relates to the price which respondent offered for the redemption in question. In this connection, from the decision of the Court of Appeals, We gather that there is "decisive preponderance of evidence" establishing "that the price paid by defendants was not that stated in the document, Exhibit 2, of P30,000 but much more, at least P97,000, according to the check, Exhibit 1, if not a total of P115,250.00 because another amount in cash of P18,250 was paid afterwards."

It is, therefore, the contention of petitioners here that considering said finding of fact of the intermediate court, it erred in holding nevertheless that "the redemption price should be that stated in the deed of sale."

Again, petitioners' contention cannot be sustained. As stated in the decision under review, the trial court found that "the consideration of P30,000 only was placed in the deed of sale to minimize the payment of the registration fees, stamps and sales tax." With this undisputed fact in mind, it is impossible for the Supreme Court to sanction petitioners' pragmatic but immoral posture. Being patently violative of public policy and injurious to public interest, the seemingly wide practice of understating considerations of transactions for the purpose of evading taxes and fees due to the government must be condemned and all parties guilty thereof must be made to suffer the consequences of their ill-advised agreement to defraud the state. Verily, the trial court fell short of its devotion and loyalty to the Republic in officially giving its stamp of approval to the stand of petitioners and even berating respondent Javellana as wanting to enrich herself "at the expense of her own blood relatives who are her aunts, uncles and cousins." On the contrary, said "blood relatives" should have been sternly told, as We here hold, that they are in pari-delicto with petitioners in committing tax evasion and should

not receive any consideration from any court in respect to the money paid for the sale in dispute. Their situation is similar to that of parties to an illegal contract. 1

Of course, the Court of Appeals was also eminently correct in its considerations supporting the conclusion that the redemption in controversy should be only for the price stipulated in the deed, regardless of what might have been actually paid by petitioners that style inimitable and all his own, Justice Gatmaitan states those considerations thus:

CONSIDERING: As to this that the evidence has established with decisive preponderance that the price paid by defendants was not that stated in the document, Exh. 2 of P30,000.00 but much more, at least P97,000.00 according to the check, Exh. 1 if not a total of P115,250.00 because another amount in cash of P18,250.00 was paid afterwards, perhaps it would be neither correct nor just that plaintiff should be permitted to redeem at only P30,000.00, that at first glance would practically enrich her by the difference, on the other hand, after some reflection, this Court can not but have to bear in mind certain definite points.

1st — According to Art. 1619

"Legal redemption is the right to be subrogated, upon the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract, in the place of one who acquires a thing by purchase or dation in payment, or by any other transaction whereby ownership is transmitted by onerous title." pp. 471-472, New Civil Code,

and note that redemptioner right is to be subrogated

"upon the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract."

and here, the stipulation in the public evidence of the contract, made public by both vendors and vendees is that the price was P30,000.00;

2nd — According to Art. 1620,

"A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the share of all the other co-owners or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one. p. 472, New Civil Code, .

from which it is seen that if the price paid is 'grossly excessive' redemptioner is required to pay only a reasonable one; not that actually paid by the vendee, going to show that the law seeks to protect redemptioner and converts his position into one not that of a contractually but of a legally subrogated creditor as to the right of redemption, if the price is not 'grossly excessive', what the law had intended redemptioner to pay can be read in Art. 1623.

The right of a legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty (30) days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor as the case may be. The deed of

sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof of all possible redemptioners.' p. 473, New Civil Code,

if that be so that affidavit must have been intended by the lawmakers for a definite purpose, to argue that this affidavit has no purpose is to go against all canons of statutory construction, no law mandatory in character and worse, prohibitive should be understood to have no purpose at all, that would be an absurdity, that purpose could not but have been to give a clear and unmistakable guide to redemptioner, on how much he should pay and when he should redeem; from this must follow that that notice must have been intended to state the truth and if vendor and vendee should have instead, decided to state an untruth therein, it is they who should bear the consequences of having thereby misled the redemptioner who had the right to rely and act thereon and on nothing else; stated otherwise, all the elements of equitable estoppel are here since the requirement of the law is to submit the affidavit of notice to all possible redemptioners, that affidavit to be a condition precedent to registration of the sale therefore, the law must have intended that it be by the parties understood that they were there asking a solemn representation to all possible redemptioners, who upon faith of that are thus induced to act, and here worse for the parties to the sale, they sought to avoid compliance with the law and certainly refusal to comply cannot be rewarded with exception and acceptance of the plea that they cannot be now estopped by their own representation, and this Court notes that in the trial and to this appeal, plaintiff earnestly insisted and insists on their estoppel;

3rd — If therefore, here vendors had only attempted to comply with the law, they would have been obligated to send a copy of the deed of sale unto Filomena Javellana and from that copy, Filomena would have been notified that she should if she had wanted to redeem, offered no more, no less, that P30,000.00, within 30 days, it would have been impossible for vendors and vendees to have inserted in the affidavit that the price was truly P97,000.00 plus P18,250.00 or a total of P115,250.00; in other words, if defendants had only complied with the law, they would have been obligated to accept the redemption money of only P30,000.00;

4th — If it be argued that foregoing solution would mean unjust enrichment for plaintiff, it need only be remembered that plaintiff's right is not contractual, but a mere legal one, the exercise of a right granted by the law, and the law is definite that she can subrogate herself in place of the buyer,

"upon the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract,"

in the words of Art. 1619, and here the price

"stipulated in the contract"

was P30,000.00, in other words, if this be possible enrichment on the part of Filomena, it was not unjust but just enrichment because permitted by the law; if it still be argued that plaintiff would thus be enabled to abuse her right, the answer simply is that what

she is seeking to enforce is not an abuse but a mere exercise of a right; if it be stated that just the same, the effect of sustaining plaintiff would be to promote not justice but injustice, the answer again simply is that this solution is not unjust because it only binds the parties to make good their solemn representation to possible redemptioners on the price of the sale, to what they had solemnly averred in a public document required by the law to be the only basis for that exercise of redemption; (Pp. 24-27, Record.)

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, with costs against petitioners..

G.R. No. 126812 November 24, 1998

GOLDENROD, INC., petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, PIO BARRETO & SONS, INC., PIO BARRETO REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. and ANTHONY QUE, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

In the absence of a specific stipulation, may the seller of real estate keep the earnest money to answer for damages in the event the sale fails due to the fault of the prospective buyer?

Pio Barreto and Sons, Inc. (BARRETO & SONS) owned forty-three (43) parcels of registered land with a total area of 18,500 square meters located at Carlos Palanca St., Quiapo, Manila, which were mortgaged with United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). In 1988, the obligation of the corporation with UCPB remained unpaid making foreclosure of the mortgage imminent.

Goldenrod, Inc. (GOLDENROD), offered to buy the property from BARRETO & SONS. On 25 May 1988, through its president Sonya G. Mathay, petitioner wrote respondent Anthony Que, President of respondent BARRETO & SONS, as follows:

Thank you for your reply to our letter offering to buy your property in Echague (C. Palanca) Quiapo.

We are happy that you accepted our offer except the two amendments concerning the payment of interest which should be monthly instead of semi-annually and the period to remove the trusses, steel frames etc. which shall be 180 days instead of 90 days only. Please be advised that we agree to your amendments.

As to your other query, we prefer that the lots be reconsolidated back to its (sic) mother titles.

Enclosed is the earnest money of P1 million which shall form part of the purchase price.

Payment of the agreed total consideration shall be effected in accordance with our offer as you have accepted and upon execution of the necessary documents of sale to be implemented after the said reconsolidation of the lots.

Kindly acknowlege receipt of the earnest money.

When the term of existence of BARRETO & SONS expired, all its assets and liabilities including the property located in Quiapo were transferred to respondent Pio Barreto Realty Development, Inc. (BARRETO REALTY). Petitioner's offer to buy the property resulted in its agreement with respondent BARRETO REALTY that petitioner would pay the following amounts: (a) P24.5 million representing the outstanding obligations of BARRETO REALTY with UCPB on 30 June 1988, the deadline set by the bank for payment; and, (b) P20 million which was the balance of the purchase price of the property to be paid in installments within a 3-year period with interes at 18% per annum.

Petitioner did not pay UCPB the P24.5 million loan obligation of BARRETO REALTY on the deadline set for payment; instead, it asked for an extension of one (1) month or up to 31 July 1988 to settle the obligation, which the bank granted. On 31 July 1988, petitioner requested another extension of sixty (60) days to pay the loan. This time bank demurred.

In the meantime BARRETO REALTY was able to cause the reconsolidation of the forty-three (43) titles covering the property subject of the purchase into two (2) titles covering Lots 1 and 2, which were issued on 4 August 1988. The reconsolidation of the titles was made pursuant to the request of petitioner in its letter to private respondents on 25 May 1988. Respondent BARRETO REALTY allegedly incurred expenses for the reconsolidation amounting to P250,000.00.

On 25 August 1988 petitioner sought reconsideration of the denial by the bank of its request for extension of sixty (60) days by asking for a shorter period of thirty (30) days. This was again denied by UCPB.

On 30 August 1988 Alicia P. Logarta, President of Logarta Realty and Development Corporation (LOGARTA REALTY), which acted as agent and broker of petitioner, wrote private respondent Anthony Que informing him on behalf of petitioner that it could not go through with the purchase of the property due to circumstances beyond its fault, i.e., the denial by UCPB of its request for extension of time to pay the obligation. In the same letter, Logarta also demanded the refund of the earnest money of P1 million which petitioner gave to respondent BARRETO REALTY.

On 31 August 1988 respondent BARRETTO REALTY sold to Asiaworld Trade Center Phils., Inc. (ASIAWORLD), Lot 2, one of the two (2) consolidated lots, for the price of P23 million. On 13 October 1988 respondent BARRETTO REALTY executed a deed transferring by way of "dacion" the property reconsolidated as Lot 1 in favor of UCPB, which in turn sold the property to ASIAWORLD for P24 million.

On 12 December 1988 Logarta again wrote respondent Que demanding the return of the earnest money to GOLDENROD. On 7 February 1989 petitioner through its lawyer reiterated its demand, but the same remained unheeded by private respondents. This prompted petitioner to file a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Manila against private respondents for the return of the amount of P1 million and the payment of damages including lost interests or profits. In their answer, private respondents contended that it was the agreement of the parties that the earnest money of P1 million would be forfeited to answer for losses and damages that might be suffered by private respondents in case of failure by petitioner to comply with the terms of their purchase agreement.

On 15 March 1991 the trial court rendered a decision 1 ordering private respondents jointly and severally to pay petitioner P1,000.000.00 with legal interest from 9 February 1989 until fully paid, P50,000.00 representing unrealized profits and P10,000.00 as attorney's fees. The trial court found that there was no written agreement between the parties concerning forfeiture of the earnest money if the sale did not push through. It further declared that the earnest money given by petitioner to respondent BARRETO REALTY was intended to form part of the purchase price; thus, the refusal of the latter to return the money when the sale was not consummated violated Arts. 22 and 23 of the Civil Code against unjust enrichment.

Obviously dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court and ordered the dismissal of the complaint; hence, this petition.

Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the finding of the trial court that the earnest money given by petitioner to respondent BARRETTO REALTY should be returned to the former. The absence of an express stipulation that the same shall be forfeited in favor of the seller in case the buyer fails to comply with his obligation is compelling. It argues that the forfeiture of the money in favor of respondent BARRETTO REALTY would amount to unjust enrichment at the expense of petitioner.

We sustain petitioner. Under Art. 1482 of the Civil Code, whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the purchase price and as proof of the perfection of the contract. Petitioner clearly stated without any objection from private respondents that the earnest money was intended to form part of the purchase price. It was an advance payment which must be deducted from the total price. Hence, the parties could not have intended that the earnest money or advance payment would be forfeited when the buyer should fail to pay the balance of the price, especially in the absence of a clear and express agreement thereon. By reason oi its failure to make payment petitioner, through its agent, informed private respondents that it would no longer push through with the sale. In other words, petitioner resorted to extrajudicial rescission of its agreement with private respondents.

In University of the Philippines v. de los Angeles, 2 the right to rescind contracts is not absolute and is subject to scrutiny and review by the proper court. We held further, in the more recent case of Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 3 that rescission of reciprocal contracts may be extrajudicially rescinded unless successfully impugned in court. If the party does not oppose the declaration of rescission of the other party, specifying the grounds therefor, and it fails to reply or protest against it, its silence thereon suggests an admission of the veracity and validity of the rescinding party's claim.

Private respondents did not interpose any objection to the rescission by petitioner of the agreement. As found by the Court of Appeals, private respondent BARRETTO REALTY even sold Lot 2 of the subject consolidated lots to another buyer, ASIAWORLD, one day after its President Anthony Que received the

broker's letter rescinding tne sale. Subsequently, on 13 October 1988 respondent BARRETO REALTY also conveyed ownership over Lot 1 to UCPB which, in turn, sold the same to ASIAWORLD.

Art. 1385 of the Civil Code provides that rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract together with their fruits and interest. The vendor is therefore obliged to return the purchase price paid to him by the buyer if the latter rescinds the sale, 4 or when the transaction was called off and the subject property had already been sold to a third person, as what obtained in this case. 5 Therefore, by virtue of the extrajudicial rescission of the contract to sell by petitioner without opposition from private respondents who, in turn, sold the property to other persons, private respondent BARRETTO REALTY, as the vendor, had the obligation to return the earnest money of P1000,000.00 plus legal interest from the date it received notice of rescission from petitioner, i.e., 30 August 1988, up to the date of the return or payment. It would be most inequitable if resondent BARRETTO REALTY would be allowed to retain petitioner's payment of P1,000,000.00 and at the same time appropriate the proceeds of the second sale made to another. 6

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondent Pio Barretto Realty Development, Inc. (BARRETTO REALTY), its successors and assigns are ordered to return to petitioner Goldenrod, Inc. (GOLDENROD), the amount of P1,000,000.00 with legal interest thereon from 30 August 1988, the date of notice of extrajudicial rescission, until the amount is fully paid, with costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 78903 February 28, 1990

SPS. SEGUNDO DALION AND EPIFANIA SABESAJE-DALION, petitioners, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND RUPERTO SABESAJE, JR., respondents.

MEDIALDEA, J.:

This is a petition to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals rendered on May 26, 1987, upholding the validity of the sale of a parcel of land by petitioner Segundo Dalion (hereafter, "Dalion") in favor of private respondent Ruperto Sabesaje, Jr. (hereafter, "Sabesaje"), described thus:

A parcel of land located at Panyawan, Sogod, Southern Leyte, declared in the name of Segundo Dalion, under Tax Declaration No. 11148, with an area of 8947 hectares, assessed at P 180.00, and bounded on the North, by Sergio Destriza and Titon Veloso, East, by Feliciano Destriza, by Barbara Bonesa (sic); and West, by Catalino Espina. (pp. 36-37, Rollo)

The decision affirms in toto the ruling of the trial court 1 issued on January 17, 1984, the dispositive portion of which provides as follows:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby renders judgment.

(a) Ordering the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff the parcel of land subject of this case, declared in the name of Segundo Dalion previously under Tax Declaration No. 11148 and lately under Tax Declaration No. 2297 (1974) and to execute the corresponding formal deed of conveyance in a public document in favor of the plaintiff of the said property subject of this case, otherwise, should defendants for any reason fail to do so, the deed shall be executed in their behalf by the Provincial Sheriff or his Deputy;

(b) Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff the amount of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and P 500.00 as litigation expenses, and to pay the costs; and

(c) Dismissing the counter-claim. (p. 38, Rollo)

The facts of the case are as follows:

On May 28, 1973, Sabesaje sued to recover ownership of a parcel of land, based on a private document of absolute sale, dated July 1, 1965 (Exhibit "A"), allegedly executed by Dalion, who, however denied the fact of sale, contending that the document sued upon is fictitious, his signature thereon, a forgery, and that subject land is conjugal property, which he and his wife acquired in 1960 from Saturnina Sabesaje as evidenced by the "Escritura de Venta Absoluta" (Exhibit "B"). The spouses denied claims of Sabesaje that after executing a deed of sale over the parcel of land, they had pleaded with Sabesaje, their relative, to be allowed to administer the land because Dalion did not have any means of livelihood. They admitted, however, administering since 1958, five (5) parcels of land in Sogod, Southern Leyte, which belonged to Leonardo Sabesaje, grandfather of Sabesaje, who died in 1956. They never received their agreed 10% and 15% commission on the sales of copra and abaca, respectively. Sabesaje's suit, they countered, was intended merely to harass, preempt and forestall Dalion's threat to sue for these unpaid commissions.

From the adverse decision of the trial court, Dalion appealed, assigning errors some of which, however, were disregarded by the appellate court, not having been raised in the court below. While the Court of Appeals duly recognizes Our authority to review matters even if not assigned as errors in the appeal, We are not inclined to do so since a review of the case at bar reveals that the lower court has judicially decided the case on its merits.

As to the controversy regarding the identity of the land, We have no reason to dispute the Court of Appeals' findings as follows:

To be sure, the parcel of land described in Exhibit "A" is the same property deeded out in Exhibit "B". The boundaries delineating it from adjacent lots are identical. Both documents detail out the following boundaries, to wit:

On the North-property of Sergio Destriza and Titon Veloso;

On the East-property of Feliciano Destriza;

On the South-property of Barbara Boniza and

On the West-Catalino Espina.

(pp. 41-42, Rollo)

The issues in this case may thus be limited to: a) the validity of the contract of sale of a parcel of land and b) the necessity of a public document for transfer of ownership thereto. The appellate court upheld the validity of the sale on the basis of Secs. 21 and 23 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.

SEC. 21. Private writing, its execution and authenticity, how proved.-Before any private writing may be received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the writing executed;

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or

(c) By a subscribing witness

xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 23. Handwriting, how proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court)

And on the basis of the findings of fact of the trial court as follows:

Here, people who witnessed the execution of subject deed positively testified on the authenticity thereof. They categorically stated that it had been executed and signed by the signatories thereto. In fact, one of such witnesses, Gerardo M. Ogsoc, declared on the witness stand that he was the one who prepared said deed of sale and had copied parts thereof from the "Escritura De Venta Absoluta" (Exhibit B) by which one Saturnina Sabesaje sold the same parcel of land to appellant Segundo Dalion. Ogsoc copied the bounderies thereof and the name of appellant Segundo Dalion's wife, erroneously written as "Esmenia" in Exhibit "A" and "Esmenia" in Exhibit "B". (p. 41, Rollo)

xxx xxx xxx

Against defendant's mere denial that he signed the document, the positive testimonies of the instrumental Witnesses Ogsoc and Espina, aside from the testimony of the plaintiff, must prevail. Defendant has affirmatively alleged forgery, but he never presented any witness or evidence to prove his claim of forgery. Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations (Section 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court). Furthermore, it is

presumed that a person is innocent of a crime or wrong (Section 5 (a), Idem), and defense should have come forward with clear and convincing evidence to show that plaintiff committed forgery or caused said forgery to be committed, to overcome the presumption of innocence. Mere denial of having signed, does not suffice to show forgery.

In addition, a comparison of the questioned signatories or specimens (Exhs. A-2 and A-3) with the admitted signatures or specimens (Exhs. X and Y or 3-C) convinces the court that Exhs. A-2 or Z and A-3 were written by defendant Segundo Dalion who admitted that Exhs. X and Y or 3-C are his signatures. The questioned signatures and the specimens are very similar to each other and appear to be written by one person.

Further comparison of the questioned signatures and the specimens with the signatures Segundo D. Dalion appeared at the back of the summons (p. 9, Record); on the return card (p. 25, Ibid.); back of the Court Orders dated December 17, 1973 and July 30, 1974 and for October 7, 1974 (p. 54 & p. 56, respectively, Ibid.), and on the open court notice of April 13, 1983 (p. 235, Ibid.) readily reveal that the questioned signatures are the signatures of defendant Segundo Dalion.

It may be noted that two signatures of Segundo D. Dalion appear on the face of the questioned document (Exh. A), one at the right corner bottom of the document (Exh. A-2) and the other at the left hand margin thereof (Exh. A-3). The second signature is already a surplusage. A forger would not attempt to forge another signature, an unnecessary one, for fear he may commit a revealing error or an erroneous stroke. (Decision, p. 10) (pp. 42-43, Rollo)

We see no reason for deviating from the appellate court's ruling (p. 44, Rollo) as we reiterate that

Appellate courts have consistently subscribed to the principle that conclusions and findings of fact by the trial courts are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons, since it is undeniable that the trial court is in a more advantageous position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case (Chase v. Buencamino, Sr., G.R. No. L-20395, May 13, 1985, 136 SCRA 365; Pring v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41605, August 19, 1985, 138 SCRA 185)

Assuming authenticity of his signature and the genuineness of the document, Dalion nonetheless still impugns the validity of the sale on the ground that the same is embodied in a private document, and did not thus convey title or right to the lot in question since "acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinction of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public instrument" (Art. 1358, par 1, NCC). This argument is misplaced. The provision of Art. 1358 on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a public instrument.

A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent. No particular form is required for its validity. Upon perfection of the contract, the parties may reciprocally

demand performance (Art. 1475, NCC), i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the thing sold (Art. 1458, NCC). The trial court thus rightly and legally ordered Dalion to deliver to Sabesaje the parcel of land and to execute corresponding formal deed of conveyance in a public document. Under Art. 1498, NCC, when the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof is equivalent to the delivery of the thing. Delivery may either be actual (real) or constructive. Thus delivery of a parcel of land may be done by placing the vendee in control and possession of the land (real) or by embodying the sale in a public instrument (constructive).

As regards petitioners' contention that the proper action should have been one for specific performance, We believe that the suit for recovery of ownership is proper. As earlier stated, Art. 1475 of the Civil Code gives the parties to a perfected contract of sale the right to reciprocally demand performance, and to observe a particular form, if warranted, (Art. 1357). The trial court, aptly observed that Sabesaje's complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action to compel Dalion to execute a formal deed of sale, and the suit for recovery of ownership, which is premised on the binding effect and validity inter partes of the contract of sale, merely seeks consummation of said contract.

... . A sale of a real property may be in a private instrument but that contract is valid and binding between the parties upon its perfection. And a party may compel the other party to execute a public instrument embodying their contract affecting real rights once the contract appearing in a private instrument hag been perfected (See Art. 1357).

... . (p. 12, Decision, p. 272, Records)

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the ruling of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-55048 May 27, 1981

SUGA SOTTO YUVIENCO, BRITANIA SOTTO, and MARCELINO SOTTO, petitioners, vs.

HON. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, Judge of the CFI of Leyte, DELY RODRIGUEZ, FELIPE ANG CRUZ, CONSTANCIA NOGAR, MANUEL GO, INOCENTES DIME, WILLY JULIO, JAIME YU, OSCAR DY, DY CHIU SENG, BENITO YOUNG, FERNANDO YU, SEBASTIAN YU, CARLOS UY, HOC CHUAN and MANUEL DY,

respondents.

BARREDO, J.:

Petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare void for being in grave abuse of discretion the orders of respondent judge dated November 2, 1978 and August 29, 1980, in Civil Case No. 5759 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, which denied the motion filed by petitioners to dismiss the complaint of private respondents for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale of real property, the said motion being based on the grounds that the respondents' complaint states no cause of action and/or that the claim alleged therein is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Finding initially prima facie merit in the petition, We required respondents to answer and We issued a temporary restraining order on October 7, 1980 enjoining the execution of the questioned orders.

In essence, the theory of petitioners is that while it is true that they did express willingness to sell to private respondents the subject property for P6,500,000 provided the latter made known their own decision to buy it not later than July 31, 1978, the respondents' reply that they were agreeable was not absolute, so much so that when ultimately petitioners' representative went to Cebu City with a prepared and duly signed contract for the purpose of perfecting and consummating the transaction, respondents and said representative found variance between the terms of payment stipulated in the prepared document and what respondents had in mind, hence the bankdraft which respondents were delivering to petit loners' representative was returned and the document remained unsigned by respondents. Hence the action below for specific performance.

To be more specific, the parties do not dispute that on July 12, 1978, petitioners, thru a certain Pedro C. Gamboa, sent to respondents the following letter:

Mr. Yao King Ong

Life Bakery

Tacloban City

Dear Mr. Yao: 1äwphï1.ñët

This refers to the Sotto property (land and building) situated at Tacloban City. My clients are willing to sell them at a total price of P6,500,000.00.

While there are other parties who are interested to buy the property, I am giving you and the other occupants the preference, but such priority has to be exercised within a given number of days as I do not want to lose the opportunity if you are not interested. I am therefore gluing you and the rest of the occupants until July 31, 1978 within it which to decide whether you want to buy the property. If I do not hear from you by July 31, I will offer or close the deal with the other interested buyer.

Thank you so much for the hospitality extended to me during my last trip to Tacloban, and I hope to hear from you very soon.

Very truly yours,

(Page 9, Record.)

Reacting to the foregoing letter, the following telegram was sent by "Yao King Ong & tenants" to Atty. Pedro Gamboa in Cebu City:

Atty. Pedro Gamboa

Room 314, Maria Cristina Bldg.

Osmeña Boulevard, Cebu City

Reurlet dated July 12 inform Dra. Yuvienco we agree to buy property proceed Tacloban to negotiate details

Likewise uncontroverted is the fact that under date of July 27, 1978, Atty. Gamboa wired Yao King Ong in Tacloban City as follows:

NLT

YAO KING ONG

LIFE BAKERY

TACLOBAN CITY

PROPOSAL ACCEPTED ARRIVING TUESDAY MORNING WITH CONTRACT PREPARE PAYMENT BANK DRAFT 1äwphï1.ñët

Now, Paragraph 10 of the complaint below of respondents alleges:

10. That on August 1, 1978, defendant Pedro Gamboa arrived Tacloban City bringing with him the prepared contract to purchase and to sell referred to in his telegram dated July 27, 1978 (Annex 'D' hereof) for the purpose of closing the transactions referred to in paragraphs 8 and 9 hereof, however, to the complete surprise of plaintiffs, the defendant (except def. Tacloban City Ice Plant, Inc.) without giving notice to plaintiffs, changed the mode of payment with respect to the balance of P4,500,000.00 by imposing upon plaintiffs to pay same amount within thirty (30) days from execution of the contract instead of the former term of ninety (90) days as stated in paragraph 8 hereof. (Pp. 10-11, Record.)

Additionally and to reenforce their position, respondents alleged further in their complaint: 1äwphï1.ñët

8. That on July 12, 1978, defendants (except defendant Tacloban City Ice Plant, Inc.) finally sent a telegram letter to plaintiffs- tenants, through same Mr. Yao King Ong, notifying them that defendants are willing to sell the properties (lands and building) at a total price of P6,500,000.00, which herein plaintiffs-tenants have agreed to buy the said properties for said price; a copy of which letter is hereto attached as integral part hereof and marked as Annex 'C', and plaintiffs accepted the offer through a telegram dated July 25, 1978, sent to defendants (through defendant Pedro C. Gamboa), a copy of which telegram is hereto attached as integral part hereof and marked as Annex C-1 and as a consequence hereof. plaintiffs except plaintiff Tacloban - merchants' Realty Development Corporation) and defendants (except defendant Tacloban City Ice Plant. Inc.) agreed to the following terms and conditions respecting the payment of said purchase price, to wit: 1äwphï1.ñët

P2,000,000.00 to be paid in full on the date of the execution of the contract; and the balance of P4,500,000.00 shall be fully paid within ninety (90) days thereafter;

9. That on July 27, 1978, defendants sent a telegram to plaintiff- tenants, through the latter's representative Mr. Yao King Ong, reiterating their acceptance to the agreement referred to in the next preceding paragraph hereof and notifying plaintiffs-tenants to prepare payment by bank drafts; which the latter readily complied with; a copy of which telegram is hereto attached as integral part hereof and marked as Annex "D"; (Pp 49-50, Record.)

It was on the basis of the foregoing facts and allegations that herein petitioners filed their motion to dismiss alleging as main grounds: 1äwphï1.ñët

I. That plaintiff, TACLOBAN MERCHANTS' REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, amended complaint, does not state a cause of action and the claim on which the action is founded is likewise unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

II. That as to the rest of the plaintiffs, their amended complaint does not state a cause of action and the claim on which the action is founded is likewise unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds. (Page 81, Record.)

With commendable knowledgeability and industry, respondent judge ruled negatively on the motion to dismiss, discoursing at length on the personality as real party-in-interest of respondent corporation, while passing lightly, however, on what to Us are the more substantial and decisive issues of whether or not the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action and whether or not the claim alleged therein is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, by holding thus: 1äwphï1.ñët

The second ground of the motion to dismiss is that plaintiffs' claim is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The defendants argued against this motion and asked the court to reject the objection for the simple reason that the contract of sale sued upon in this case is supported by letters and telegrams annexed to the complaint and other papers which will be presented during the trial. This contention of the defendants is not well taken. The plaintiffs having alleged that the contract is backed up by letters and telegrams, and the same being a sufficient memorandum, the complaint states a cause of action and they should be given a day in court and allowed to substantiate their allegations (Paredes vs. Espino, 22 SCRA 1000).

To take a contract for the sale of land out of the Statute of Frauds a mere note or memorandum in writing subscribed by the vendor or his agent containing the name of the parties and a summary statement of the terms of the sale either expressly or by reference to something else is all that is required. The statute does not require a formal contract drawn up with technical exactness for the language of Par. 2 of Art. 1403 of the Philippine Civil Code is' ... an agreement ... or some note or memorandum thereof,' thus recognizing a difference between the contract itself and the written evidence which the statute requires (Berg vs. Magdalena Estate, Inc., 92 Phil. 110; Ill Moran, Comments on

the Rules of Court, 1952 ed. p. 187). See also Bautista's Monograph on the Statute of Frauds in 21 SCRA p. 250. (Pp. 110-111, Record)

Our first task then is to dwell on the issue of whether or not in the light of the foregoing circumstances, the complaint in controversy states sufficiently a cause of action. This issue necessarily entails the determination of whether or not the plaintiffs have alleged facts adequately showing the existence of a perfected contract of sale between herein petitioners and the occupant represented by respondent Yao King Ong.

In this respect, the governing legal provision is, of course, Article 1319 of the Civil Code which provides:1äwphï1.ñët

ART. 1319. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are constitute the contract. The offer must be certain the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitute a counter-offer.

Acceptance made by letter or telegram does not bind offerer except from the time it came to his knowledge. The contract, in a case, is presumed to have been entered into in the place where the offer was made.

In the instant case, We can lay aside, for the moment, petitioners' contention that the letter of July 12, 1978 of Atty. Pedro C. Gamboa to respondents Yao King Ong and his companions constitute an offer that is "certain", although the petitioners claim that it was a mere expression of willingness to sell the subject property and not a direct offer of sale to said respondents. What We consider as more important and truly decisive is what is the correct juridical significance of the telegram of respondents instructing Atty. Gamboa to "proceed to Tacloban to negotiate details." We underline the word "negotiate" advisedly because to Our mind it is the key word that negates and makes it legally impossible for Us to hold that respondents' acceptance of petitioners' offer, assuming that it was a "certain" offer indeed, was the "absolute" one that Article 1319 above-quoted requires.

Dictionally, the implication of "to negotiate" is practically the opposite of the Idea that an agreement has been reached. Webster's Third International Dictionary, Vol. II (G. & C. Merriam Co., 1971 Philippine copyright) gives the meaning of negotiate as "to communicate or confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter; meet with another so as to arrive through discussion at some kind of agreement or compromise about something; — to arrange for or bring about through conference or discussion; work at or arrive at or settle upon by meetings and agreements or compromises — ". Importantly, it must be borne in mind that Yao King Ong's telegram simply says "we agree to buy property". It does not necessarily connote acceptance of the price but instead suggests that the details were to be subject of negotiation.

Respondents now maintain that what the telegram refers to as "details" to be "negotiated" are mere "accidental elements", not the essential elements of the contract. They even invite attention to the fact that they have alleged in their complaint (Par. 6) that it was as early as "in the month of October, 1977 (that) negotiations between plaintiffs and defendants for the purchase and sale (in question) — were made, thus resulting to offers of same defendants and counter-offer of plaintiffs". But to Our mind such alleged facts precisely indicate the failure of any meeting of the minds of the parties, and it is only from the letter and telegrams above-quoted that one can determine whether or not such meeting of the

minds did materialize. As We see it, what such allegations bring out in bold relief is that it was precisely because of their past failure to arrive at an agreement that petitioners had to put an end to the uncertainty by writing the letter of July 12, 1978. On the other hand, that respondents were all the time agreeable to buy the property may be conceded, but what impresses Us is that instead of "absolutely" accepting the "certain" offer — if there was one — of the petitioners, they still insisted on further negotiation of details. For anyone to read in the telegram of Yao that they accepted the price of P6,500,000.00 would be an inference not necessarily warranted by the words "we agree to buy" and "proceed Tacloban to negotiate details". If indeed the details being left by them for further negotiations were merely accidental or formal ones, what need was there to say in the telegram that they had still "to negotiate (such) details", when, being unessential per their contention, they could have been just easily clarified and agreed upon when Atty. Gamboa would reach Tacloban?

Anent the telegram of Atty. Gamboa of July 27, 1978, also quoted earlier above, We gather that it was in answer to the telegram of Yao. Considering that Yao was in Tacloban then while Atty. Gamboa was in Cebu, it is difficult to surmise that there was any communication of any kind between them during the intervening period, and none such is alleged anyway by respondents. Accordingly, the claim of respondents in paragraph 8 of their complaint below that there was an agreement of a down payment of P2 M, with the balance of P4.5M to be paid within 90 days afterwards is rather improbable to imagine to have actually happened.

Respondents maintain that under existing jurisprudence relative to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, the movant-defendant is deemed to admit the factual allegations of the complaint, hence, petitioners cannot deny, for purposes of their motion, that such terms of payment had indeed been agreed upon.

While such is the rule, those allegations do not detract from the fact that under Article 1319 of the Civil Code above-quoted, and judged in the light of the telegram-reply of Yao to Atty. Gamboa's letter of July 12, 1978, there was not an absolute acceptance, hence from that point of view, petitioners' contention that the complaint of respondents state no cause of action is correct.

Nonetheless, the alleged subsequent agreement about the P2 M down and P4.5 M in 90 days may at best be deemed as a distinct cause of action. And placed against the insistence of petitioners, as demonstrated in the two deeds of sale taken by Atty. Gamboa to Tacloban, Annexes 9 and 10 of the answer of herein respondents, that there was no agreement about 90 days, an issue of fact arose, which could warrant a trial in order for the trial court to determine whether or not there was such an agreement about the balance being payable in 90 days instead of the 30 days stipulated in Annexes 9 and 10 above-referred to. Our conclusion, therefore, is that although there was no perfected contract of sale in the light of the letter of Atty. Gamboa of July 12, 1978 and the letter-reply thereto of Yao; it being doubtful whether or not, under Article 1319 of the Civil Code, the said letter may be deemed as an offer to sell that is "certain", and more, the Yao telegram is far from being an "absolute" acceptance under said article, still there appears to be a cause of action alleged in Paragraphs 8 to 12 of the respondents' complaint, considering it is alleged therein that subsequent to the telegram of Yao, it was agreed that the petitioners would sell the property to respondents for P6.5 M, by paving P2 M down and the balance in 90 days and which agreement was allegedly violated when in the deeds prepared by Atty. Gamboa and taken to Tacloban, only 30 days were given to respondents.

But the foregoing conclusion is not enough to carry the day for respondents. It only brings Us to the question of whether or not the claim for specific performance of respondents is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. In this respect, We man, view the situation at hand from two angles, namely, (1) that the allegations contained in paragraphs 8 to 12 of respondents' complaint should be taken together with the documents already aforementioned and (2) that the said allegations constitute a separate and distinct cause of action. We hold that either way We view the situation, the conclusion is inescapable e that the claim of respondents that petitioners have unjustifiably refused to proceed with the sale to them of the property v in question is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

It is nowhere alleged in said paragraphs 8 to 12 of the complaint that there is any writing or memorandum, much less a duly signed agreement to the effect that the price of P6,500,000 fixed by petitioners for the real property herein involved was agreed to be paid not in cash but in installments as alleged by respondents. The only documented indication of the non-wholly-cash payment extant in the record is that stipulated in Annexes 9 and 10 above-referred to, the deeds already signed by the petitioners and taken to Tacloban by Atty. Gamboa for the signatures of the respondents. In other words, the 90-day term for the balance of P4.5 M insisted upon by respondents choices not appear in any note, writing or memorandum signed by either the petitioners or any of them, not even by Atty. Gamboa. Hence, looking at the pose of respondents that there was a perfected agreement of purchase and sale between them and petitioners under which they would pay in installments of P2 M down and P4.5 M within ninety 90) days afterwards it is evident that such oral contract involving the "sale of real property" comes squarely under the Statute of Frauds (Article 1403, No. 2(e), Civil Code.)

On the other score of considering the supposed agreement of paying installments as partly supported by the letter and t telegram earlier quoted herein, His Honor declared with well studied ratiocination, albeit legally inaccurate, that: 1äwphï1.ñët

The next issue relate to the State of Frauds. It is contended that plaintiffs' action for specific performance to compel the defendants to execute a good and sufficient conveyance of the property in question (Sotto land and building) is unenforceable because there is no other note memorandum or writing except annexes "C", "C-l" and "D", which by themselves did not give birth to a contract to sell. The argument is not well founded. The rules of pleading limit the statement of the cause of action only to such operative facts as give rise to the right of action of the plaintiff to obtain relief against the wrongdoer. The details of probative matter or particulars of evidence, statements of law, inferences and arguments need not be stated. Thus, Sec. 1 of Rule 8 provides that 'every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.' Exhibits need not be attached. The contract of sale sued upon in this case is supported by letters and telegrams annexed to the complaint and plaintiffs have announced that they will present additional evidences during the trial to prove their cause of action. The plaintiffs having alleged that the contract is backed up by letters and telegrams, and the same being sufficient memorandum, the complaint states a cause of action and they should be given their day in court and allowed to substantiate their allegations (Parades vs. Espino, 22 SCRA 1000). (Pp 165-166, Record.)

The foregoing disquisition of respondent judge misses at least two (2) juridical substantive aspects of the Statute of Frauds insofar as sale of real property is concerned. First, His Honor assumed that the

requirement of perfection of such kind of contract under Article 1475 of the Civil Code which provides that "(t)he contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price", the Statute would no longer apply as long as the total price or consideration is mentioned in some note or memorandum and there is no need of any indication of the manner in which such total price is to be paid.

We cannot agree. In the reality of the economic world and the exacting demands of business interests monetary in character, payment on installments or staggered payment of the total price is entirely a different matter from cash payment, considering the unpredictable trends in the sudden fluctuation of the rate of interest. In other words, it is indisputable that the value of money - varies from day to day, hence the indispensability of providing in any sale of the terms of payment when not expressly or impliedly intended to be in cash.

Thus, We hold that in any sale of real property on installments, the Statute of Frauds read together with the perfection requirements of Article 1475 of the Civil Code must be understood and applied in the sense that the idea of payment on installments must be in the requisite of a note or memorandum therein contemplated. Stated otherwise, the inessential elements" mentioned in the case of Parades vs. Espino, 22 SCRA 1000, relied upon by respondent judge must be deemed to include the requirement just discussed when it comes to installment sales. There is nothing in the monograph re — the Statute of Frauds appearing in 21 SCRA 250 also cited by His Honor indicative of any contrary view to this ruling of Ours, for the essence and thrust of the said monograph refers only to the form of the note or memorandum which would comply with the Statute, and no doubt, while such note or memorandum need not be in one single document or writing and it can be in just sufficiently implicit tenor, imperatively the separate notes must, when put together', contain all the requisites of a perfected contract of sale. To put it the other way, under the Statute of Frauds, the contents of the note or memorandum, whether in one writing or in separate ones merely indicative for an adequate understanding of all the essential elements of the entire agreement, may be said to be the contract itself, except as to the form.

Secondly, We are of the considered opinion that under the rules on proper pleading, the ruling of the trial court that, even if the allegation of the existence of a sale of real property in a complaint is challenged as barred from enforceability by the Statute of Frauds, the plaintiff may simply say there are documents, notes or memoranda without either quoting them in or annexing them to the complaint, as if holding an ace in the sleeves is not correct. To go directly to the point, for Us to sanction such a procedure is to tolerate and even encourage undue delay in litigation, for the simple reason that to await the stage of trial for the showing or presentation of the requisite documentary proof when it already exists and is asked to be produced by the adverse party would amount to unnecessarily postponing, with the concomitant waste of time and the prolongation of the proceedings, something that can immediately be evidenced and thereby determinable with decisiveness and precision by the court without further delay.

In this connection, Moran observes that unlike when the ground of dismissal alleged is failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, a motion to dismiss invoking the Statute of Frauds may be filed even if the absence of compliance does not appear an the face of the complaint. Such absence may be the subject of proof in the motion stage of the proceedings. (Moran, Comment on the Rules of Court, Vol. 1, p. 494, 1979 ed.) It follows then that when such a motion is filed and all the documents available to movant are before the court, and they are insufficient to comply with the Statute, it becomes incumbent upon the plaintiff, for the reasons of policy We have just' indicated regarding speedy

administration of justice, to bring out what note or memorandum still exists in his possession in order to enable the court to expeditiously determine then and there the need for further proceedings. In other words, it would be inimical to the public interests in speedy justice for plaintiff to play hide and seek at his own convenience, particularly, when, as is quite apparent as in the instant case that chances are that there are no more writings, notes or memoranda of the installment agreement alleged by respondents. We cannot divine any reason why any such document would be withheld if they existed, except the unpermissible desire of the respondents to force the petitioners to undergo the ordeals, time, effort and expenses of a futile trial.

In the foregoing premises, We find no alternative than to render judgment in favor of petitioners in this certiorari and prohibition case. If at all, appeal could be available if the petitioners subjected themselves to the trial ruled to be held by the trial court. We foresee even at this point, on the basis of what is both extant and implicit in the records, that no different result can be probable. We consider it as sufficiently a grave abuse of discretion warranting the special civil actions herein the failure of respondent judge to properly apply the laws on perfection of contracts in relation to the Statute of Frauds and the pertinent rules of pleading and practice, as We have discussed above.

ACCORDINGLY, the impugned orders of respondent judge of November 2, 1978 and August 29, 1980 are hereby set aside and private respondents' amended complaint, Annex A of the petition, is hereby ordered dismissed and the restraining order heretofore issued by this Court on October 7, 1980 is declared permanent. Costs against respondents.

G.R. No. 115849 January 24, 1996

FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK (Formerly Producers Bank of the Philippines) and MERCURIO RIVERA, petitioners,

vs.COURT OF APPEALS, CARLOS EJERCITO, in substitution of DEMETRIO DEMETRIA, and JOSE JANOLO,

respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

In the absence of a formal deed of sale, may commitments given by bank officers in an exchange of letters and/or in a meeting with the buyers constitute a perfected and enforceable contract of sale over 101 hectares of land in Sta. Rosa, Laguna? Does the doctrine of "apparent authority" apply in this case? If so, may the Central Bank-appointed conservator of Producers Bank (now First Philippine International Bank) repudiate such "apparent authority" after said contract has been deemed perfected? During the pendency of a suit for specific performance, does the filing of a "derivative suit" by the majority shareholders and directors of the distressed bank to prevent the enforcement or implementation of the sale violate the ban against forum-shopping?

Simply stated, these are the major questions brought before this Court in the instant Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, to set aside the Decision promulgated January 14, 1994 of the respondent Court of Appeals1 in CA-G.R CV No. 35756 and the Resolution promulgated June 14, 1994 denying the motion for reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is MODIFIED by the elimination of the damages awarded under paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of its dispositive portion and the reduction of the award in paragraph 5 thereof to P75,000.00, to be assessed against defendant bank. In all other aspects, said decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

All references to the original plaintiffs in the decision and its dispositive portion are deemed, herein and hereafter, to legally refer to the plaintiff-appellee Carlos C. Ejercito.

Costs against appellant bank.

The dispositive portion of the trial court's2 decision dated July 10, 1991, on the other hand, is as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants as follows:

1. Declaring the existence of a perfected contract to buy and sell over the six (6) parcels of land situated at Don Jose, Sta. Rosa, Laguna with an area of 101 hectares, more or less, covered by and embraced in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937, inclusive, of the Land Records of Laguna, between the plaintiffs as buyers and the defendant Producers Bank for an agreed price of Five and One Half Million (P5,500,000.00) Pesos;

2. Ordering defendant Producers Bank of the Philippines, upon finality of this decision and receipt from the plaintiffs the amount of P5.5 Million, to execute in favor of said plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale over the aforementioned six (6) parcels of land, and to immediately deliver to the plaintiffs the owner's copies of T.C.T. Nos. T-106932 to T- 106937, inclusive, for purposes of registration of the same deed and transfer of the six (6) titles in the names of the plaintiffs;

3. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs Jose A. Janolo and Demetrio Demetria the sums of P200,000.00 each in moral damages;

4. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages ;

5. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P400,000.00 for and by way of attorney's fees;

6. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, actual and moderate damages in the amount of P20,000.00;

With costs against the defendants.

After the parties filed their comment, reply, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder and reply to sur-rejoinder, the petition was given due course in a Resolution dated January 18, 1995. Thence, the parties filed their respective memoranda and reply memoranda. The First Division transferred this case to the Third Division per resolution dated October 23, 1995. After carefully deliberating on the aforesaid submissions, the Court assigned the case to the undersigned ponente for the writing of this Decision.

The Parties

Petitioner First Philippine International Bank (formerly Producers Bank of the Philippines; petitioner Bank, for brevity) is a banking institution organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner Mercurio Rivera (petitioner Rivera, for brevity) is of legal age and was, at all times material to this case, Head-Manager of the Property Management Department of the petitioner Bank.

Respondent Carlos Ejercito (respondent Ejercito, for brevity) is of legal age and is the assignee of original plaintiffs-appellees Demetrio Demetria and Jose Janolo.

Respondent Court of Appeals is the court which issued the Decision and Resolution sought to be set aside through this petition.

The Facts

The facts of this case are summarized in the respondent Court's Decision3 as follows:

(1) In the course of its banking operations, the defendant Producer Bank of the Philippines acquired six parcels of land with a total area of 101 hectares located at Don Jose, Sta. Rose, Laguna, and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. The property used to be owned by BYME Investment and Development Corporation which had them mortgaged with the bank as collateral for a loan. The original plaintiffs, Demetrio Demetria and Jose O. Janolo, wanted to purchase the property and thus initiated negotiations for that purpose.

(2) In the early part of August 1987 said plaintiffs, upon the suggestion of BYME investment's legal counsel, Jose Fajardo, met with defendant Mercurio Rivera, Manager of the Property Management Department of the defendant bank. The meeting was held pursuant to plaintiffs' plan to buy the property (TSN of Jan. 16, 1990, pp. 7-10). After the meeting, plaintiff Janolo, following the advice of defendant Rivera, made a formal purchase offer to the bank through a letter dated August 30, 1987 (Exh. "B"), as follows:

August 30, 1987

The Producers Bank of the PhilippinesMakati, Metro Manila

Attn. Mr. Mercurio Q. RiveraManager, Property Management Dept.

Gentleman:

I have the honor to submit my formal offer to purchase your properties covered by titles listed hereunder located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, with a total area of 101 hectares, more or less.

TCT NO. AREA

T-106932 113,580 sq. m.

T-106933 70,899 sq. m.

T-106934 52,246 sq. m.

T-106935 96,768 sq. m.

T-106936 187,114 sq. m.

T-106937 481,481 sq. m.

My offer is for PESOS: THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P3,500,000.00) PESOS, in cash.

Kindly contact me at Telephone Number 921-1344.

(3) On September 1, 1987, defendant Rivera made on behalf of the bank a formal reply by letter which is hereunder quoted (Exh. "C"):

September 1, 1987

JP M-P GUTIERREZ ENTERPRISES142 Charisma St., Doña Andres IIRosario, Pasig, Metro Manila

Attention: JOSE O. JANOLO

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your letter-offer to buy our six (6) parcels of acquired lots at Sta. Rosa, Laguna (formerly owned by Byme Industrial Corp.). Please be informed however that the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 million for more than 101 hectares on lot basis.

We shall be very glad to hear your position on the on the matter.

Best regards.

(4) On September 17, 1987, plaintiff Janolo, responding to Rivera's aforequoted reply, wrote (Exh. "D"):

September 17, 1987

Producers BankPaseo de RoxasMakati, Metro Manila

Attention: Mr. Mercurio Rivera

Gentlemen:

In reply to your letter regarding my proposal to purchase your 101-hectare lot located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, I would like to amend my previous offer and I now propose to buy the said lot at P4.250 million in CASH..

Hoping that this proposal meets your satisfaction.

(5) There was no reply to Janolo's foregoing letter of September 17, 1987. What took place was a meeting on September 28, 1987 between the plaintiffs and Luis Co, the Senior Vice-President of defendant bank. Rivera as well as Fajardo, the BYME lawyer, attended the meeting. Two days later, or on September 30, 1987, plaintiff Janolo sent to the bank, through Rivera, the following letter (Exh. "E"):

The Producers Bank of the PhilippinesPaseo de Roxas, MakatiMetro Manila

Attention: Mr. Mercurio Rivera

Re: 101 Hectares of Landin Sta. Rosa, Laguna

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to our discussion last 28 September 1987, we are pleased to inform you that we are accepting your offer for us to purchase the property at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, formerly owned by Byme Investment, for a total price of PESOS: FIVE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P5,500,000.00).

Thank you.

(6) On October 12, 1987, the conservator of the bank (which has been placed under conservatorship by the Central Bank since 1984) was replaced by an Acting Conservator in the person of defendant Leonida T. Encarnacion. On November 4, 1987, defendant Rivera wrote plaintiff Demetria the following letter (Exh. "F"):

Attention: Atty. Demetrio Demetria

Dear Sir:

Your proposal to buy the properties the bank foreclosed from Byme investment Corp. located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna is under study yet as of this time by the newly created committee for submission to the newly designated Acting Conservator of the bank.

For your information.

(7) What thereafter transpired was a series of demands by the plaintiffs for compliance by the bank with what plaintiff considered as a perfected contract of sale, which demands were in one form or another refused by the bank. As detailed by the trial court in its decision, on November 17, 1987, plaintiffs through a letter to defendant Rivera (Exhibit "G") tendered payment of the amount of P5.5 million "pursuant to (our) perfected sale agreement." Defendants refused to receive both the payment and the letter. Instead, the parcels of land involved in the transaction were advertised by the bank for sale to any interested buyer (Exh, "H" and "H-1"). Plaintiffs demanded the execution by the bank of the documents on what was considered as a "perfected agreement." Thus:

Mr. Mercurio RiveraManager, Producers BankPaseo de Roxas, MakatiMetro Manila

Dear Mr. Rivera:

This is in connection with the offer of our client, Mr. Jose O. Janolo, to purchase your 101-hectare lot located in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, and which are covered by TCT No. T-106932 to 106937.

From the documents at hand, it appears that your counter-offer dated September 1, 1987 of this same lot in the amount of P5.5 million was accepted by our client thru a letter dated September 30, 1987 and was received by you on October 5, 1987.

In view of the above circumstances, we believe that an agreement has been perfected. We were also informed that despite repeated follow-up to consummate the purchase, you now refuse to honor your commitment. Instead, you have advertised for sale the same lot to others.

In behalf of our client, therefore, we are making this formal demand upon you to consummate and execute the necessary actions/documentation within three (3) days from your receipt hereof. We are ready to remit the agreed amount of P5.5 million at your advice. Otherwise, we shall be constrained to file the necessary court action to protect the interest of our client.

We trust that you will be guided accordingly.

(8) Defendant bank, through defendant Rivera, acknowledged receipt of the foregoing letter and stated, in its communication of December 2, 1987 (Exh. "I"), that said letter has been "referred . . . to the office of our Conservator for proper disposition" However, no response came from the Acting Conservator. On December 14, 1987, the plaintiffs made a second tender of payment (Exh. "L" and "L-1"), this time through the Acting Conservator, defendant Encarnacion. Plaintiffs' letter reads:

PRODUCERS BANK OFTHE PHILIPPINESPaseo de Roxas,Makati, Metro Manila

Attn.: Atty. NIDA ENCARNACIONCentral Bank Conservator

We are sending you herewith, in - behalf of our client, Mr. JOSE O. JANOLO, MBTC Check No. 258387 in the amount of P5.5 million as our agreed purchase price of the 101-hectare lot covered by TCT Nos. 106932, 106933, 106934, 106935, 106936 and 106937 and registered under Producers Bank.

This is in connection with the perfected agreement consequent from your offer of P5.5 Million as the purchase price of the said lots. Please inform us of the date of documentation of the sale immediately.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of our payment.

(9) The foregoing letter drew no response for more than four months. Then, on May 3, 1988, plaintiff, through counsel, made a final demand for compliance by the bank with its obligations under the considered perfected contract of sale (Exhibit "N"). As recounted by the trial court (Original Record, p. 656), in a reply letter dated May 12, 1988 (Annex "4" of defendant's answer to amended complaint), the defendants through Acting Conservator Encarnacion repudiated the authority of defendant Rivera and claimed that his dealings with the plaintiffs, particularly his counter-offer of P5.5 Million are unauthorized or illegal. On that basis, the defendants justified the refusal of the tenders of payment and the non-compliance with the obligations under what the plaintiffs considered to be a perfected contract of sale.

(10) On May 16, 1988, plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance with damages against the bank, its Manager Rivers and Acting Conservator Encarnacion. The basis of the suit was that the transaction had with the bank resulted in a perfected contract of sale, The defendants took the position that there was no such perfected sale because the defendant Rivera is not authorized to sell the property, and that there was no meeting of the minds as to the price.

On March 14, 1991, Henry L. Co (the brother of Luis Co), through counsel Sycip Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan, filed a motion to intervene in the trial court, alleging that as owner of 80% of the Bank's outstanding shares of stock, he had a substantial interest in resisting the complaint. On July 8, 1991, the trial court issued an order denying the motion to intervene on the ground that it was filed after trial had already been concluded. It also denied a motion for reconsideration filed thereafter. From the trial court's decision, the Bank, petitioner Rivera and conservator Encarnacion appealed to the Court of Appeals which subsequently affirmed with modification the said judgment. Henry Co did not appeal the denial of his motion for intervention.

In the course of the proceedings in the respondent Court, Carlos Ejercito was substituted in place of Demetria and Janolo, in view of the assignment of the latters' rights in the matter in litigation to said private respondent.

On July 11, 1992, during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals, Henry Co and several other stockholders of the Bank, through counsel Angara Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz, filed an action (hereafter, the "Second Case") — purportedly a "derivative suit" — with the Regional Trial Court

of Makati, Branch 134, docketed as Civil Case No. 92-1606, against Encarnacion, Demetria and Janolo "to declare any perfected sale of the property as unenforceable and to stop Ejercito from enforcing or implementing the sale"4 In his answer, Janolo argued that the Second Case was barred by litis pendentia by virtue of the case then pending in the Court of Appeals. During the pre-trial conference in the Second Case, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Dismiss the Case Without Prejudice. "Private respondent opposed this motion on the ground, among others, that plaintiff's act of forum shopping justifies the dismissal of both cases, with prejudice."5 Private respondent, in his memorandum, averred that this motion is still pending in the Makati RTC.

In their Petition6 and Memorandum7, petitioners summarized their position as follows:

I.

The Court of Appeals erred in declaring that a contract of sale was perfected between Ejercito (in substitution of Demetria and Janolo) and the bank.

II.

The Court of Appeals erred in declaring the existence of an enforceable contract of sale between the parties.

III.

The Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the conservator does not have the power to overrule or revoke acts of previous management.

IV.

The findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals do not conform to the evidence on record.

On the other hand, petitioners prayed for dismissal of the instant suit on the ground8 that:

I.

Petitioners have engaged in forum shopping.

II.

The factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals are supported by the evidence on record and may no longer be questioned in this case.

III.

The Court of Appeals correctly held that there was a perfected contract between Demetria and Janolo (substituted by; respondent Ejercito) and the bank.

IV.

The Court of Appeals has correctly held that the conservator, apart from being estopped from repudiating the agency and the contract, has no authority to revoke the contract of sale.

The Issues

From the foregoing positions of the parties, the issues in this case may be summed up as follows:

1) Was there forum-shopping on the part of petitioner Bank?

2) Was there a perfected contract of sale between the parties?

3) Assuming there was, was the said contract enforceable under the statute of frauds?

4) Did the bank conservator have the unilateral power to repudiate the authority of the bank officers and/or to revoke the said contract?

5) Did the respondent Court commit any reversible error in its findings of facts?

The First Issue: Was There Forum-Shopping?

In order to prevent the vexations of multiple petitions and actions, the Supreme Court promulgated Revised Circular No. 28-91 requiring that a party "must certify under oath . . . [that] (a) he has not (t)heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending" in said courts or agencies. A violation of the said circular entails sanctions that include the summary dismissal of the multiple petitions or complaints. To be sure, petitioners have included a VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION in their Petition stating "for the record(,) the pendency of Civil Case No. 92-1606 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134, involving a derivative suit filed by stockholders of petitioner Bank against the conservator and other defendants but which is the subject of a pending Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.9

Private respondent Ejercito vigorously argues that in spite of this verification, petitioners are guilty of actual forum shopping because the instant petition pending before this Court involves "identical parties or interests represented, rights asserted and reliefs sought (as that) currently pending before the Regional Trial Court, Makati Branch 134 in the Second Case. In fact, the issues in the two cases are so interwined that a judgement or resolution in either case will constitute res judicata in the other." 10

On the other hand, petitioners explain 11 that there is no forum-shopping because:

1) In the earlier or "First Case" from which this proceeding arose, the Bank was impleaded as a defendant, whereas in the "Second Case" (assuming the Bank is the real party in interest in a derivative suit), it was plaintiff;

2) "The derivative suit is not properly a suit for and in behalf of the corporation under the circumstances";

3) Although the CERTIFICATION/VERIFICATION (supra) signed by the Bank president and attached to the Petition identifies the action as a "derivative suit," it "does not mean that it is one" and "(t)hat is a legal question for the courts to decide";

4) Petitioners did not hide the Second Case at they mentioned it in the said VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION.

We rule for private respondent.

To begin with, forum-shopping originated as a concept in private international law. 12, where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses, including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.

In this light, Black's Law Dictionary 13 says that forum shopping "occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict." Hence, according to Words and Phrases14, "a litigant is open to the charge of "forum shopping" whenever he chooses a forum with slight connection to factual circumstances surrounding his suit, and litigants should be encouraged to attempt to settle their differences without imposing undue expenses and vexatious situations on the courts".

In the Philippines, forum shopping has acquired a connotation encompassing not only a choice of venues, as it was originally understood in conflicts of laws, but also to a choice of remedies. As to the first (choice of venues), the Rules of Court, for example, allow a plaintiff to commence personal actions "where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff" (Rule 4, Sec, 2 [b]). As to remedies, aggrieved parties, for example, are given a choice of pursuing civil liabilities independently of the criminal, arising from the same set of facts. A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a vehicular accident may sue on culpa contractual, culpa aquiliana or culpa criminal — each remedy being available independently of the others — although he cannot recover more than once.

In either of these situations (choice of venue or choice of remedy), the litigant actually shops for a forum of his action, This was the original concept of the term forum shopping.

Eventually, however, instead of actually making a choice of the forum of their actions, litigants, through the encouragement of their lawyers, file their actions in all available courts, or invoke all relevant remedies simultaneously. This practice had not only resulted to (sic) conflicting adjudications among different courts and consequent confusion enimical (sic) to an orderly administration of justice. It had created extreme inconvenience to some of the parties to the action.

Thus, "forum shopping" had acquired a different concept — which is unethical professional legal practice. And this necessitated or had given rise to the formulation of rules and canons discouraging or altogether prohibiting the practice. 15

What therefore originally started both in conflicts of laws and in our domestic law as a legitimate device for solving problems has been abused and mis-used to assure scheming litigants of dubious reliefs.

To avoid or minimize this unethical practice of subverting justice, the Supreme Court, as already mentioned, promulgated Circular 28-91. And even before that, the Court had prescribed it in the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued on January 11, 1983 and had struck down in several cases 16 the inveterate use of this insidious malpractice. Forum shopping as "the filing of repetitious suits in different courts" has been condemned by Justice Andres R. Narvasa (now Chief Justice) in Minister of Natural Resources, et al., vs. Heirs of Orval Hughes, et al., "as a reprehensible manipulation of court processes and proceedings . . ." 17 when does forum shopping take place?

There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. This is specially so, as in this case, where the court in which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction.18

The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping has been laid dawn in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez 19, also by Chief Justice Narvasa, and that is, forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other, as follows:

There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC Case No. 86-36563 identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, as well as identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the identity on the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action pendant.

xxx xxx xxx

As already observed, there is between the action at bar and RTC Case No. 86-36563, an identity as regards parties, or interests represented, rights asserted and relief sought, as well as basis thereof, to a degree sufficient to give rise to the ground for dismissal known as auter action pendant or lis pendens. That same identity puts into operation the sanction of twin dismissals just mentioned. The application of this sanction will prevent any further delay in the settlement of the controversy which might ensue from attempts to seek reconsideration of or to appeal from the Order of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 86-36563 promulgated on July 15, 1986, which dismissed the petition upon grounds which appear persuasive.

Consequently, where a litigant (or one representing the same interest or person) sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending, the defense of litis pendencia in one case is bar to the others; and, a final judgment in one would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest. In either case, forum shopping could be cited by the other party as a ground to ask for summary dismissal

of the two 20 (or more) complaints or petitions, and for imposition of the other sanctions, which are direct contempt of court, criminal prosecution, and disciplinary action against the erring lawyer.

Applying the foregoing principles in the case before us and comparing it with the Second Case, it is obvious that there exist identity of parties or interests represented, identity of rights or causes and identity of reliefs sought.

Very simply stated, the original complaint in the court a quo which gave rise to the instant petition was filed by the buyer (herein private respondent and his predecessors-in-interest) against the seller (herein petitioners) to enforce the alleged perfected sale of real estate. On the other hand, the complaint 21 in the Second Case seeks to declare such purported sale involving the same real property "as unenforceable as against the Bank", which is the petitioner herein. In other words, in the Second Case, the majority stockholders, in representation of the Bank, are seeking to accomplish what the Bank itself failed to do in the original case in the trial court. In brief, the objective or the relief being sought, though worded differently, is the same, namely, to enable the petitioner Bank to escape from the obligation to sell the property to respondent. In Danville Maritime, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit. 22, this Court ruled that the filing by a party of two apparently different actions, but with the same objective, constituted forum shopping:

In the attempt to make the two actions appear to be different, petitioner impleaded different respondents therein — PNOC in the case before the lower court and the COA in the case before this Court and sought what seems to be different reliefs. Petitioner asks this Court to set aside the questioned letter-directive of the COA dated October 10, 1988 and to direct said body to approve the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by and between the PNOC and petitioner, while in the complaint before the lower court petitioner seeks to enjoin the PNOC from conducting a rebidding and from selling to other parties the vessel "T/T Andres Bonifacio", and for an extension of time for it to comply with the paragraph 1 of the memorandum of agreement and damages. One can see that although the relief prayed for in the two (2) actions are ostensibly different, the ultimate objective in both actions is the same, that is, approval of the sale of vessel in favor of petitioner and to overturn the letter-directive of the COA of October 10, 1988 disapproving the sale. (emphasis supplied).

In an earlier case 23 but with the same logic and vigor, we held:

In other words, the filing by the petitioners of the instant special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in this Court despite the pendency of their action in the Makati Regional Trial Court, is a species of forum-shopping. Both actions unquestionably involve the same transactions, the same essential facts and circumstances. The petitioners' claim of absence of identity simply because the PCGG had not been impleaded in the RTC suit, and the suit did not involve certain acts which transpired after its commencement, is specious. In the RTC action, as in the action before this Court, the validity of the contract to purchase and sell of September 1, 1986, i.e., whether or not it had been efficaciously rescinded, and the propriety of implementing the same (by paying the pledgee banks the amount of their loans, obtaining the release of the pledged shares, etc.) were the basic issues. So, too, the relief was the same: the prevention of such implementation and/or the restoration of the status quo ante. When the acts sought to be restrained took place anyway despite the issuance by the Trial Court of a temporary restraining order, the RTC suit did not become functus oficio. It remained an effective vehicle for obtention

of relief; and petitioners' remedy in the premises was plain and patent: the filing of an amended and supplemental pleading in the RTC suit, so as to include the PCGG as defendant and seek nullification of the acts sought to be enjoined but nonetheless done. The remedy was certainly not the institution of another action in another forum based on essentially the same facts, The adoption of this latter recourse renders the petitioners amenable to disciplinary action and both their actions, in this Court as well as in the Court a quo, dismissible.

In the instant case before us, there is also identity of parties, or at least, of interests represented. Although the plaintiffs in the Second Case (Henry L. Co. et al.) are not name parties in the First Case, they represent the same interest and entity, namely, petitioner Bank, because:

Firstly, they are not suing in their personal capacities, for they have no direct personal interest in the matter in controversy. They are not principally or even subsidiarily liable; much less are they direct parties in the assailed contract of sale; and

Secondly, the allegations of the complaint in the Second Case show that the stockholders are bringing a "derivative suit". In the caption itself, petitioners claim to have brought suit "for and in behalf of the Producers Bank of the Philippines" 24. Indeed, this is the very essence of a derivative suit:

An individual stockholder is permitted to institute a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation wherein he holdsstock in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights, whenever the officials of the corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued or hold the control of the corporation. In such actions, the suing stockholder is regarded as a nominal party, with the corporation as the real party in interest. (Gamboa v. Victoriano, 90 SCRA 40, 47 [1979]; emphasis supplied).

In the face of the damaging admissions taken from the complaint in the Second Case, petitioners, quite strangely, sought to deny that the Second Case was a derivative suit, reasoning that it was brought, not by the minority shareholders, but by Henry Co et al., who not only own, hold or control over 80% of the outstanding capital stock, but also constitute the majority in the Board of Directors of petitioner Bank. That being so, then they really represent the Bank. So, whether they sued "derivatively" or directly, there is undeniably an identity of interests/entity represented.

Petitioner also tried to seek refuge in the corporate fiction that the personality Of the Bank is separate and distinct from its shareholders. But the rulings of this Court are consistent: "When the fiction is urged as a means of perpetrating a fraud or an illegal act or as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation, the circumvention of statutes, the achievement or perfection of a monopoly or generally the perpetration of knavery or crime, the veil with which the law covers and isolates the corporation from the members or stockholders who compose it will be lifted to allow for its consideration merely as an aggregation of individuals." 25

In addition to the many cases 26 where the corporate fiction has been disregarded, we now add the instant case, and declare herewith that the corporate veil cannot be used to shield an otherwise blatant violation of the prohibition against forum-shopping. Shareholders, whether suing as the majority in direct actions or as the minority in a derivative suit, cannot be allowed to trifle with court processes, particularly where, as in this case, the corporation itself has not been remiss in vigorously prosecuting or defending corporate causes and in using and applying remedies available to it. To rule otherwise would

be to encourage corporate litigants to use their shareholders as fronts to circumvent the stringent rules against forum shopping.

Finally, petitioner Bank argued that there cannot be any forum shopping, even assuming arguendo that there is identity of parties, causes of action and reliefs sought, "because it (the Bank) was the defendant in the (first) case while it was the plaintiff in the other (Second Case)",citing as authority Victronics Computers, Inc., vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati, etc. et al., 27 where Court held:

The rule has not been extended to a defendant who, for reasons known only to him, commences a new action against the plaintiff — instead of filing a responsive pleading in the other case — setting forth therein, as causes of action, specific denials, special and affirmative defenses or even counterclaims, Thus, Velhagen's and King's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 91-2069 by no means negates the charge of forum-shopping as such did not exist in the first place. (emphasis supplied)

Petitioner pointed out that since it was merely the defendant in the original case, it could not have chosen the forum in said case.

Respondent, on the other hand, replied that there is a difference in factual setting between Victronics and the present suit. In the former, as underscored in the above-quoted Court ruling, the defendants did not file any responsive pleading in the first case. In other words, they did not make any denial or raise any defense or counter-claim therein In the case before us however, petitioners filed a responsive pleading to the complaint — as a result of which, the issues were joined.

Indeed, by praying for affirmative reliefs and interposing counter–claims in their responsive pleadings, the petitioners became plaintiffs themselves in the original case, giving unto themselves the very remedies they repeated in the Second Case.

Ultimately, what is truly important to consider in determining whether forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue. In this case, this is exactly the problem: a decision recognizing the perfection and directing the enforcement of the contract of sale will directly conflict with a possible decision in the Second Case barring the parties front enforcing or implementing the said sale. Indeed, a final decision in one would constitute res judicata in the other 28.

The foregoing conclusion finding the existence of forum-shopping notwithstanding, the only sanction possible now is the dismissal of both cases with prejudice, as the other sanctions cannot be imposed because petitioners' present counsel entered their appearance only during the proceedings in this Court, and the Petition's VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION contained sufficient allegations as to the pendency of the Second Case to show good faith in observing Circular 28-91. The Lawyers who filed the Second Case are not before us; thus the rudiments of due process prevent us from motu propio imposing disciplinary measures against them in this Decision. However, petitioners themselves (and particularly Henry Co, et al.) as litigants are admonished to strictly follow the rules against forum-shopping and not to trifle with court proceedings and processes They are warned that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.

Having said that, let it be emphasized that this petition should be dismissed not merely because of forum-shopping but also because of the substantive issues raised, as will be discussed shortly.

The Second Issue: Was The Contract Perfected?

The respondent Court correctly treated the question of whether or not there was, on the basis of the facts established, a perfected contract of sale as the ultimate issue. Holding that a valid contract has been established, respondent Court stated:

There is no dispute that the object of the transaction is that property owned by the defendant bank as acquired assets consisting of six (6) parcels of land specifically identified under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. It is likewise beyond cavil that the bank intended to sell the property. As testified to by the Bank's Deputy Conservator, Jose Entereso, the bank was looking for buyers of the property. It is definite that the plaintiffs wanted to purchase the property and it was precisely for this purpose that they met with defendant Rivera, Manager of the Property Management Department of the defendant bank, in early August 1987. The procedure in the sale of acquired assets as well as the nature and scope of the authority of Rivera on the matter is clearly delineated in the testimony of Rivera himself, which testimony was relied upon by both the bank and by Rivera in their appeal briefs. Thus (TSN of July 30, 1990. pp. 19-20):

A: The procedure runs this way: Acquired assets was turned over to me and then I published it in the form of an inter-office memorandum distributed to all branches that these are acquired assets for sale. I was instructed to advertise acquired assets for sale so on that basis, I have to entertain offer; to accept offer, formal offer and upon having been offered, I present it to the Committee. I provide the Committee with necessary information about the property such as original loan of the borrower, bid price during the foreclosure, total claim of the bank, the appraised value at the time the property is being offered for sale and then the information which are relative to the evaluation of the bank to buy which the Committee considers and it is the Committee that evaluate as against the exposure of the bank and it is also the Committee that submit to the Conservator for final approval and once approved, we have to execute the deed of sale and it is the Conservator that sign the deed of sale, sir.

The plaintiffs, therefore, at that meeting of August 1987 regarding their purpose of buying the property, dealt with and talked to the right person. Necessarily, the agenda was the price of the property, and plaintiffs were dealing with the bank official authorized to entertain offers, to accept offers and to present the offer to the Committee before which the said official is authorized to discuss information relative to price determination. Necessarily, too, it being inherent in his authority, Rivera is the officer from whom official information regarding the price, as determined by the Committee and approved by the Conservator, can be had. And Rivera confirmed his authority when he talked with the plaintiff in August 1987. The testimony of plaintiff Demetria is clear on this point (TSN of May 31,1990, pp. 27-28):

Q: When you went to the Producers Bank and talked with Mr. Mercurio Rivera, did you ask him point-blank his authority to sell any property?

A: No, sir. Not point blank although it came from him, (W)hen I asked him how long it would take because he was saying that the matter of pricing will be passed upon by the committee. And when I asked him how long it will take for the committee to decide and he said the committee meets every week. If I am not mistaken Wednesday and in about two week's (sic) time, in effect what he was saying he was not the one who was to decide. But he would refer it to the committee and he would relay the decision of the committee to me.

Q — Please answer the question.

A — He did not say that he had the authority (.) But he said he would refer the matter to the committee and he would relay the decision to me and he did just like that.

"Parenthetically, the Committee referred to was the Past Due Committee of which Luis Co was the Head, with Jose Entereso as one of the members.

What transpired after the meeting of early August 1987 are consistent with the authority and the duties of Rivera and the bank's internal procedure in the matter of the sale of bank's assets. As advised by Rivera, the plaintiffs made a formal offer by a letter dated August 20, 1987 stating that they would buy at the price of P3.5 Million in cash. The letter was for the attention of Mercurio Rivera who was tasked to convey and accept such offers. Considering an aspect of the official duty of Rivera as some sort of intermediary between the plaintiffs-buyers with their proposed buying price on one hand, and the bank Committee, the Conservator and ultimately the bank itself with the set price on the other, and considering further the discussion of price at the meeting of August resulting in a formal offer of P3.5 Million in cash, there can be no other logical conclusion than that when, on September 1, 1987, Rivera informed plaintiffs by letter that "the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 Million for more than 101 hectares on lot basis," such counter-offer price had been determined by the Past Due Committee and approved by the Conservator after Rivera had duly presented plaintiffs' offer for discussion by the Committee of such matters as original loan of borrower, bid price during foreclosure, total claim of the bank, and market value. Tersely put, under the established facts, the price of P5.5 Million was, as clearly worded in Rivera's letter (Exh. "E"), the official and definitive price at which the bank was selling the property.

There were averments by defendants below, as well as before this Court, that the P5.5 Million price was not discussed by the Committee and that price. As correctly characterized by the trial court, this is not credible. The testimonies of Luis Co and Jose Entereso on this point are at best equivocal and considering the gratuitous and self-serving character of these declarations, the bank's submission on this point does not inspire belief. Both Co ad Entereso, as members of the Past Due Committee of the bank, claim that the offer of the plaintiff was never discussed by the Committee. In the same vein, both Co and Entereso openly admit that they seldom attend the meetings of the Committee. It is important to note that negotiations on the price had started in early August and the plaintiffs had already offered an amount as purchase price, having been made to understand by Rivera, the official in charge of the negotiation, that the price will be submitted for approval by the bank and that the bank's decision will be relayed to plaintiffs. From the facts, the official bank price. At any rate, the bank placed its official, Rivera, in a position of authority to accept offers to buy and negotiate the sale by having the offer officially

acted upon by the bank. The bank cannot turn around and later say, as it now does, that what Rivera states as the bank's action on the matter is not in fact so. It is a familiar doctrine, the doctrine of ostensible authority, that if a corporation knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other agent, to do acts within the scope of an apparent authority, and thus holds him out to the public as possessing power to do those acts, the corporation will, as against any one who has in good faith dealt with the corporation through such agent, he estopped from denying his authority (Francisco v. GSIS, 7 SCRA 577, 583-584; PNB v. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 357, 369-370; Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103957, June 14, 1993). 29

Article 1318 of the Civil Code enumerates the requisites of a valid and perfected contract as follows: "(1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established."

There is no dispute on requisite no. 2. The object of the questioned contract consists of the six (6) parcels of land in Sta. Rosa, Laguna with an aggregate area of about 101 hectares, more or less, and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-106932 to T-106937. There is, however, a dispute on the first and third requisites.

Petitioners allege that "there is no counter-offer made by the Bank, and any supposed counter-offer which Rivera (or Co) may have made is unauthorized. Since there was no counter-offer by the Bank, there was nothing for Ejercito (in substitution of Demetria and Janolo) to accept." 30 They disputed the factual basis of the respondent Court's findings that there was an offer made by Janolo for P3.5 million, to which the Bank counter-offered P5.5 million. We have perused the evidence but cannot find fault with the said Court's findings of fact. Verily, in a petition under Rule 45 such as this, errors of fact — if there be any - are, as a rule, not reviewable. The mere fact that respondent Court (and the trial court as well) chose to believe the evidence presented by respondent more than that presented by petitioners is not by itself a reversible error. In fact, such findings merit serious consideration by this Court, particularly where, as in this case, said courts carefully and meticulously discussed their findings. This is basic.

Be that as it may, and in addition to the foregoing disquisitions by the Court of Appeals, let us review the question of Rivera's authority to act and petitioner's allegations that the P5.5 million counter-offer was extinguished by the P4.25 million revised offer of Janolo. Here, there are questions of law which could be drawn from the factual findings of the respondent Court. They also delve into the contractual elements of consent and cause.

The authority of a corporate officer in dealing with third persons may be actual or apparent. The doctrine of "apparent authority", with special reference to banks, was laid out in Prudential Bank vs. Court of Appeals31, where it was held that:

Conformably, we have declared in countless decisions that the principal is liable for obligations contracted by the agent. The agent's apparent representation yields to the principal's true representation and the contract is considered as entered into between the principal and the third person (citing National Food Authority vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 184 SCRA 166).

A bank is liable for wrongful acts of its officers done in the interests of the bank or in the course of dealings of the officers in their representative capacity but not for acts outside

the scape of their authority (9 C.J.S., p. 417). A bank holding out its officers and agents as worthy of confidence will not be permitted to profit by the frauds they may thus be enabled to perpetrate in the apparent scope of their employment; nor will it be permitted to shirk its responsibility for such frauds even though no benefit may accrue to the bank therefrom (10 Am Jur 2d, p. 114). Accordingly, a banking corporation is liable to innocent third persons where the representation is made in the course of its business by an agent acting within the general scope of his authority even though, in the particular case, the agent is secretly abusing his authority and attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon his principal or some other person, for his own ultimate benefit (McIntosh v. Dakota Trust Co., 52 ND 752, 204 NW 818, 40 ALR 1021).

Application of these principles is especially necessary because banks have a fiduciary relationship with the public and their stability depends on the confidence of the people in their honesty and efficiency. Such faith will be eroded where banks do not exercise strict care in the selection and supervision of its employees, resulting in prejudice to their depositors.

From the evidence found by respondent Court, it is obvious that petitioner Rivera has apparent or implied authority to act for the Bank in the matter of selling its acquired assets. This evidence includes the following:

(a) The petition itself in par. II-i (p. 3) states that Rivera was "at all times material to this case, Manager of the Property Management Department of the Bank". By his own admission, Rivera was already the person in charge of the Bank's acquired assets (TSN, August 6, 1990, pp. 8-9);

(b) As observed by respondent Court, the land was definitely being sold by the Bank. And during the initial meeting between the buyers and Rivera, the latter suggested that the buyers' offer should be no less than P3.3 million (TSN, April 26, 1990, pp. 16-17);

(c) Rivera received the buyers' letter dated August 30, 1987 offering P3.5 million (TSN, 30 July 1990, p.11);

(d) Rivera signed the letter dated September 1, 1987 offering to sell the property for P5.5 million (TSN, July 30, p. 11);

(e) Rivera received the letter dated September 17, 1987 containing the buyers' proposal to buy the property for P4.25 million (TSN, July 30, 1990, p. 12);

(f) Rivera, in a telephone conversation, confirmed that the P5.5 million was the final price of the Bank (TSN, January 16, 1990, p. 18);

(g) Rivera arranged the meeting between the buyers and Luis Co on September 28, 1994, during which the Bank's offer of P5.5 million was confirmed by Rivera (TSN, April 26, 1990, pp. 34-35). At said meeting, Co, a major shareholder and officer of the Bank, confirmed Rivera's statement as to the finality of the Bank's counter-offer of P5.5 million (TSN, January 16, 1990, p. 21; TSN, April 26, 1990, p. 35);

(h) In its newspaper advertisements and announcements, the Bank referred to Rivera as the officer acting for the Bank in relation to parties interested in buying assets owned/acquired by the Bank. In fact, Rivera was the officer mentioned in the Bank's advertisements offering for sale the property in question (cf. Exhs. "S" and "S-1").

In the very recent case of Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.32, the Court, through Justice Jose A. R. Melo, affirmed the doctrine of apparent authority as it held that the apparent authority of the officer of the Bank of P.I. in charge of acquired assets is borne out by similar circumstances surrounding his dealings with buyers.

To be sure, petitioners attempted to repudiate Rivera's apparent authority through documents and testimony which seek to establish Rivera's actual authority. These pieces of evidence, however, are inherently weak as they consist of Rivera's self-serving testimony and various inter-office memoranda that purport to show his limited actual authority, of which private respondent cannot be charged with knowledge. In any event, since the issue is apparent authority, the existence of which is borne out by the respondent Court's findings, the evidence of actual authority is immaterial insofar as the liability of a corporation is concerned 33.

Petitioners also argued that since Demetria and Janolo were experienced lawyers and their "law firm" had once acted for the Bank in three criminal cases, they should be charged with actual knowledge of Rivera's limited authority. But the Court of Appeals in its Decision (p. 12) had already made a factual finding that the buyers had no notice of Rivera's actual authority prior to the sale. In fact, the Bank has not shown that they acted as its counsel in respect to any acquired assets; on the other hand, respondent has proven that Demetria and Janolo merely associated with a loose aggrupation of lawyers (not a professional partnership), one of whose members (Atty. Susana Parker) acted in said criminal cases.

Petitioners also alleged that Demetria's and Janolo's P4.25 million counter-offer in the letter dated September 17, 1987 extinguished the Bank's offer of P5.5 million 34 .They disputed the respondent Court's finding that "there was a meeting of minds when on 30 September 1987 Demetria and Janolo through Annex "L" (letter dated September 30, 1987) "accepted" Rivera's counter offer of P5.5 million under Annex "J" (letter dated September 17, 1987)", citing the late Justice Paras35, Art. 1319 of the Civil Code 36 and related Supreme Court rulings starting with Beaumont vs. Prieto 37.

However, the above-cited authorities and precedents cannot apply in the instant case because, as found by the respondent Court which reviewed the testimonies on this point, what was "accepted" by Janolo in his letter dated September 30, 1987 was the Bank's offer of P5.5 million as confirmed and reiterated to Demetria and Atty. Jose Fajardo by Rivera and Co during their meeting on September 28, 1987. Note that the said letter of September 30, 1987 begins with"(p)ursuant to our discussion last 28 September 1987 . . .

Petitioners insist that the respondent Court should have believed the testimonies of Rivera and Co that the September 28, 1987 meeting "was meant to have the offerors improve on their position of P5.5. million."38 However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found petitioners' testimonial evidence "not credible", and we find no basis for changing this finding of fact.

Indeed, we see no reason to disturb the lower courts' (both the RTC and the CA) common finding that private respondents' evidence is more in keeping with truth and logic — that during the meeting on September 28, 1987, Luis Co and Rivera "confirmed that the P5.5 million price has been passed upon by the Committee and could no longer be lowered (TSN of April 27, 1990, pp. 34-35)" 39. Hence, assuming arguendo that the counter-offer of P4.25 million extinguished the offer of P5.5 million, Luis Co's reiteration of the said P5.5 million price during the September 28, 1987 meeting revived the said offer. And by virtue of the September 30, 1987 letter accepting this revived offer, there was a meeting of the minds, as the acceptance in said letter was absolute and unqualified.

We note that the Bank's repudiation, through Conservator Encarnacion, of Rivera's authority and action, particularly the latter's counter-offer of P5.5 million, as being "unauthorized and illegal" came only on May 12, 1988 or more than seven (7) months after Janolo' acceptance. Such delay, and the absence of any circumstance which might have justifiably prevented the Bank from acting earlier, clearly characterizes the repudiation as nothing more than a last-minute attempt on the Bank's part to get out of a binding contractual obligation.

Taken together, the factual findings of the respondent Court point to an implied admission on the part of the petitioners that the written offer made on September 1, 1987 was carried through during the meeting of September 28, 1987. This is the conclusion consistent with human experience, truth and good faith.

It also bears noting that this issue of extinguishment of the Bank's offer of P5.5 million was raised for the first time on appeal and should thus be disregarded.

This Court in several decisions has repeatedly adhered to the principle that points of law, theories, issues of fact and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (Santos vs. IAC, No. 74243, November 14, 1986, 145 SCRA 592).40

. . . It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process (Dihiansan vs. CA, 153 SCRA 713 [1987]; Anchuelo vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 434 [1987]; Dulos Realty & Development Corp. vs. CA, 157 SCRA 425 [1988]; Ramos vs. IAC, 175 SCRA 70 [1989]; Gevero vs. IAC, G.R. 77029, August 30, 1990).41

Since the issue was not raised in the pleadings as an affirmative defense, private respondent was not given an opportunity in the trial court to controvert the same through opposing evidence. Indeed, this is a matter of due process. But we passed upon the issue anyway, if only to avoid deciding the case on purely procedural grounds, and we repeat that, on the basis of the evidence already in the record and as appreciated by the lower courts, the inevitable conclusion is simply that there was a perfected contract of sale.

The Third Issue: Is the Contract Enforceable?

The petition alleged42:

Even assuming that Luis Co or Rivera did relay a verbal offer to sell at P5.5 million during the meeting of 28 September 1987, and it was this verbal offer that Demetria and Janolo accepted with their letter of 30 September 1987, the contract produced thereby would be unenforceable by action — there being no note, memorandum or writing subscribed by the Bank to evidence such contract. (Please see article 1403[2], Civil Code.)

Upon the other hand, the respondent Court in its Decision (p, 14) stated:

. . . Of course, the bank's letter of September 1, 1987 on the official price and the plaintiffs' acceptance of the price on September 30, 1987, are not, in themselves, formal contracts of sale. They are however clear embodiments of the fact that a contract of sale was perfected between the parties, such contract being binding in whatever form it may have been entered into (case citations omitted). Stated simply, the banks' letter of September 1, 1987, taken together with plaintiffs' letter dated September 30, 1987, constitute in law a sufficient memorandum of a perfected contract of sale.

The respondent Court could have added that the written communications commenced not only from September 1, 1987 but from Janolo's August 20, 1987 letter. We agree that, taken together, these letters constitute sufficient memoranda — since they include the names of the parties, the terms and conditions of the contract, the price and a description of the property as the object of the contract.

But let it be assumed arguendo that the counter-offer during the meeting on September 28, 1987 did constitute a "new" offer which was accepted by Janolo on September 30, 1987. Still, the statute of frauds will not apply by reason of the failure of petitioners to object to oral testimony proving petitioner Bank's counter-offer of P5.5 million. Hence, petitioners — by such utter failure to object — are deemed to have waived any defects of the contract under the statute of frauds, pursuant to Article 1405 of the Civil Code:

Art. 1405. Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of article 1403, are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefits under them.

As private respondent pointed out in his Memorandum, oral testimony on the reaffirmation of the counter-offer of P5.5 million is a plenty — and the silence of petitioners all throughout the presentation makes the evidence binding on them thus;

A Yes, sir, I think it was September 28, 1987 and I was again present because Atty. Demetria told me to accompany him we were able to meet Luis Co at the Bank.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now, what transpired during this meeting with Luis Co of the Producers Bank?

A Atty. Demetria asked Mr. Luis Co whether the price could be reduced, sir.

Q What price?

A The 5.5 million pesos and Mr. Luis Co said that the amount cited by Mr. Mercurio Rivera is the final price and that is the price they intends (sic) to have, sir.

Q What do you mean?.

A That is the amount they want, sir.

Q What is the reaction of the plaintiff Demetria to Luis Co's statement (sic) that the defendant Rivera's counter-offer of 5.5 million was the defendant's bank (sic) final offer?

A He said in a day or two, he will make final acceptance, sir.

Q What is the response of Mr. Luis Co?.

A He said he will wait for the position of Atty. Demetria, sir.

[Direct testimony of Atty. Jose Fajardo, TSN, January 16, 1990, at pp. 18-21.]

Q What transpired during that meeting between you and Mr. Luis Co of the defendant Bank?

A We went straight to the point because he being a busy person, I told him if the amount of P5.5 million could still be reduced and he said that was already passed upon by the committee. What the bank expects which was contrary to what Mr. Rivera stated. And he told me that is the final offer of the bank P5.5 million and we should indicate our position as soon as possible.

Q What was your response to the answer of Mr. Luis Co?

A I said that we are going to give him our answer in a few days and he said that was it. Atty. Fajardo and I and Mr. Mercurio [Rivera] was with us at the time at his office.

Q For the record, your Honor please, will you tell this Court who was with Mr. Co in his Office in Producers Bank Building during this meeting?

A Mr. Co himself, Mr. Rivera, Atty. Fajardo and I.

Q By Mr. Co you are referring to?

A Mr. Luis Co.

Q After this meeting with Mr. Luis Co, did you and your partner accede on (sic) the counter offer by the bank?

A Yes, sir, we did.? Two days thereafter we sent our acceptance to the bank which offer we accepted, the offer of the bank which is P5.5 million.

[Direct testimony of Atty. Demetria, TSN, 26 April 1990, at pp. 34-36.]

Q According to Atty. Demetrio Demetria, the amount of P5.5 million was reached by the Committee and it is not within his power to reduce this amount. What can you say to that statement that the amount of P5.5 million was reached by the Committee?

A It was not discussed by the Committee but it was discussed initially by Luis Co and the group of Atty. Demetrio Demetria and Atty. Pajardo (sic) in that September 28, 1987 meeting, sir.

[Direct testimony of Mercurio Rivera, TSN, 30 July 1990, pp. 14-15.]

The Fourth Issue: May the Conservator Revokethe Perfected and Enforceable Contract.

It is not disputed that the petitioner Bank was under a conservator placed by the Central Bank of the Philippines during the time that the negotiation and perfection of the contract of sale took place. Petitioners energetically contended that the conservator has the power to revoke or overrule actions of the management or the board of directors of a bank, under Section 28-A of Republic Act No. 265 (otherwise known as the Central Bank Act) as follows:

Whenever, on the basis of a report submitted by the appropriate supervising or examining department, the Monetary Board finds that a bank or a non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions is in a state of continuing inability or unwillingness to maintain a state of liquidity deemed adequate to protect the interest of depositors and creditors, the Monetary Board may appoint a conservator to take charge of the assets, liabilities, and the management of that institution, collect all monies and debts due said institution and exercise all powers necessary to preserve the assets of the institution, reorganize the management thereof, and restore its viability. He shall have the power to overrule or revoke the actions of the previous management and board of directors of the bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking functions, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, and such other powers as the Monetary Board shall deem necessary.

In the first place, this issue of the Conservator's alleged authority to revoke or repudiate the perfected contract of sale was raised for the first time in this Petition — as this was not litigated in the trial court or Court of Appeals. As already stated earlier, issues not raised and/or ventilated in the trial court, let alone in the Court of Appeals, "cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process."43

In the second place, there is absolutely no evidence that the Conservator, at the time the contract was perfected, actually repudiated or overruled said contract of sale. The Bank's acting conservator at the time, Rodolfo Romey, never objected to the sale of the property to Demetria and Janolo. What petitioners are really referring to is the letter of Conservator Encarnacion, who took over from Romey after the sale was perfected on September 30, 1987 (Annex V, petition) which unilaterally repudiated — not the contract — but the authority of Rivera to make a binding offer — and which unarguably came months after the perfection of the contract. Said letter dated May 12, 1988 is reproduced hereunder:

May 12, 1988

Atty. Noe C. ZarateZarate Carandang Perlas & Ass.Suite 323 Rufino BuildingAyala Avenue, Makati, Metro-Manila

Dear Atty. Zarate:

This pertains to your letter dated May 5, 1988 on behalf of Attys. Janolo and Demetria regarding the six (6) parcels of land located at Sta. Rosa, Laguna.

We deny that Producers Bank has ever made a legal counter-offer to any of your clients nor perfected a "contract to sell and buy" with any of them for the following reasons.

In the "Inter-Office Memorandum" dated April 25, 1986 addressed to and approved by former Acting Conservator Mr. Andres I. Rustia, Producers Bank Senior Manager Perfecto M. Pascua detailed the functions of Property Management Department (PMD) staff and officers (Annex A.), you will immediately read that Manager Mr. Mercurio Rivera or any of his subordinates has no authority, power or right to make any alleged counter-offer. In short, your lawyer-clients did not deal with the authorized officers of the bank.

Moreover, under Sec. 23 and 36 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines (Bates Pambansa Blg. 68.) and Sec. 28-A of the Central Bank Act (Rep. Act No. 265, as amended), only the Board of Directors/Conservator may authorize the sale of any property of the corportion/bank..

Our records do not show that Mr. Rivera was authorized by the old board or by any of the bank conservators (starting January, 1984) to sell the aforesaid property to any of your clients. Apparently, what took place were just preliminary discussions/consultations between him and your clients, which everyone knows cannot bind the Bank's Board or Conservator.

We are, therefore, constrained to refuse any tender of payment by your clients, as the same is patently violative of corporate and banking laws. We believe that this is more than sufficient legal justification for refusing said alleged tender.

Rest assured that we have nothing personal against your clients. All our acts are official, legal and in accordance with law. We also have no personal interest in any of the properties of the Bank.

Please be advised accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) Leonida T. EncarnacionLEONIDA T. EDCARNACIONActing Conservator

In the third place, while admittedly, the Central Bank law gives vast and far-reaching powers to the conservator of a bank, it must be pointed out that such powers must be related to the "(preservation of)

the assets of the bank, (the reorganization of) the management thereof and (the restoration of) its viability." Such powers, enormous and extensive as they are, cannot extend to the post-facto repudiation of perfected transactions, otherwise they would infringe against the non-impairment clause of the Constitution 44. If the legislature itself cannot revoke an existing valid contract, how can it delegate such non-existent powers to the conservator under Section 28-A of said law?

Obviously, therefore, Section 28-A merely gives the conservator power to revoke contracts that are, under existing law, deemed to be defective — i.e., void, voidable, unenforceable or rescissible. Hence, the conservator merely takes the place of a bank's board of directors. What the said board cannot do — such as repudiating a contract validly entered into under the doctrine of implied authority — the conservator cannot do either. Ineluctably, his power is not unilateral and he cannot simply repudiate valid obligations of the Bank. His authority would be only to bring court actions to assail such contracts — as he has already done so in the instant case. A contrary understanding of the law would simply not be permitted by the Constitution. Neither by common sense. To rule otherwise would be to enable a failing bank to become solvent, at the expense of third parties, by simply getting the conservator to unilaterally revoke all previous dealings which had one way or another or come to be considered unfavorable to the Bank, yielding nothing to perfected contractual rights nor vested interests of the third parties who had dealt with the Bank.

The Fifth Issue: Were There Reversible Errors of Facts?

Basic is the doctrine that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. In Andres vs. Manufacturers Hanover & Trust Corporation, 45, we held:

. . . The rule regarding questions of fact being raised with this Court in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court has been stated in Remalante vs. Tibe, G.R. No. 59514, February 25, 1988, 158 SCRA 138, thus:

The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of the fact being conclusive " [Chan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737, reiterating a long line of decisions]. This Court has emphatically declared that "it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the lower court" (Tiongco v. De la Merced, G. R. No. L-24426, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 89; Corona vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62482, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 865; Baniqued vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-47531, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 596). "Barring, therefore, a showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand, for this Court is not expected or required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties" [Santa Ana, Jr. vs. Hernandez, G. R. No. L-16394, December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 973] [at pp. 144-145.]

Likewise, in Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals 46, we held:

The resolution of this petition invites us to closely scrutinize the facts of the case, relating to the sufficiency of evidence and the credibility of witnesses presented. This Court so held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. . . .

As held in the recent case of Chua Tiong Tay vs. Court of Appeals and Goldrock Construction and Development Corp. 47:

The Court has consistently held that the factual findings of the trial court, as well as the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. Among the exceptional circumstances where a reassessment of facts found by the lower courts is allowed are when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; when the findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee. After a careful study of the case at bench, we find none of the above grounds present to justify the re-evaluation of the findings of fact made by the courts below.

In the same vein, the ruling of this Court in the recent case of South Sea Surety and Insurance Company Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. 48 is equally applicable to the present case:

We see no valid reason to discard the factual conclusions of the appellate court, . . . (I)t is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties, particularly where, such as here, the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court on the matter coincide. (emphasis supplied)

Petitioners, however, assailed the respondent Court's Decision as "fraught with findings and conclusions which were not only contrary to the evidence on record but have no bases at all," specifically the findings that (1) the "Bank's counter-offer price of P5.5 million had been determined by the past due committee and approved by conservator Romey, after Rivera presented the same for discussion" and (2) "the meeting with Co was not to scale down the price and start negotiations anew, but a meeting on the already determined price of P5.5 million" Hence, citing Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals 49, petitioners are asking us to review and reverse such factual findings.

The first point was clearly passed upon by the Court of Appeals 50, thus:

There can be no other logical conclusion than that when, on September 1, 1987, Rivera informed plaintiffs by letter that "the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 Million for more than 101 hectares on lot basis, "such counter-offer price had been determined by the Past Due Committee and approved by the Conservator after Rivera had duly presented plaintiffs' offer for discussion by the Committee . . . Tersely put, under the established fact, the price of P5.5 Million was, as clearly worded in Rivera's letter (Exh. "E"), the official and definitive price at which the bank was selling the property. (p. 11, CA Decision)

xxx xxx xxx

. . . The argument deserves scant consideration. As pointed out by plaintiff, during the meeting of September 28, 1987 between the plaintiffs, Rivera and Luis Co, the senior vice-president of the bank, where the topic was the possible lowering of the price, the bank official refused it and confirmed that the P5.5 Million price had been passed upon by the Committee and could no longer be lowered (TSN of April 27, 1990, pp. 34-35) (p. 15, CA Decision).

The respondent Court did not believe the evidence of the petitioners on this point, characterizing it as "not credible" and "at best equivocal and considering the gratuitous and self-serving character of these declarations, the bank's submissions on this point do not inspire belief."

To become credible and unequivocal, petitioners should have presented then Conservator Rodolfo Romey to testify on their behalf, as he would have been in the best position to establish their thesis. Under the rules on evidence 51, such suppression gives rise to the presumption that his testimony would have been adverse, if produced.

The second point was squarely raised in the Court of Appeals, but petitioners' evidence was deemed insufficient by both the trial court and the respondent Court, and instead, it was respondent's submissions that were believed and became bases of the conclusions arrived at.

In fine, it is quite evident that the legal conclusions arrived at from the findings of fact by the lower courts are valid and correct. But the petitioners are now asking this Court to disturb these findings to fit the conclusion they are espousing, This we cannot do.

To be sure, there are settled exceptions where the Supreme Court may disregard findings of fact by the Court of Appeals 52. We have studied both the records and the CA Decision and we find no such exceptions in this case. On the contrary, the findings of the said Court are supported by a preponderance of competent and credible evidence. The inferences and conclusions are seasonably based on evidence duly identified in the Decision. Indeed, the appellate court patiently traversed and dissected the issues presented before it, lending credibility and dependability to its findings. The best that can be said in favor of petitioners on this point is that the factual findings of respondent Court did not correspond to petitioners' claims, but were closer to the evidence as presented in the trial court by private respondent. But this alone is no reason to reverse or ignore such factual findings, particularly where, as in this case, the trial court and the appellate court were in common agreement thereon. Indeed, conclusions of fact of a trial judge — as affirmed by the Court of Appeals — are conclusive upon this Court, absent any serious abuse or evident lack of basis or capriciousness of any kind, because the trial court is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and their courtroom manner as well as to examine the real evidence presented.

Epilogue.

In summary, there are two procedural issues involved forum-shopping and the raising of issues for the first time on appeal [viz., the extinguishment of the Bank's offer of P5.5 million and the conservator's powers to repudiate contracts entered into by the Bank's officers] — which per se could justify the dismissal of the present case. We did not limit ourselves thereto, but delved as well into the substantive issues — the perfection of the contract of sale and its enforceability, which required the determination of questions of fact. While the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and as a rule we are not required to look into the factual bases of respondent Court's decisions and resolutions, we did so just the same, if

only to find out whether there is reason to disturb any of its factual findings, for we are only too aware of the depth, magnitude and vigor by which the parties through their respective eloquent counsel, argued their positions before this Court.

We are not unmindful of the tenacious plea that the petitioner Bank is operating abnormally under a government-appointed conservator and "there is need to rehabilitate the Bank in order to get it back on its feet . . . as many people depend on (it) for investments, deposits and well as employment. As of June 1987, the Bank's overdraft with the Central Bank had already reached P1.023 billion . . . and there were (other) offers to buy the subject properties for a substantial amount of money." 53

While we do not deny our sympathy for this distressed bank, at the same time, the Court cannot emotionally close its eyes to overriding considerations of substantive and procedural law, like respect for perfected contracts, non-impairment of obligations and sanctions against forum-shopping, which must be upheld under the rule of law and blind justice.

This Court cannot just gloss over private respondent's submission that, while the subject properties may currently command a much higher price, it is equally true that at the time of the transaction in 1987, the price agreed upon of P5.5 million was reasonable, considering that the Bank acquired these properties at a foreclosure sale for no more than P3.5 million 54. That the Bank procrastinated and refused to honor its commitment to sell cannot now be used by it to promote its own advantage, to enable it to escape its binding obligation and to reap the benefits of the increase in land values. To rule in favor of the Bank simply because the property in question has algebraically accelerated in price during the long period of litigation is to reward lawlessness and delays in the fulfillment of binding contracts. Certainly, the Court cannot stamp its imprimatur on such outrageous proposition.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the questioned Decision and Resolution, the Court hereby DENIES the petition. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Moreover, petitioner Bank is REPRIMANDED for engaging in forum-shopping and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 92871 August 2, 1991

MARIA P. VDA. DE JOMOC, ET AL., petitioners, vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, 10th Judicial Region, Br. 25, respondents.

G.R. No. 92860 August 2, 1991

SPOUSES LIM LEONG KANG & LIM PUE KING, petitioners, vs.

MAURA SO & HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Eleventh Division), respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

The main issue raised in these consolidated petitions is whether or not private respondent Maura So abandoned or backed out from the agreement for the purchase of a lot belonging to the heirs of Pantaleon Jomoc, so that the subsequent sale to petitioner spouses Lim is null and void.

The subject lot in Cagayan de Oro City forms part of the estate of the late Pantaleon Jomoc. Because it was fictitiously sold and transferred to third persons, petitioner Maria P. Vda. Jomoc, as administratrix of the estate and in behalf of all the heirs, filed suit to recover the property before the trial court of Misamis Oriental in Civil Case No. 4750. Mariano So, the last of the transferees and the husband of Maria So, intervened. The case was decided in favor of Jomoc and was accordingly appealed by Mariano So and one Gaw Sur Cheng to the Court of Appeals. In February 1979, pending the appeal, Jomoc executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale of Land (Exhibit "A") with private respondent for P300,000.00. The document was not yet signed by all the parties nor notarized but in the meantime, Maura So had made partial payments amounting to P49,000.00.

In 1983, Mariano So, the appellant in the recovery proceeding, agreed to settle the case by executing a Deed of Reconveyance of the land in favor of the heirs of Pantaleon Jomoc. The reconveyance was in compliance with the decision in the recovery case and resulted in the dismissal of his appeal. On February 28, 1983, the heirs of Jomoc executed another extra-judicial settlement with absolute sale in favor of intervenors Lim Leong Kang and Lim Pue filing. Later, Maura So demanded from the Jomoc family the execution of a final deed of conveyance. They ignored the demand.

Thus, private respondent Maria So sued petitioners-heirs for specific performance to compel them to execute and deliver the proper registrable deed of sale over the lot. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 8983. So then filed a notice of lis pendens with the Register of Deeds on February 28, 1983. It was on the same date, February 28, 1983, allegedly upon the Jomocs' belief that Maura So had backed out from the transaction that the Jomocs executed the other extrajudicial settlement with sale of registered land in favor of the spouses Lim for a consideration of P200,000.00 part of which amount was allegedly intended to be returned to Maura So as reimbursement. The spouses Lim, however, registered their settlement and sale only on April 27, 1983.

The Jomocs as defendants, and the spouses Lim as intervenors alleged that complainant Maura so backed out as evidenced by an oral testimony that she did so in a conference with the Jomocs' lawyers where she expressed frustration in evicting squatters who demanded large sums as a condition for vacating. They alleged the lack of signatures of four of the heirs of Jomoc and Maura So herself as well as the lack of notarization.

The lower court, finding that there was no sufficient evidence to show complainant-respondents' withdrawal from the sale, concluded that: (1) the case is one of double sale; (2) the spouses-intervenors are registrants in bad faith who registered their questioned deed of sale long after the notice of lis pendens of Civil Case No. 8983 was recorded.

On appeal, the trial court decision was affirmed except for the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees and expenses for litigation. Hence, these petitions.

The petitioners' allegation that the contract of sale by Maria P. Jomoc with private respondent is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, is without merit. The petitioners-heirs, in their brief before the appellate court, admitted that the extrajudicial settlement with sale in favor of Maura So is valid and enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Of importance to the Court is the fact that the petitioners do not deny the existence of Exhibit "A"; including its terms and contents, notwithstanding the incompleteness in form. The meeting of the minds and the delivery of sums as partial payment is clear and this is admitted by both parties to the agreement. Hence, there was already a valid and existing contract, not merely perfected as the trial court saw it, but partly executed. It is of no moment whether or not it is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds, which rule we do not find to be applicable because of partial payment of the vendee's obligation and its acceptance by the vendors-heirs. The contract of sale of real property even if not complete in form, so long as the essential requisites of consent of the contracting parties, object, and cause of the obligation concur and they were clearly established to be present, is valid and effective as between the parties. Under Article 1357 of the Civil Code, its enforceability is recognized as each contracting party is granted the right to compel the other to execute the proper public instrument so that the valid contract of sale of registered land can be duly registered and can bind third persons. The complainant respondent correctly exercised such right simultaneously with a prayer for the enforcement of the contract in one complaint.

The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the factual finding of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals that private respondent did not subsequently abandon her intention of purchasing the subject lot.

The facts reveal an agreement between the contracting parties to Exhibit "A" to the effect that "the consideration of P300,000.00 or whatever balance remains after deducting the advanced payments thereon, shall be paid upon the termination of (Mariano So's) appeal in the case involving the property in question." (G.R. No. 92871, Rollo, p. 123). The finding is supported by substantial evidence. As reasoned by both courts, even if the sums paid by Maura So were allegedly intended to expedite the dismissal of the appeal of Mariano So, such payment only indicates interest in acquiring the subject lot. In addition, the claim by the defendants-petitioners that the payments were for the gathering of the several heirs from far places to sign Exhibit "A" confirms respondent Maura So's continuing interest. The terms of Exhibit "A" and the actual intention of the parties are clear and no reform requiring parole evidence is being sought to elucidate the intention further. The oral evidence offered by defendants-petitioners to show a subsequent refusal to proceed with the sale cannot be considered to reverse the express intention in the contract. Moreover, the two courts below had definite findings on this factual issue and we see no reason to reject and reverse their conclusion.

The petitioners contend that the trial court and the appellate court erred in declaring as void the subsequent deed of extra-judicial settlement with spouses Lim since specific performance and not annulment of contract due to existence of double sale, was the thrust of the complaint. This argument is untenable. The issue of double sale had to be resolved to determine whether or not complainant Maura So was entitled to the reliefs prayed for There was no hard evidence to show that the vinculum or contractual relation between petitioners-heirs and Maura So had been cut-off. Yet, petitioners-heirs sold

the same lot to spouses Lim. The case therefore requires us to discern who has the better right to the property.

Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides:

xxx xxx xxx

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

xxx xxx xxx

In view of this provision, the two courts below correctly ruled that the spouses Lim do not have a better right. They purchased the land with full knowledge of a previous sale to private respondent and without requiring from the vendors-heirs any proof' of the prior vendee's revocation of her purchase. They should have exercised extra caution in their purchase especially if at the time of the sale, the land was still covered by TCT No. 19648 bearing the name of Mariano So and was not yet registered in the name of petitioners- heirs of Pantaleon Jomoc (Original Records, p. 80), although it had been reconveyed to said heirs. Not having done this, petitioners spouses Lim cannot be said to be buyers in good faith. When they registered the sale on April 27, 1983 after having been charged with notice of lis pendens annotated as early as February 28, 1983 (the same date of their purchase), they did so in bad faith or on the belief that a registration may improve their position being subsequent buyers of the same lot. Under Article 1544, mere registration is not enough to acquire new title. Good faith must concur. ( Bergado v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 497 [1989]; Concepcion V. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83208, February 6,1991)

Considering the failure of the petitioners to show that the findings of the two courts below are not supported by substantial trial evidence or that their conclusions are contrary to law and jurisprudence, we find no reversible error in the questioned decision.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 13, 1989 and its resolution dated April 2, 1990 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-10265 March 3, 1916

EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

ISIDORO SANTOS, defendant-appellee.

CARSON, J.:

The complaint in this case alleges that the plaintiff is the sole heir of his mother, Guillerma Cuyugan y Candia, deceased; that in the year 1895 she borrowed the sum of P3,500 from the defendant and executed, at the same time, the document, Exhibit C, attached to the complaint, which purports on its face to be a deed of sale of the land described therein, with a reservation in favor of the vendor of the right to repurchase for the sum of P3,500; that although the instrument purports on its face to be a deed of sale, it was intended by the parties merely to evidence the loan of the nominal purchase price and to serve as a security for the repayment of the amount of the loan; that under the terms of the instrument plaintiff's mother was left in possession of the land as a nominal tenant of the defendant at an annual rental of P420, an amount equal to the agreed upon annual interest on the loan at the rate of 12 per cent per annum; that in the year 1897 the borrower paid P1,000 on the loan, whereupon the nominal rent on the land was reduced from P420 to P300 per annum, that being the amount of the interest on the unpaid balance of the loan at the rate of 12 per cent per annum; that plaintiff and his mother continued in the peaceable possession of the land until the defendant, in the year prior to the institution of this action, served notice on the plaintiff that an annual payment of P420 would be required of him thereafter, that is to say, the original amount of the annual payments as agreed upon prior to the payment of P1,000 on the debt in the year 1897; that upon plaintiff's refusal to meet this demand, defendant set up a claim of ownership in himself and threatened to eject the plaintiff from the land; that thereupon plaintiff offered to pay, and still stands ready to pay the balance due on the original indebtedness and the unpaid interest thereon for one year, but that defendant declined and continues to decline to accept the amount tendered and to cancel the formal deed of sale to the land.

The prayer of the complaint is that the defendant be required to accept the amount thus tendered, and to cancel the formal deed of conveyance.

A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the court below on the ground that it does not set forth facts constituting a cause of action — it appearing on the face of the deed of conveyance attached to the complaint that it was a deed of sale of land with a reserved right in the vendor to repurchase; and the allegations of the complaint disclosing that the deed of conveyance was executed by plaintiff's mother, that the stipulated price of repurchase has not been paid in full, and that the time allowed in the deed for repurchase has long since expired.

This is an appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint.

We are of opinion that the demurrer should have been overruled on two separate and distinct grounds, either one of which is sufficient to sustain the ruling.

1. Since the demurrer to the complaint admits all the material facts well pleaded therein, it follows that, for the purposes of the demurrer, the defendant admits that the true nature and intent of the transaction mentioned in the complaint was a mere loan of money secured by a formal conveyance of the land of the vendor; that the written instrument, purporting to be a deed of sale of the land, with a right of repurchase reserved by the vendor, did not set forth the real nature of the agreement between

the parties thereto; and that the true intention and understanding of the parties at the time when the deed was executed and delivered was that it should be held by the defendant, not as a deed of sale of the land, but rather as an instrument in the nature of a mortgage, evidencing a loan secured by the lands of the borrower. The demurrer further admits that the borrower's successor in interest had tendered the full amount of the indebtedness together with the interest due and payable thereon at the time of the tender, and that he stands ready at any time to pay the full amount due on the loan with interest, upon the cancellation by the defendant of the formal deed of conveyance of the land.

But proof of these facts would clearly entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. The demurrer should therefore have been overruled and the plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to submit his evidence in support of the allegation of his complaint.

It is contended, however, that even if all these allegations in the complaint were true in fact, nevertheless, the demurrer should be sustained, because, as it is said, these allegations of fact can not be sustained at the trial by the introduction of competent testimony, since the court will be compelled to exclude any evidence offered by the plaintiff which would tend to alter, vary, or defeat the terms of the written deed of conveyance which is attached to the complaint as an exhibit, and the execution of which the plaintiff's mother is expressly alleged and admitted in the complaint.

In support of this contention we are cited to various decisions of this court wherein we have held that the intent of the parties executing instruments purporting to evidence sales of lands with the right of repurchase reserved to the vendors was sufficiently and satisfactorily disclosed by the terms of the instruments themselves; and that the intent of the parties as disclosed by the terms of these instruments should be given full force and effect in accordance therewith, despite the contentions of the vendors that the original transactions between the parties were had in contemplation of, and to give effect to contracts or agreements for the loan of money, the repayment of which was to be secured by the lands of the borrower.

It is true that in a number of cases submitted to this court in which such a contention has been advanced, and in which the language of the instrument evidencing the transaction under investigation clearly and without ambiguity set forth a contract of sale with a reserved right to repurchase, we have uniformly declined to maintain such contentions, and have enforced the contract in accord with the terms of the instrument by which it was evidence. But it does not necessarily follow that such a contention can never be successfully asserted and maintained in the courts in this jurisdiction.

An examination of these cases will disclose that the true ground upon which they are based was the lack of evidence sufficiently clear, satisfactory and convincing to sustain a holding that the true nature of the transaction between the parties was any other than that set forth in written instruments executed by them and purporting to evidence sales of land with a right of repurchase reserved to the vendors. And the fact that, in the cases relied upon, the court examined and weighed the evidence before rejecting it as insufficient affords reasonable ground for an inference that had the court been of the opinion that the parol evidence submitted in any of these cases was clear, satisfactory and convincing, it might, and doubtless would have arrived at a different conclusion.

But however this may be, and without entering upon an extend review of the reported opinions of this court to ascertain whether language has been used in any of them which might be construed as an intimation by this court of its views on the question now under consideration, we are of the opinion that

the issues raised on this appeal are such as to impose on us the duty of reexamining the whole question as to the power of the courts in this jurisdiction to admit extraneous parol evidence in support of allegations that an instrument in writing, purporting on its face to transfer the absolute title to property, or to transfer the title with a mere right of repurchase under specified conditions reserved to the vendor, was in truth and in fact given merely as a security; and upon proof of the truth of such allegations to enforce such an agreement or understanding in accord with the true intend of the parties at the time when it was executed. The question having been brought here on an appeal from a ruling on a demurrer, the issue of law is squarely presented, without being obscured or befogged by the intervention of any doubtful question of fact, or of the relevancy, materiality, competence or probative value of specific questions and answers in a particular case.

We are of opinion, and so hold, that on both principle and authority, this question must be answered in the affirmative.

The Supreme Court of Porto Rico in the case of Monagas vs. Albertucci (17 Porto Rico, 684, cited and in effect affirmed as to this ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, 235 U. S., 81) observed in the course of a discussion of a similar question that — "The American doctrine on this subject does not differ materially from the principles set forth in our Civil Code," a code which is substantially identical with the Civil Code of the Philippines in all its provisions with relation to the question under consideration; and we are satisfied on a full review of the whole question that, under our Codes, both substantive and adjective, the doctrine which must be applied in this jurisdiction "does not differ materially" from the equitable doctrine frequently announced and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States in the numerous cases in which similar questions have come to it from the various states and territories within its jurisdiction.

We shall consider first, whether the provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure should be so construed as to deny the right to the borrower in such cases, to introduce extraneous and parol evidence to support his allegations as to the existence of a parol agreement, whereby the lender obligated himself to hold the title to the lands merely as security for the repayment of the debt; and further whether there is anything in that Code which would deny the right of the borrower in such cases, upon proof of such allegations, to enforce the agreement in accordance with its terms. The authors of the new Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190 of the Civil Commission) were American lawyers, and the avowed purpose and object of its enactment was to introduce in these Islands a system of procedure of civil cases modelled upon precedents in general use in the United States. Most of its provisions are borrowed directly from the statute books of one or other of the States of the Union, and many of its more important provisions have been construed and applied by both state and federal courts of last resort. We have, therefore, in the Supreme Court Reports of the various States from which these provisions were borrowed, numerous precedents of strong and persuasive, if not conclusive authority; and, except in so far as they are affected by the substantive law in force in this jurisdiction or necessarily modified by local conditions, we have always felt ourselves bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in construing and applying statutory enactments modelled upon or borrowed from English or American originals.

The various provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure which have any bearing on the question now under consideration, or statutory provisions of like tenor and effect, have been construed and applied by all or nearly all the courts of last resorts in England and the United States; and while these courts are not wholly in accord as to the reasoning upon which their conclusions are based, it may safely be asserted that with substantial, if not absolute unanimity, they have arrived a substantially similar results.

But we shall not shop at this time to review all the questions which have been raised in connection with the subject now under consideration. It will be sufficient for our purposes to examine the obligations which have been advanced against the admission of parol evidence to sustain allegations similar in effect to those set forth in the case at bar, based either on the ground that such evidence should be excluded under the "Statute of Frauds," the alleged agreement not having been reduced to writing, or on the ground that its admission would violate the rule that parol evidence will not be admitted to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument.

For this purpose we can do no better than to insert here a few citations from the books, which set forth quite fully the doctrine in this regard that has been announced by the great weight of authority, and which in our opinion should prevail in this jurisdiction in applying and construing the pertinent provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure. But, before doing so, it may be well to indicate that we do not adopt every proposition advanced in these somewhat extended citations from text-book and judicial authority, and that, at this time, we make the doctrine our own only to the extent of declaring that the provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure do not have the effect of excluding parol evidence in support of allegations such as those set forth in the complaint in the case at bar, or of denying the right of the borrower in cases of this kind to enforce the alleged agreement in accordance with its terms. Supported by numerous citations the doctrine summarily stated in 27 Cyclopedia, page 1023, is as follows:

Effect of statute of frauds. — The statute of frauds does not stand in the way of treating an absolute deed as a mortgage, when such was the intention of the parties, although the agreement for redemption or defeasance rests wholly in parol, or is proved by parol evidence. The courts will not permit the statute to be used as a shield for fraud, or as a means for perpetrating fraud.

Rule prohibiting contradiction of written documents. — The admission of parol testimony to prove that a deed absolute in form was in fact given and accepted as a mortgage does not violate the rule against the admission of oral evidence to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument.

In the case of Russell vs. Southard (53 U. S., 139, 147), the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with these objections in part as follows:

The first question is, whether this transaction was a mortgage, or a sale.

It is insisted, on behalf of the defendants, that this question is to be determined by inspection of the written papers alone, oral evidence not being admissible to contradict, vary, or add to, their contents. But we have no doubt extraneous evidence is admissible to inform the court of every material fact known to the parties when the deed and memorandum were executed. This is clear, both upon principle and authority. To insist on what was really a mortgage, as a sale, is in equity a fraud, which cannot be successfully practiced, under the shelter of any written papers, however precise and complete they may appear to be. In Conway vs. Alexander (7 Cranch, 238), Ch. J. Marshall says: `Having made these observations on the deed itself, the court will proceed to examine those extrinsic circumstances, which are to determine whether it was a sale or a mortgage;' and in Morris vs. Nixon (1 How., 126), it is stated; 'The charge against Nixon is, substantially, a fraudulent attempt to convert that into an absolute sale, which was originally

meant to be a security for a loan. It is in this view of the case that the evidence is admitted to ascertain the truth of the transaction, though the deed be absolute on its face.'

These views are supported by many authorities. (Maxwell vs. Montacute, Pr. in Ch., 526; Dixon vs. Parker, 2 Ves., Sen., 225; Prince vs. Bearden, 1 A. K. Marsh. [Ky.], 170; Oldham vs. Halley, 2 J. J. March. [Ky.], 114; Whittick vs. Kane, 1 Paige [N. Y.], 202; Taylor vs. Luther, 2 Sumn, 232; Flagg vs. Mann, Id., 538; Overton vs. Bigelow, 3 Yerg. [Tenn.] 513; Brainerd vs. Brainerd, 15 Conn., 575; Wright vs. Bates, 13 Vt., 341; McIntyre vs. Humphries, 1 Hoffm. [N. Y.] Ch., 331; 4 Kent, 143, note A., and 2 Green. Cruise, 86, n.)

It is suggested that a different rule is held by the highest court of equity in Kentucky. If it were, with great respect for that learned court, this court would not feel bound thereby. This being a suit in equity, and oral evidence being admitted, or rejected, not by the mere force of any state statute, but upon the principles of general equity jurisprudence, this court must be governed by its own views of those principles. (Robinson vs. Campbell, 3 Wheat., 212; United States vs. Howland, 4 Id., 108; Boyle vs. Zacharie et al., 6 Pet., 658; Swift vs. Tyson, 16 Id., 1; Foxcroft vs. Mallett, 4 How., 379.) But we do not perceive that the rule held in Kentucky differs from that above laid down. The rule, as stated in Thomas vs. McCormack (9 Dana [Ky.], 109), is that oral evidence is not admissible in opposition to the legal import of the deed, and the positive denial in the answer, unless a foundation for such evidence had been first laid by an allegation, and some proof of fraud or mistake in the execution of the conveyance, or some vice in the consideration.

But the inquiry still remains, what amounts to an allegation of fraud, or of some vice in the consideration — and it is the doctrine of this court, that when it is alleged and proved that a loan on security was really intended, and the defendant sets up the loan as a payment of purchase money, and the conveyance as a sale, both fraud and a vice in the consideration are sufficiently averred and proved to require a court of equity to hold the transaction to be a mortgage; and we know of no court which has stated this doctrine with more distinctness, than the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. In Edrington vs. Harper (3 J. J. Marsh. [Ky.], 355), that court declared: `The fact that the real transaction between the parties was a borrowing and lending, will, whenever, or however it may appear, show that a deed absolute on its face was intended as a security for money; and whenever it can be ascertained to be a security for money, it is only a mortgage, however artfully it may be disguised.'

xxx xxx xxx

In respect to the written memorandum, it was clearly intended to manifest a conditional sale. Very uncommon pains are taken to do this. Indeed, so much anxiety is manifested on this point, as to make it apparent that the draftsman considered he had a somewhat difficult task to perform. But it is not to be forgotten, that the same language which truly describes a real sale, may also be employed to cut off the right of redemption, in case of a loan on security; that it is the duty of the court to watch vigilantly these exercises of skill, lest they should be effectual to accomplish what equity forbids; and that, in doubtful cases, the court leans to the conclusion that the reality was a mortgage, and not a sale. (Conway vs. Alexander, 7 Cranch, 218; Flagg vs. Mann, 2 Sumn., 533; Secrest vs. Turner, 2 J. J. March. [Ky.], 471; Edrington vs. Harper, 3 Id., 354;

Crane vs. Bonnell, 1 Green [N. J.] Ch., 264; Robertson vs. Campbell, 2 Call. [Va.], 421; Poindexter vs. McCannon, 1 Dev. [N. C.] Eq., 373.)

It is true Russell must have given his assent to this form of the memorandum; but the distress for money under which he then was, places him in the same condition as other borrowers, in numerous cases reported in the books, who have submitted to the dictation of the lender under the pressure of their wants; and a court of equity does not consider a consent, thus obtained, to be sufficient to fix the rights of the parties. `Necessitous men,' says the Lord Chancellor, in Vernon vs. Bethell (2 Eden, 113), `are not, truly speaking, free men; but, to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon them.'

The memorandum does not contain any promise by Russell to repay the money, and no personal security was taken; but it is settled that this circumstance does not make the conveyance less effectual as a mortgage. (Floyer vs. Lavington, 1 P. Wms., 268; Lawly vs. Hooper, 3 Atk., 278; Scott vs. Fields, 7 Watts. [Pa.], 360; Flagg vs. Mann, 2 Sumn., 533; Ancaster vs. Mayer, 1 Bro. C. C., 464.) And consequently it is not only entirely consistent with the conclusion that a mortgage was intended, but in a case where it was the design of one of the parties to clothe the transaction with the forms of a sale, in order to cut off the right of redemption, it is not to be expected that the party would, by taking personal security, effectually defeat his own attempt to avoid the appearance of a loan.

Citing and relying upon this case Mr. Justice Field speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States (Brick vs. Brick, 98 U. S., 514) announced the doctrine with relation to transactions in personal property, which is summarized as follows in the head notes:

Parol evidence is admissible in equity to show that a certificate of stock issued to a party as owner was delivered to him as security for a loan of money. A court of equity will look beyond the terms of an instrument to the real transaction, and when that is shown to be one of security and not of sale, it will give effect to the actual contract of the parties.

The rule which excludes such evidence to contradict or vary a written instrument does not forbid an inquiry into the object of the parties in execution and receiving it.

In the case of Monagas vs. Albertucci (235 U. S., 81, 83) the Supreme Court of the United States inserts the following excerpt from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico (17 Porto Rico, 684, 686):

The whole case really turns on the question of whether the written instrument in controversy was a mortgage or a conditional sale. If it is the latter, it must be complied with according to its terms; if the former, the plaintiff must be allowed to repay the money received and take a reconveyance of the land. The real intention of the parties at the time the written instrument was made must govern in the interpretation given to it by the courts. This must be ascertained from the circumstances surrounding the transaction and from the language of the document itself. The correct test, where it can be applied, is the continued existence of a debt or liability between the parties. If such exists, the conveyance may be held to be merely a security for the debt or an indemnity against the liability. On the contrary, if no debt or liability is found to exist, then the transaction is not a mortgage, but merely a sale with a contract of repurchase within a fixed time. While every case depends on its own special facts, certain circumstances are

considered as important, and the courts regard them as throwing much light upon the real intent of the parties and upon the nature of such transactions: such are the existence of a collateral agreement made by the grantor for the payment of money to the grantee, his liability to pay interest, inadequacy of price paid for the conveyance, the grantor still remaining in possession of the land conveyed, and any negotiation or application for a loan made preceding or during the transaction resulting in the conveyance. The American doctrine on this subject does not differ materially from the principles set forth in our Civil Code.

We insert here an extract of some length from the discussion of the subject (supported by numerous citations of authority) found in Jones' Commentaries on Evidence, (1913) volume 3, paragraphs 446, 447:

446. To show that instruments apparently absolute are only securities. — It has long been the settled rule that in courts exercising equitable jurisdiction it is admissible to prove by parol that instruments in writing apparently transferring the absolute title are in fact only given as security. The doctrine is thus stated by Mr. Field: `It is an established doctrine that a court of equity will treat a deed, absolute in form, as a mortgage, when it is executed as security for loan of money. That court looks beyond the terms of the instrument to the real transaction; and when that is shown to be one of security and not of sale, it will give effect to the actual contract of the parties. As the equity, upon which the court acts in such cases, arises from the real character of the transaction, any evidence, written or oral, tending to show this is admissible. The rule which excludes parol testimony to contradict or vary a written instrument has reference to the language used by the parties. That cannot be qualified or varied from its natural import, but must speak for itself. The rule does not forbid an inquiry into the object of the parties in executing and receiving the instrument.' Although in some of the earlier cases this evidence was received only on the grounds of fraud or mistake, yet in later cases it was deemed sufficient evidence of fraud for the grantee to treat the conveyance as absolute, when in fact it was not, and the tendency of the modern decisions is that such evidence may be received to show the real nature and object of the transaction, although no fraud or mistake of any kind is alleged or proved. It is held that "the agreement for the defeasance, whether written or unwritten, is no more than one of the conditions upon which the deed was given, and therefore constitutes a part of the consideration for the conveyance . . . . Where the deed does not contain the defeasance, the presumption arises that the conveyance is absolute, and, in making proof that a defeasance was intended by the parties, and was in fact a part of the consideration upon which the conveyance was made, this presumption must be removed by testimony before the debtor can use the evidence showing his right to defeat the absolute character of the conveyance . . . . It comes finally to a question of what was the understanding and the intention of the parties at the time the instrument was made; and this, like any other fact, depends for its support upon what was said and done by the parties at the time, together with all the other circumstances bearing upon the question.'

447. Same — Real intention of the parties to be ascertained. — In applying the exception under discussion, the extrinsic evidence will not be received because of any particular form of language which the parties may have adopted. As we have shown in the preceding section, the intention of the parties must govern; and it matters not what peculiar form the transaction may have taken. The inquiry always is, Was a security for the loan of money or other property intended? But where the deed and accompanying papers on their face constitute a mortgage, parol evidence is not competent to show the contrary. In solving the question upon the facts, a

few things are absolutely necessary to be found to exist before the deed can be construed a mortgage. A debt owing to the mortgagee, or a liability incurred for the grantor, either preexisting or created at the time the deed is made, is essential to give the deed the character of a mortgage. The relation of debtor and creditor must appear. The existence of the debt is one of the tests. The amount of the debt, as well as its continuance, should also be made to appear where a foreclosure is asked in the same suit wherein it is sought to establish the character of the instrument. It is also of importance to know precisely when the character claimed for the instrument was fixed. In construing the deed to be a mortgage, its character as such must have existed from its very inception, — created at the time the conveyance was made. The character of the transaction is precisely what the intention of the parties at the time made it. It will therefore be discovered that the testimony of those who were present at the time the instrument was made, and especially of those who participated in the transaction, becomes most important. In arriving at the real intent of the parties, their statements and acts at the time of the transaction, the inadequacy of the consideration named in the deed, the prior existence of a debt, and the recognition of its continuance, as by the payment of interest or other acts, are all facts to be considered, and are relevant to the issue. But although parol evidence is received in such cases to show the real nature of the transaction, the presumption is that the instrument is what it purports to be; and before a deed absolute in form can be shown to be a mortgage, the proof should be clear and convincing. The burden rests upon the moving party of overcoming the strong presumption arising from the terms of a written instrument. If the proofs are doubtful and unsatisfactory, if there is a failure to overcome this presumption by testimony entirely plain and convincing beyond reasonable controversy, the writing will be held to express correctly the intention of the parties. A judgment of the court, a deliberate deed or writing, are of too much solemnity to be brushed away by loose and inconclusive evidence. Proof tending to show that no transfer of title was contemplated does not fall within the condemnation of the rule prohibiting oral evidence to vary the terms of a written instrument. As the rule has often been stated, `to convert a deed absolute into a mortgage, the evidence should be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt that the real intention of the parties was to execute a mortgage.'"

Having disposed of the contention that the provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure, enacted under American sovereignty, forbid the introduction of parol evidence to establish the true nature of transactions such as that under consideration in the case at bar, we come now to consider whether there is anything in the Spanish Codes which denies the power of the courts to enforce the equitable doctrine announced by the Supreme Court of the United States with reference to agreements and understandings of this nature.

But first, it may be well at this time to emphasize the fact that the courts of these Islands are not organized with reference to the old English and American classification into courts of law and equity; and that our Codes recognize no distinction between actions at law and suits in equity, as these terms are understood in English and American jurisdictions, wherein a distinction is made between law and equity in the enforcement of private rights and the redress of private wrongs.

Deeply embedded among the fundamental principles on which the authors of the Civil Code of Spain erected that monument to their genuis as codifiers, is the broad equitable rule that "No man may wrongfully (tortiously) enrich himself at the expense of (to the injury of) another." ("E aun dixeron, que ninguno non deue enriqueszer tortizeramente con daño de otro"). (Regla 17, Title 34, Setena Partida, sentencias Tribunal de España, May 1, 1875; December 16, 1880; May 24, 1882, April 24, 1896.)

As deeply embedded at the very foundation of all the provisions of the Spanish Code touching the nature and effect of all contractual obligations is the maxim that the will of the contracting parties is the law of their contract — a maxim which is amplified in the elementary propositions that "contracts are perfected by mere consent" (article 1258); that "the contracting parties may make any agreement and establish any clauses and conditions which they may deem advisable, provided they are not in contravention of law, morals, or public order" (article 1255); that "the validity and fulfillment of contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties" (article 1256); and that "contracts shall be binding, whatever be the form in which they may have been executed, provided the essential conditions required for their validity exist" (article 1278).

In the light of these elementary and basic principles of the Code there can be no question, in the absence of express statutory prohibition, as to the validity of an agreement or understanding whereby the lender of money, who as security for the repayment of the loan has taken a deed to land, absolute on its face or in the form of a deed reserving a mere right of repurchase to the vendor, obligates himself to hold such deed, not as evidence of a contract of sale but by way of security for the repayment of the debt; and that unless the rights of innocent third persons have intervened the lender of the money may be compelled to comply specifically with the terms of such an agreement, whether it be oral or written; and further, that he will not be permitted, in violation of its terms, to set up title in himself or to assert a claim or absolute ownership.

If the parties actually enter into such an agreement, the lender of the money is legally and morally bound to fulfill it. Of course such an oral contract does not give the borrower a real right in the lands unless it is executed in compliance with the formalities prescribed by law. If entered into orally, it creates a mere personal obligation which in no wise effects the lands, and if the lender conveys the lands to innocent third persons, the borrower must content himself with a mere right of action for damages against the lender, for failure to comply with his agreement. But so long as the land remains in the hands of the lender, the borrower may demand the fulfillment of the agreement, and a mere lack of any of the formalities prescribed under the Spanish Code for the execution of contracts affecting real estate will not defeat his right to have the contract fulfilled, as the lender may be compelled in appropriate proceedings to execute the contract with the necessary prescribed formalities.

We have frequently held that under the Spanish Codes an oral contract affecting lands, even an oral contract for the sale of lands, was valid and enforceable, provided none of the essential requisites of all valid contracts is lacking, that is to say, (1) consent, (2) definite object, and (3) causa or consideration. The lack of the formal requisites prescribed by the Code in order that such contracts may become effective to bind or convey the property, such as their execution in public instruments and the like, does not invalidate them as personal obligations, as "either party may compel the other to comply with such formalities" from the moment the valid personal obligation has been entered into. (Article 1279 of the Civil Code.)

In like manner an agreement such as we have just described, entered into by a lender of money, who has taken lands and security for its repayment, is a valid contract, and we know of no provision in the Codes which denies the right of the borrower to demand its fulfillment. On the contrary, provided the rights of innocent purchasers for valuable consideration have not intervened, and provided of course that the borrower can establish satisfactorily the fact that such a contract was actually entered into, the principle that no man may wrongfully enrich himself at the expense of another imposes an imperative obligation on the lender to carry out his contract, and secures the right to the borrower to have it enforced by the courts. And on the other hand, the same principle secures to the lender the right to

enforce the contract upon the failure of the borrower to comply with its terms, that is to say, to have the lands held as security sold and the proceeds applied to the payment of the debt.

But this conclusion is in substance and in effect identical with that arrived at by the courts in England and the United States, when they declare that the transaction in such cases will be treated as in the nature of an equitable mortgage and enforced as such. That is merely to say that the parties will be compelled to comply with the terms of the agreement that the lands should be held as security for the debt, provided of course the agreement can be established by competent evidence and the rights of innocent third parties have not intervened.

Under neither system will the contract be given the effect of a duly recorded or a valid mortgage, so as to bind the lands in the hands of innocent third persons; but the result under both systems is substantially identical in that as long as the property remains in the hands of the lender he cannot deny the right of the borrower to recover the lands by the payment of the debt, nor can he set up a claim of absolute ownership on the lands which will defeat the right of the borrower in this regard until and unless the borrower's right of action has prescribed.

The real difficulty which has confronted the borrowers in attempting to enforce alleged contracts of this nature has not lain in the failure of the law to recognize their rights in the premises, but rather in the inherent difficulties confronting them in their attempts to prove the existence of such a contract.

In the very nature of things the disqualification of those directly interested in an action to testify as witnesses, prescribed in article 1247 of the Spanish Code, must have enormously increased the difficulties confronting a borrower in an attempt to establish the existence of such an oral contract, prior to the enactment of the new Code of Civil Procedure prescribing new rules in this regard. This because, as a rule, the existence of such contracts is made known to few persons other than the contracting parties themselves.

And while the new rules of evidence have removed this difficulty from the path of the lender seeking to establish the existence of such an agreement, they by no means relief him of the necessity of establishing his allegations by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. The principle on which the codifiers rested the rule laid down in article 1248 of the Civil Code is not less imperative under the new rules of evidence than under those found in the Spanish Code. That article is as follows:

The probative force of the testimony of the witnesses shall be valued by the courts in accordance with the provisions of the Law of Civil Procedure, taking care to avoid that, by the simple coincidence of some testimony, unless its truthfulness be evident, the affairs may be finally decided in which are usually employed public deeds, private documents, or any commencement of written evidence.

In this jurisdiction, as in the United States, the existence of an oral agreement or understanding such as that alleged in the complaint in the case at bar cannot be maintained on vague, uncertain and indefinite testimony, against the reasonable presumption that prudent men who enter into such contracts will execute them in writing, and comply with the formalities prescribed by law for the creation of a valid mortgage. But where the evidence as to the existence of such an understanding or agreement is clear, convincing and satisfactory, the same broad principles of equity operate in this jurisdiction as in the United States to compel the parties to live up to the terms of their contract.

2. The second ground upon which the demurrer should have been overruled is that it admits the truth of the allegation of the complaint that in the year 1897, two years after the date of the execution of the instrument purporting to be a deed of sale, the nominal vendor paid the nominal purchaser P1,000, whereupon the nominal rent of the land was reduced from P420 to P300 per annum, the real purpose and object of this arrangement being to reduce the amount of the annual interest on the original loan made to the nominal vendor of the land, proportionately to the reduction of the amount of the loan itself by the payment of P1,000. If it be true that two years after the transaction evidenced by the instrument attached to the complaint, the defendant accepted from the plaintiff's mother the sum of P1,000, and thereafter reduced the amount of the annual payments to be made by her, it cannot be doubted that the plaintiff has a good cause of action against the defendant.

The acceptance by the defendant of this large sum of money, under the circumstances as they appear from the complaint, can only be accounted for on one of two hypotheses. Either the original transaction was in truth and in fact an arrangement or agreement by virtue of which a loan of money was made and secured by a formal deed of sale of land with a reserved right of repurchase; or, if the original transaction was in truth and in fact one of purchase and sale of real estate, with a reserved right of repurchase in the vendor, then the purchaser, by the acceptance from the vendor of the sum of P1,000, waived and surrendered his rights under the original contract, and entered into a new contract with the vendor, under which he obligated himself to cancel the deed, or resell the land to the original vendor on the payment of the balance of the original purchase price, and bound himself not to exercise his right, under the original deed of sale, to refuse to allow the original vendor to repurchase after the expiration of the period stipulated in the original contract for that purpose.

Upon either hypothesis, plaintiff would clearly be entitled to the relief prayed for in his complaint. Of course the defendant is not entitled to keep both the land and the payment of a thousand pesos. The acceptance and retention of such a payment is wholly inconsistent with a claim of a right of absolute ownership in the land, without any obligation to resell it to the original vendor. Defendant can not eat his cake and have it too.

In the case of Lichauco vs. Berenguer (20 Phil. Rep., 12), we found the fact that various partial payments had been made by the vendor, and accepted by the purchaser, for the purpose of repaying the original purchase price, absolutely incompatible "with the idea of the irrevocability of the title of ownership of the purchaser" at the expiration of the term stipulated in the original contract for the exercise of the right of repurchase. Speaking through the Chief Justice, we said in that case:

The vendee, who has been reimbursed by the vendor for a part of the repurchase price, is bound to fulfill the obligation to sell back, derived from the sale with right to repurchase, or must show reason why he may keep this part of the price and, notwithstanding his so doing, be considered released from effecting the resale. He may be entitled to require the completion of the price, or that he be paid other expenses before he returns the thing which he had purchased under such a condition subsequent; but the exercise of the right of redemption having been begun and admitted, the irrevocability of the ownership in such manner acquired is in all respects incompatible with these acts so performed.

The order entered in the court below, sustaining the demurrer to the complaint must be reversed, and the record remanded for further proceedings, without costs in this instance.

Let judgment be entered in accordance herewith. So ordered.