G.R. No. 70615 October 28, 1986 VIRGILIO CALLANTA, petitioner, vs. CARNATION PHILIPPINES, INC.

, and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION [NLRC], respondents. Danilo L. Pilapil for petitioner.

FERNAN, J.: The issue raised in this petition for certiorari is whether or not an action for illegal dismissal prescribes in three [3] years pursuant to Articles 291 and 292 of the Labor Code which provide: Art. 291. Offenses. Offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall prescribe in three [3] years. xxx xxx xxx Art. 292. Money Claims. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three [3] years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred. xxx xxx xxx Petitioner Virgilio Callanta was employed by private respondent Carnation Philippines, Inc. [Carnation, for brevity] in January 1974 as a salesman in the Agusan del Sur area. Five [51 years later or on June 1, 1979, respondent Carnation filed with the Regional Office No. X of the Ministry of Labor and Employment [MOLE], an application for clearance to terminate the employment of Virgilio Callanta on the alleged grounds of serious misconduct and misappropriation of company funds amounting to P12,000.00, more or less. Upon approval on June 26, 1979 by MOLE Regional Director Felizardo G. Baterbonia, of said clearance application, petitioner Virgilio Callanta's employment with Carnation was terminated effective June 1, 1979. On July 5, 1982, Virgilio Callanta filed with the MOLE, Regional Office No. X, a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for reinstatement, backwages, and damages against respondent Carnation. In its position paper dated October 5, 1982, respondent Carnation put in issue the timeliness of petitioner's complaint alleging that the same is barred by prescription for having been filed more than three [3] years after the date of Callanta's dismissal.

On March 24, 1983, Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos rendered a decision finding the termination of Callanta's employment to be without valid cause. Respondent Carnation was therefore ordered to reinstate Virgilio Callanta to his former position with backwages of one [1] year without qualification including all fringe benefits provided for by law and company policy, within ten [10] days from receipt of the decision. It was likewise provided that failure on the part of respondent to comply with the decision shall entitle complainant to full backwages and all fringe benefits without loss of seniority rights.
On April 18, 1983, respondent Carnation appealed to respondent National Labor Relations Commission 1 [NLRC] which in a decision dated February 25, 1985, set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It declared the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Virgilio Callanta to have already prescribed. Thus:

Records show that Virgilio Callanta was dismissed from his employment with respondent company effective June 1, 1979; and that on 5 July 1982, he filed the instant complaint against respondent for: Unlawful Dismissal with Backwages, etc. The provisions of the Labor Code applicable are: Art. 291. Offenses. Offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall prescribe in three [3] years. Art. 292. Money claims. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three [3] years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred. Obviously, therefore, the causes of action, i.e., "Unlawful Dismissal" and "Backwages, etc." have already prescribed, the complaint therefore having been filed beyond the three-year period from accrual date. With this finding, there is no need to discuss the other issues raised in the appeal. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and another one entered, dismissing the complaint. SO ORDERED.
Hence, this petition, which We gave due course in the resolution dated September 18, 1985.
2

Petitioner contends that since the Labor Code is silent as to the prescriptive period of an action for illegal dismissal with claims for reinstatement, backwages and damages, the applicable law, by way of supplement, is Article 1146 of the New Civil Code which provides a four [4]-year prescriptive period for an action predicated upon "an injury to the rights of the plaintiff" considering that an action for illegal dismissal is neither a "penal offense" nor a mere "money claim," as contemplated under Articles 291 and 292, respectively, of the Labor Code. Petitioner further claims that an action for illegal dismissal is a more serious

violation of the rights of an employee as it deprives him of his means of livelihood; thus, it should correspondingly have a prescriptive period longer than the three 13] years provided for in "money claims." Public respondent, on the other hand, counters with the arguments that a case for illegal dismissal falls under the general category of "offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations pursuant thereto" provided under Article 291 or a money claim under Article 292, so that petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal filed on July 5, 1982, or three [3] years, one [1] month and five [5] days after his alleged dismissal on June 1, 1979, was filed beyond the three-year prescriptive period as provided under Articles 291 and 292 of the Labor Code, hence, barred by prescription; that while it is admittedly a more serious offense as it involves an employee's means of livelihood, there is no logic in assuming that it has a longer prescriptive period, as naturally, one who is truly aggrieved would immediately seek the redress of his grievance; that assuming arguendo that the law does not provide for a prescriptive period for the enforcement of petitioner's right, it is nevertheless beyond dispute that the said right has already lapsed into a stale demand; and that considering the seriousness of the act committed by petitioner, private respondent was justified in terminating the employment. We find for petitioner.
Verily, the dismissal without just cause of an employee from his employment constitutes a violation of the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations. Such violation, however, does not amount to an "offense" as understood under Article 291 of the Labor Code. In its broad sense, an offense is an illegal act which does not amount to a crime as defined in the penal law, but which by statute carries with it a 3 penalty similar to those imposed by law for the punishment of a crime. It is in this sense that a general penalty clause is provided under Article 289 of the Labor Code which provides that "... any violation of the provisions of this code declared to be unlawful or penal in nature shall be punished with a fine of not less than One Thousand Pesos [P1,000.00] nor more than Ten Thousand Pesos [10,000.00], or imprisonment of not less than three [3] months nor more than three [3] years, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court." [Emphasis supplied.]

The confusion arises over the use of the term "illegal dismissal" which creates the impression that termination of an employment without just cause constitutes an offense. It must be noted, however that unlike in cases of commission of any of the probihited activities during strikes or lockouts under Article 265, unfair labor practices under Article 248, 249 and 250 and illegal recruitment activities under Article 38, among others, which the Code itself declares to be unlawful, termination of an employment without just or valid cause is not categorized as an unlawful practice.
Besides, the reliefs principally sought by an employee who was illegally dismissed from his employment are reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges, if any, backwages and damages, in case there is bad faith in his dismissal. As an affirmative relief, reinstatement may be ordered, with or without backwages. While ordinarily, reinstatement is a concomitant of backwages, the two are not necessarily complements, nor is the award of one a condition precedent to an award of the 4 other. And, in proper cases, backwages may be awarded without ordering reinstatement . In either case, no penalty of fine nor improsonment is imposed on the employer upon a finding of illegality in the dismissal. By the very nature of the reliefs sought, therefore, an action for illegal dismissal cannot be generally categorized as an "offense" as used under Article 291 of the Labor Code, which according to public respondent, must be brought within the period of three[3] years from the time the cause of action accrued, otherwise, the same is forever barred.

It is true that the "backwwages" sought by an illegally dismissed employee may be considered, by reason of its practical effect, as a "money claim." However, it is not the principal cause of action in an illegal dismissal case but the unlawful deprivation of the one's employment committed by the employer in violation of the right of an employee. Backwages is merely one of the reliefs which an illegally dismissed employee prays the labor arbiter and the NLRC to render in his favor as a consequence of the unlawful 5 act committed by the employer. The award thereof is not private compensation or damages but is in 6 furtherance and effectuation of the public objectives of the Labor Code. even though the practical effect is the enrichment of the individual, the award of backwages is not inredness of a private right, but, rather, is in the nature of a command upon the employer to make public reparation for his violation of the Labor 7 Code. The case of Valencia vs. Cebu Portland Cement, et al., 106 Phil. 732, a 1959 case cited by petitioner, is applicable in the instant case insofar as it concerns the issue of prescription of actions. In said case, this Court had occasion to hold that an action for damages involving a plaintiff seperated from his employment for alleged unjustifiable causes is one for " injury to the rights of the plaintiff, and must be brought within 8 four [4] years.

In Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 96 SCRA 448 [1980], this Court, thru then Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, sustained the sand of the Solicitor General that the period of prescription mentioned under Article 281, now Article 292, of the Labor Code, refers to and "is limited to money claims, an other cases of injury to rights of a workingman being governed by the Civil Code." Accordingly, this Court ruled that petitioner Marciana Santos, who sought reinstatement, had four [4] years within which to file her complaint for the injury to her rights as provided under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. Indeed there is, merit in the contention of petitioner that the four [4]-year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the New Civil Code, applies by way of supplement, in the instant case, to wit: Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years. [1] Upon an injury to the lights of the plaintiff. xxx xxx xxx [Emphasis supplied]
As this Court stated in Bondoc us. People's Bank and Trust Co., when a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood, hence, he should be protected against any arbitrary and unjust deprivation of his job. Unemployment, said the Court in Almira vs. B.F. Goodrich 10 Philippines, brings "untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage earners. The misery and pain attendant on the loss of jobs thus could be avoided if there be acceptance of the view that under all the circumstances of this case, petitioners should not be deprived of their means of livelihood." It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is well-recognized in this jurisdiction that one's employment, profession, trade or calling is a "property right," and the wrongful interference 11 therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be property within the protection of a 12 constitutional guaranty of due process of law. Clearly then, when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action instituted to contest the legality of one's dismissal from employment constitutes, in essence, an action predicated "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff," as contemplated under Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four [4] years.
9

In the instant case, the action for illegal dismissal was filed by petitioners on July 5, 1982, or three [3] years, one [1] month and five [5] days after the alleged effectivity date of his dismissal on June 1, 1979 which is well within the four [4]-year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the New Civil Code.
Even on the assumption that an action for illegal dismissal falls under the category of "offenses" or "money claims" under Articles 291 and 292, Labor Code, which provide for a three-year prescriptive period, still, a strict application of said provisions will not destroy the enforcement of fundamental rights of the employees. As a statutory provision on limitations of actions, Articles 291 and 292 go to matters of 13 remedy and not to the destruction of fundamental rights. As a general rule, a statute of limitation extinguishes the remedy only. Although the remedy to enforce a right may be barred, that right may be 14 enforced by some other available remedy which is not barred.

More so, in the instant case, where the delay in filing the case was with justifiable cause. The threat to petitioner that he would be charged with estafa if he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which private respondent did after all on June 22, 1981, justifies, the delayed filing of the action for illegal dismissal with the Regional Office No. X, MOLE on July 5, 1982. Laches will not in that sense strengthen the cause of public respondent. Besides, it is deemed waived as it was never alleged before the Labor Arbiter nor the NLRC.
Public respondent dismissed the action for illegal dismissal on the sole issue of prescription of actions. It did not resolve the case of illegal dismissal on the merits. Nonetheless, to resolve once and for all the issue of the legality of the dismissal, We find that petitioner, who has continuously served respondent Carnation for five [5] years was, under the attendant circumstances, arbitrarily dismissed from his employment. The alleged shortage in his accountabilities should have been impartially investigated with all due regard for due process in view of the admitted enmity between petitioner and E.L. Corsino, 15 respondent's auditor. Absent such an impartial investigation, the alleged shortage should not have been attended with such a drastic consequence as termination of the employment relationship. Outright dismissal was too severe a penalty for a first offense, considering that the alleged shortage was explained to respondent's Auditor, E.L. Corsino, in accordance with respondent's accounting and auditing policies. The indecent haste of his dismissal from employment was, in fact, aggravated by the filing of the estafa charge against petitioner with the City Fiscal of Butuan City on June 22, 1981, or two [2] years after his questioned dismissal. After the case had remained pending for five [5] years, the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, Branch V finally dismissed the same provisionally in an order dated February 21, 1986 for failure of the prosecution's principal witness to appear in court. Admittedly, loss of trust and confidence arising from the same alleged misconduct is sufficient ground for dismissing an 16 employee from his employment despite the dismissal of the criminal case. However, it must not be 17 indiscriminately used as a shield to dismiss an employee arbitrarily. For, who can stop the employer from filing all the charges in the books for the simple exercise of it, and then hide behind the pretext of loss of confidence which can be proved by mere preponderance of evidence. We grant the petition and the decision of the NLRC is hereby reversed and set aside. Although We are strongly inclined to affirm that part of the decision of the Labor Arbiter ordering the reinstatement of petitioner to his former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges, a supervening event, which 18 petitioner mentioned in his motion for early decision dated January 6, 1986 that is, FILIPRO, Inc.'s taking over the business of Carnation, has legally rendered the order of reinstatement difficult to enforce, 19 unless there is an express agreement on assumption of liabilities by the purchasing corporation, FILIPRO, Inc. Besides, there is no law requiring that the purchasing corporation should absorb the 20 employees of the selling corporation. In any case, the very concept of social justice dictates that 21 petitioner shall be entitled to backwages of three [3] years.

WHEREFORE, respondent Carnation Philippines, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay petitioner Virgilio Callanta backwages for three [3] years without qualification and deduction. This decision is immediately executory. No costs. SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., and Paras, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 97218 May 17, 1993 PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Former SPECIAL EIGHTH DIVISION and WILSON CHUA, respondents. Gonzales, Batiller, Bilog & Associates for petitioner. Resty R. Villanueva for private respondent.

MELO, J.: The error, if error it be, of respondent Court of Appeals which petitioner seeks to rectify via the petitioner forcertiorari before us refers to respondent court's major conclusion arrived at in CA-G.R. CV No. 21312 (Javellana (P), Kalalo, Dayrit, JJ) barring petitioner from foreclosing the subject realty on account of prescription. Petitioner begs to differ, insisting that the period during which it was placed under receivership by the Central Bank is akin to a caso fortuito and should not thus be reckoned against it. Both petitioner and private respondent accepted the synthesized factual backdrop formulated by respondent court, to wit: This an appeal by both plaintiff and defendant from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial 29 September 1988, in Civil Case No. 977-NW, which directed plaintiff-appellant to pay defendantappellant the personal obligation of the spouses Guarin to defendantappellant in the amount of P62,500.00, together with the interest, penalties, and bank charges due thereon, and ordering defendant-appellant thereafter to: (1) release the real estate mortgage executed by the spouses Lorenzo K. Guarin and Liwayway J. Guarin in favor of defendant bank on 16 February 1967; (2) return to surrender to plaintiff-appellant, as successor-in-interest of the spouses Guarin, the latter's Owner's Duplicate of Title No. 177014; (3) pay plaintiff-appellant P20,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and, (4) pay the costs of suit. The established fact are: On 16 February 1967, the spouses Lorenzo K. Guarin and Liwayway J. Guarin (Guarins) obtained a loan from defendant-appellant in the amount of P62,500.00 payable on or before 20 June 1967. As security for the loan, they executed a real estate mortgage in favor of defendant-appellant over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 177014. (Exhs. C and D).

In September, 1972, defendant-appellant was placed under receivership by the Central Bank of the Philippines until 27 July 1981 when the receivership was set aside by the Honorable Supreme Court. On 11 December 1984, Lorenzo K. Guarin, in reply to the letter of latter's counsel informing that the mortgaged property would be sold at public auction on 27 December 1984, assured he and his wife had every intention of paying their obligation and requesting for a recomputation of their account and a postponement of the foreclosure sale. (Exh. 1). On 10 February 1986, the Guarins received a Statement of Account from defendant-appellant showing two outstanding accounts as of 15 February 1986. One was account of Lorenzo K. Guarin in the amount of P591,088.80, and the other was the account of L.K. Guarin Manufacturing Co., Inc. in the amount of P6,287,380.27 (Attachment to Exh. 2) On 26 February 1986, Lorenzo K. Guarin wrote defendant-appellant stating that he was ready and willing to pay his obligation in the total amount of P591,088.80 as recomputed by defendant-appellant whenever defendantappellant was already to receive the payment and inquiring as to when his mortgaged title would be available for him to pick up. (Exh. 2) Defendant-appellant replied on 27 February 1986 that Lorenzo K. Guarin may make payment at its office in Makati, Metro Manila, but that the mortgaged title could not be released to him even after the payment of the obligation of P591,088.80 as it also served as security for the indebtedness of L.Y. Guarin Manufacturing Co., Inc., to defendant-appellant which was undertaken by Lorenzo K. Guarin in his personal capacity and as president of the corporation. (Exh. 3) On 20 May 1986, plaintiff-appellant wrote defendant-appellant saying that the mortgaged property of the Guarins had been offered to him as payment of the judgment he obtained against the Guarins in Civil Case No. Q-47465 entitled, "Wilson Chua vs. Lorenzo K. Guarin", and requesting for defendantappellant's conformity to the assignment and expressing his willingness to pay for the obligation of Mr. Guarin so that the title could be released by defendant-appellant. (Exh. 4) On 10 July 1986, the Guarins and plaintiff-appellant executed a Deed of Absolute Sale With Assumption of Mortgaged whereby the Guarins sold the mortgaged property to Guarins sold the appellant for the sum of P250,000.00 and plaintiff-appellant undertook to assume the mortgaged obligation of the Guarins with defendant-appellant which as of 15 February 1985 amounted to P591,088.80.(Exh. B). On 5 August 1986, plaintiff-appellant informed defendant-appellant that as a result of the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-47645, the mortgaged property had been sold to him by the Guarins, as evidenced by the Deed of Sale enclosed

for guidance and information of defendant-appellant. He requested that he be allowed to pay the loan secured by the mortgaged, otherwise, he would be constrained to bring the matter to court. (Exh. 5) In reply, defendantappellant, on 11 August 1986, informed plaintiff-appellant that his request could be granted if he would settle the obligation of L.K. Guarin Manufacturing Co., Inc., as well and defendant-appellant's letter to Mr. Guarin dated 27 February 1986. (Exh. 6) On 3 August 1987, counsel for plaintiff-appellant addressed a letter to defendant-appellant informing that plaintiff-appellant had purchased the mortgaged property from the Guarin's and requesting that the owner's copy of TCT No. 177014 in the possession of defendant-appellant be released to him so that he can register the sale and have the title to the property transferred in his name. He likewise, informed defendant-appellant that it had lost whatever right or action had against the Guarins because of prescription. (Exh. E) Defendant-appellant replied on 10 August 1987 stating the reasons why they could not comply with plaintiff-appellant's demands. (Exh. F) On 21 August 1986, plaintiff-appellant filed a complaint against defendantappellant to compel the latter to: (1) release the real estate mortgaged executed by the Guarins in favor of defendant-appellant on 16 February 1967; (2) return or surrender to plaintiff-appellant, as successor-in-interest of the Guarins, the latter's owner's duplicate of TCT No. 177014; and (3) pay plaintiff-appellant P2,750,000.00 as actual and/or consequential damages, moral damages as may be proved during the trial, exemplary damages as may be reasonably assessed by the court, and attorney's fees of P50,00.00. Defendant-appellant answered the complaint thereof and setting up special and affirmative defenses. After trial, judgment was rendered as stated in the opening paragraph hereof from which both parties appealed . . . . (pp. 3537, Rollo.) Concerning the challenge posed by Provident Saving Bank against the personality of Wilson Chua to initiate the action to compel the release of the real estate mortgage and the delivery of the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title, respondent court noted that Wilson Chua can be considered a real-property-in-interest because he is the successor-ininterest of the Guarins who is naturally entitled to the realty as against the so-called right of Provident Savings Bank, as mortgagee, to foreclose the mortgage which had become stale through sheer lapse of time. The matter of novation in the form of substitution of the debtor without corresponding acquiesence of the mortgagee was viewed by respondent court to be legally inconsequential due to the demeanor of the mortgagee-bank in requiring Wilson Chua to pay the indebtedness of Lorenzo Guarin, posterior to the change of obligors, which act was construed as equivalent to consent. To the question of whether petitioner can still foreclose the subject realty, respondent court gave a negative response on account of the absence of proof to indicate that the bank was precluded from collecting indebtedness while it was under receivership from September, 1972 until July 20,1981. Thus, there was no legal interruption of the pres-criptive period to speak of, said respondent court, which intervened between June 20, 1967, the date the

mortgage matured, and June 20, 1977 the last day within which petitioner could have foreclosed the mortgage. Respondent court did not also heed the suggestion of the petitioner bank to interpret Wilson Chua's assumption of the mortgage on July 10, 1986 as tantamount to an explicit acknowledgement that the obligation was outstanding and had not yet prescribed. As a result of these observations, respondent court reversed the decision of the trial court insofar as it ordered Wilson Chua to pay the sum of P591,088.80 to the bank and affirmed the other dispositions made the court of origin (p. 42, Rollo). Following the unfavorable judgment, the bank filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for new trial premised on newly discovered evidence relative to a statement of account unearthed by the bank's liaison officer from the loose folders on October 18, 1990 which it believed to be of legal significance to the case. But respondent court was unperturbed, observing that the vital piece of document could have been located in the course of trial had the slightest degree of prudence been exercised, considering that the statement of account sprouted the same day the liaison officer was advised to take an inventory of the records ( p. 45, Rollo). Hence, the petitioner at bar. Consistent with its theory premised on fuerza major, petitioner insists that it can not be blamed for not lifting a finger, so speak, during the period when it was enjoined by the Central Bank on September 15, 1972 from transacting business until this Court affirmed on July 27,1981 the decision of the Court of Appeals annulling the proscription against petitioner in Central Bank vs. Court of Appeals (106 SCRA 143 [1981]. We are not unaware of the rule laid down in Teal Motor Co. vs. Court of First Instance of Manila (51 Phil. 549 [1928]; Martin, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Philippine Commercial Laws, 1986 Revised ed., p.125) that the appointment of a receiver does not dissolve the corporation nor does it interfere with the exercise of its corporate rights. But this principles is, of course, applicable to a situation where there is no restraint imposed on the corporation, unlike in the case at bar where petitioner Provident Savings Bank was specifically forbidden and immobilized from doing business in the Philippines on September 15, 1972 through Monetary Board Resolution No. 1766 until 1981 when the decision in Central Bank vs. Court of Appeals (supra, at p. 150) was rendered. The question which immediately crops up is whether a foreclose proceeding falls within the purview of the phrase "doing business". In Mentholatum Co., Inc., et al. vs. Mangaliman, et al. (72 Phil. 524 [1941]; Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, Second ed., 1972, p. 186), the term was construed by Justice Laurel to refer to: . . . a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates to that extent, the exercise of some of the words or the normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, the purpose ands object of its organizations. (p. 528; emphasis supplied.) Withal, we believe that a foreclose is deemed embraced by the phrase "doing business" as a preparatory measure to acquiring or holding property for petitioner as a saving bank under

Section 34 of the General Banking Act. Like any other banking institution, petitioner is vested with the usual attributes and powers of a corporation under Section 36 of the Corporation Code (Vitug, Pandect of Commercial Law and Jurisprudence, 1990 ed., p. 475). The prerogative of a bank to foreclose is implicit from and is even necessary to enforce collection of secured debts under Section 36(11) and 45 of the Corporation Code, in conjunction with Section 29 of the General Banking Act (6 Fletcher, 206; Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, 1990 ed., p. 325). When a bank is prohibited to do business by the Central Bank and a receiver is appointed for such bank, that bank would not be able to do new business, i.e., to grant new loans or to accept new deposits. However, the receiver of the bank is obliged to collect debts owing to the bank, which debts form part of the assets of the bank. The receiver must assemble the assets and pay the obligation of the bank under receivership, and take steps to prevent dissipation of such assets. Accordingly, the the receiver of the bank is obliged to collect preexisting debts due to the bank, and in connection therewith, to foreclose mortgages securing debts. This is not to ignore The Philippine Trust Co. vs. HSBC (67 Phil. 204 [1939], for in that case, the Court simply rejected the objections of certain creditors to the report of a receiver, that is, objections that the receiver did not report the collection made before the beginning of his receivership. It would follow that the bank is bound by the acts, or failure to act, of the receiver. At the same time, the receiver is liable to the bank for culpable or negligent failure to collect the assets of such bank and to safeguard said assets. Having arrived at the conclusion that the foreclosure is part of bank's business activity which could not have been pursued by the receiver then because of the circumstances discussed in the Central Bank case, we are thus convinced that the prescriptive period was legally interrupted by fuerza mayor in 1972 on account on the prohibition imposed by the Monetary Board against petitioner from transacting business, until the directive of the board was nullified in 1981. Indeed, the period during which the obligee was prevented by a caso fortuito from enforcing his right is not reckoned against him (Article 1154, New Civil Code). When prescription is interrupted, all the benefits acquired so far from the possession cease and when prescription starts anew, it will be entirely a new one. This concept should not be equated with suspension where the past period is included in the computation being added to the period after prescription is resumed (4 Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 1991 ed., pp. 18-19). Consequently, when the closure of was set aside in 1981, the period of ten years within which to foreclose under Article 1142 of the New Civil Code began to run again and, therefore, the action filed on August 21, 1986 to compel petitioner to release the mortgage carried with it the mistaken notion that petitioner's own suit foreclosure had prescribed. What exacerbates the situation is the letter of private respondent requesting petitioner on August 6, 1986 that private respondent be allowed to pay the loan secured by the mortgage as the result of the Deed of Sale executed by the Guarins in his favor on July 10, 1986 (pp. 36-37, Rollo). In point of law, this written communication is synonymous to an express acknowledgment of the obligation and had the effect of interrupting the prescription for the second time (Article 1155, New Civil Code; Osmea vs. Rama, 14 Phil. 99 [1909]; 4 Tolentino, supra at p. 50). And this piece of document necessarily estops private respondent from setting up prescription vis-a-vis his unfounded supposition that acknowledgment of the debt is of no moment because the right

of the petitioner to foreclose had long prescribed in 1977 (p. 13, Petition; p. 7, Comment; pp. 19 and 58, Rollo). Contrary to respondent court's prescription of the existence of novation, the evidence at hand does not buttress a finding along this line from the mere fact that petitioner supposedly did not question the substitution when the bank reacted to private respondent's offer to pay the loan (p. 39, Rollo). What seems to have escaped respondent court's attention was the condition imposed by the petitioner that it will grant private respondent's request if the latter will also shoulder the obligation incurred by Lorenzo Guarin in his capacity as president of the corporation (p.37, Rollo). The consent of the petitioner to the substitution, as creditor, was thus erroneously appreciated. With the conclusions reached, we need not discuss the other issues raised in the petition. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 31, 1990, including the resolution dated February 6, 1991 of respondent court are hereby set aside and another one entered dismissing Wilson Chua's complaint. No special pronouncement is made to costs. Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., concurs in the result.

G.R. No. 109125 December 2, 1994 ANG YU ASUNCION, ARTHUR GO AND KEH TIONG, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and BUEN REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. Antonio M. Albano for petitioners. Umali, Soriano & Associates for private respondent.

VITUG, J.: Assailed, in this petition for review, is the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 04 December 1991, in CA-G.R. SP No. 26345 setting aside and declaring without force and effect the orders of execution of the trial court, dated 30 August 1991 and 27 September 1991, in Civil Case No. 87-41058. The antecedents are recited in good detail by the appellate court thusly: On July 29, 1987 a Second Amended Complaint for Specific Performance was filed by Ang Yu Asuncion and Keh Tiong, et al., against Bobby Cu Unjieng, Rose Cu Unjieng and Jose Tan before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Manila in Civil Case No. 87-41058, alleging, among others, that plaintiffs are tenants or lessees of residential and commercial spaces owned by defendants described as Nos. 630-638 Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila; that they have occupied said spaces since 1935 and have been religiously paying the rental and complying with all the conditions of the lease contract; that on several occasions before October 9, 1986, defendants informed plaintiffs that they are offering to sell the premises and are giving them priority to acquire the same; that during the negotiations, Bobby Cu Unjieng offered a price of P6-million while plaintiffs made a counter offer of P5-million; that plaintiffs thereafter asked the defendants to put their offer in writing to which request defendants acceded; that in reply to defendant's letter, plaintiffs wrote them on October 24, 1986 asking that they specify the terms and conditions of the offer to sell; that when plaintiffs did not receive any reply, they sent another letter dated January 28, 1987 with the same request; that since defendants failed to specify the terms and conditions of the offer to sell and because of information received that defendants were about to sell the property, plaintiffs were compelled to file the complaint to compel defendants to sell the property to them. Defendants filed their answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and interposing a special defense of lack of cause of action.

After the issues were joined, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the lower court. The trial court found that defendants' offer to sell was never accepted by the plaintiffs for the reason that the parties did not agree upon the terms and conditions of the proposed sale, hence, there was no contract of sale at all. Nonetheless, the lower court ruled that should the defendants subsequently offer their property for sale at a price of P11-million or below, plaintiffs will have the right of first refusal. Thus the dispositive portion of the decision states: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs summarily dismissing the complaint subject to the aforementioned condition that if the defendants subsequently decide to offer their property for sale for a purchase price of Eleven Million Pesos or lower, then the plaintiffs has the option to purchase the property or of first refusal, otherwise, defendants need not offer the property to the plaintiffs if the purchase price is higher than Eleven Million Pesos. SO ORDERED. Aggrieved by the decision, plaintiffs appealed to this Court in CA-G.R. CV No. 21123. In a decision promulgated on September 21, 1990 (penned by Justice Segundino G. Chua and concurred in by Justices Vicente V. Mendoza and Fernando A. Santiago), this Court affirmed with modification the lower court's judgment, holding: In resume, there was no meeting of the minds between the parties concerning the sale of the property. Absent such requirement, the claim for specific performance will not lie. Appellants' demand for actual, moral and exemplary damages will likewise fail as there exists no justifiable ground for its award. Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted. Courts may render summary judgment when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law (Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 815). All requisites obtaining, the decision of the court a quo is legally justifiable. WHEREFORE, finding the appeal unmeritorious, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, but subject to the following modification: The court a quo in the aforestated decision gave the plaintiffs-appellants the right of first refusal only if the property is sold for a purchase price of Eleven Million pesos or lower; however, considering the mercurial and uncertain forces in our market economy today. We find no reason not to grant the same right of first refusal to herein appellants in the event that the subject property is sold for a

price in excess of Eleven Million pesos. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. The decision of this Court was brought to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the appeal on May 6, 1991 "for insufficiency in form and substances" (Annex H, Petition). On November 15, 1990, while CA-G.R. CV No. 21123 was pending consideration by this Court, the Cu Unjieng spouses executed a Deed of Sale (Annex D, Petition) transferring the property in question to herein petitioner Buen Realty and Development Corporation, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. That for and in consideration of the sum of FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS (P15,000,000.00), receipt of which in full is hereby acknowledged, the VENDORS hereby sells, transfers and conveys for and in favor of the VENDEE, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, the above-described property with all the improvements found therein including all the rights and interest in the said property free from all liens and encumbrances of whatever nature, except the pending ejectment proceeding; 2. That the VENDEE shall pay the Documentary Stamp Tax, registration fees for the transfer of title in his favor and other expenses incidental to the sale of above-described property including capital gains tax and accrued real estate taxes. As a consequence of the sale, TCT No. 105254/T-881 in the name of the Cu Unjieng spouses was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 195816 was issued in the name of petitioner on December 3, 1990. On July 1, 1991, petitioner as the new owner of the subject property wrote a letter to the lessees demanding that the latter vacate the premises. On July 16, 1991, the lessees wrote a reply to petitioner stating that petitioner brought the property subject to the notice of lis pendens regarding Civil Case No. 87-41058 annotated on TCT No. 105254/T-881 in the name of the Cu Unjiengs. The lessees filed a Motion for Execution dated August 27, 1991 of the Decision in Civil Case No. 87-41058 as modified by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21123. On August 30, 1991, respondent Judge issued an order (Annex A, Petition) quoted as follows:

Presented before the Court is a Motion for Execution filed by plaintiff represented by Atty. Antonio Albano. Both defendants Bobby Cu Unjieng and Rose Cu Unjieng represented by Atty. Vicente Sison and Atty. Anacleto Magno respectively were duly notified in today's consideration of the motion as evidenced by the rubber stamp and signatures upon the copy of the Motion for Execution. The gist of the motion is that the Decision of the Court dated September 21, 1990 as modified by the Court of Appeals in its decision in CA G.R. CV-21123, and elevated to the Supreme Court upon the petition for review and that the same was denied by the highest tribunal in its resolution dated May 6, 1991 in G.R. No. L-97276, had now become final and executory. As a consequence, there was an Entry of Judgment by the Supreme Court as of June 6, 1991, stating that the aforesaid modified decision had already become final and executory. It is the observation of the Court that this property in dispute was the subject of theNotice of Lis Pendens and that the modified decision of this Court promulgated by the Court of Appeals which had become final to the effect that should the defendants decide to offer the property for sale for a price of P11 Million or lower, and considering the mercurial and uncertain forces in our market economy today, the same right of first refusal to herein plaintiffs/appellants in the event that the subject property is sold for a price in excess of Eleven Million pesos or more. WHEREFORE, defendants are hereby ordered to execute the necessary Deed of Sale of the property in litigation in favor of plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion, Keh Tiong and Arthur Go for the consideration of P15 Million pesos in recognition of plaintiffs' right of first refusal and that a new Transfer Certificate of Title be issued in favor of the buyer. All previous transactions involving the same property notwithstanding the issuance of another title to Buen Realty Corporation, is hereby set aside as having been executed in bad faith. SO ORDERED. On September 22, 1991 respondent Judge issued another order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, let there be Writ of Execution issue in the above-entitled case directing the Deputy Sheriff Ramon Enriquez of this Court to implement said Writ of Execution ordering the defendants among others to comply with the aforesaid Order of this Court within a period of one (1) week from receipt of this Order and for defendants to execute the necessary Deed of Sale of the property in litigation in favor of the plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion, Keh Tiong and Arthur Go for the consideration of P15,000,000.00 and ordering the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila, to cancel and set aside the title already issued in favor of Buen Realty Corporation which was previously executed between the latter and defendants and to register the new title in favor of the aforesaid plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion, Keh Tiong and Arthur Go. SO ORDERED.
On the same day, September 27, 1991 the corresponding writ of execution (Annex C, 1 Petition) was issued.

On 04 December 1991, the appellate court, on appeal to it by private respondent, set aside and declared without force and effect the above questioned orders of the court a quo. In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners contend that Buen Realty can be held bound by the writ of execution by virtue of the notice of lis pendens, carried over on TCT No. 195816 issued in the name of Buen Realty, at the time of the latter's purchase of the property on 15 November 1991 from the Cu Unjiengs. We affirm the decision of the appellate court. A not too recent development in real estate transactions is the adoption of such arrangements as the right of first refusal, a purchase option and a contract to sell. For ready reference, we might point out some fundamental precepts that may find some relevance to this discussion. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do (Art. 1156, Civil Code). The obligation is constituted upon the concurrence of the essential elements thereof, viz: (a) The vinculum juris or juridical tie which is the efficient cause established by the various sources of obligations (law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts and quasi-delicts); (b) the object which is the prestation or conduct; required to be observed (to give, to do or not to do); and (c) the subject-persons who, viewed from the demandability of the obligation, are the active (obligee) and the passive (obligor) subjects. Among the sources of an obligation is a contract (Art. 1157, Civil Code), which is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service (Art. 1305, Civil Code). A contract undergoes various stages that include its negotiation or preparation, its perfection and, finally, its consummation. Negotiation covers the period from the time the prospective contracting

parties indicate interest in the contract to the time the contract is concluded (perfected). The perfection of the contract takes place upon the concurrence of the essential elements thereof. A contract which is consensual as to perfection is so established upon a mere meeting of minds, i.e., the concurrence of offer and acceptance, on the object and on the cause thereof. A contract which requires, in addition to the above, the delivery of the object of the agreement, as in a pledge or commodatum, is commonly referred to as a real contract. In a solemn contract, compliance with certain formalities prescribed by law, such as in a donation of real property, is essential in order to make the act valid, the prescribed form being thereby an essential element thereof. The stage of consummationbegins when the parties perform their respective undertakings under the contract culminating in the extinguishment thereof. Until the contract is perfected, it cannot, as an independent source of obligation, serve as a binding juridical relation. In sales, particularly, to which the topic for discussion about the case at bench belongs, the contract is perfected when a person, called the seller, obligates himself, for a price certain, to deliver and to transfer ownership of a thing or right to another, called the buyer, over which the latter agrees. Article 1458 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. When the sale is not absolute but conditional, such as in a "Contract to Sell" where invariably the ownership of the thing sold is retained until the fulfillment of a positive suspensive condition (normally, the full payment of the purchase price), the breach of the condition will prevent the obligation to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. 2 In Dignos vs. Court of Appeals (158 SCRA 375), we have said that, although denominated a "Deed of Conditional Sale," a sale is still absolute where the contract is devoid of any proviso that title is reserved or the right to unilaterally rescind is stipulated, e.g., until or unless the price is paid. Ownership will then be transferred to the buyer upon actual or constructive delivery (e.g., by the execution of a public document) of the property sold. Where the condition is imposed upon the perfection of the contract itself, the failure of the condition would prevent such perfection. 3 If the condition is imposed on the obligation of a party which is not fulfilled, the other party may either waive the condition or refuse to proceed with the sale (Art. 1545, Civil Code). 4 An unconditional mutual promise to buy and sell, as long as the object is made determinate and the price is fixed, can be obligatory on the parties, and compliance therewith may accordingly be exacted. 5 An accepted unilateral promise which specifies the thing to be sold and the price to be paid, when coupled with a valuable consideration distinct and separate from the price, is what may properly be termed a perfected contract of option. This contract is legally binding, and in sales, it conforms with the second paragraph of Article 1479 of the Civil Code, viz: Art. 1479. . . .

An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from 6 the price. (1451a)

Observe, however, that the option is not the contract of sale itself. 7 The optionee has the right, but not the obligation, to buy. Once the option is exercised timely, i.e., the offer is accepted before a breach of the option, a bilateral promise to sell and to buy ensues and both parties are then reciprocally bound to comply with their respective undertakings. 8 Let us elucidate a little. A negotiation is formally initiated by an offer. An imperfect promise (policitacion) is merely an offer. Public advertisements or solicitations and the like are ordinarily construed as mere invitations to make offers or only as proposals. These relations, until a contract is perfected, are not considered binding commitments. Thus, at any time prior to the perfection of the contract, either negotiating party may stop the negotiation. The offer, at this stage, may be withdrawn; the withdrawal is effective immediately after its manifestation, such as by its mailing and not necessarily when the offeree learns of the withdrawal (Laudico vs. Arias, 43 Phil. 270). Where a period is given to the offeree within which to accept the offer, the following rules generally govern: (1) If the period is not itself founded upon or supported by a consideration, the offeror is still free and has the right to withdraw the offer before its acceptance, or, if an acceptance has been made, before the offeror's coming to know of such fact, by communicating that withdrawal to the offeree (see Art. 1324, Civil Code; see also Atkins, Kroll & Co. vs. Cua, 102 Phil. 948, holding that this rule is applicable to a unilateral promise to sell under Art. 1479, modifying the previous decision in South Western Sugar vs. Atlantic Gulf, 97 Phil. 249; see also Art. 1319, Civil Code; Rural Bank of Paraaque, Inc., vs. Remolado, 135 SCRA 409; Sanchez vs. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368). The right to withdraw, however, must not be exercised whimsically or arbitrarily; otherwise, it could give rise to a damage claim under Article 19 of the Civil Code which ordains that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." (2) If the period has a separate consideration, a contract of "option" is deemed perfected, and it would be a breach of that contract to withdraw the offer during the agreed period. The option, however, is an independent contract by itself, and it is to be distinguished from the projected main agreement (subject matter of the option) which is obviously yet to be concluded. If, in fact, the optioner-offeror withdraws the offer before its acceptance(exercise of the option) by the optionee-offeree, the latter may not sue for specific performance on the proposed contract ("object" of the option) since it has failed to reach its own stage of perfection. The optioner-offeror, however, renders himself liable for damages for breach of the option. In these cases, care should be taken of the real nature of the consideration given, for if, in fact, it has been intended to be part of the consideration for the main contract with a right of withdrawal on the part of the optionee, the main contract could be deemed perfected; a similar instance would be an "earnest money" in a contract of sale that can evidence its perfection (Art. 1482, Civil Code). In the law on sales, the so-called "right of first refusal" is an innovative juridical relation. Needless to point out, it cannot be deemed a perfected contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code. Neither can the right of first refusal, understood in its normal concept, per

se be brought within the purview of an option under the second paragraph of Article 1479, aforequoted, or possibly of an offer under Article 1319 9 of the same Code. An option or an offer would require, among other things, 10 a clear certainty on both the object and the cause or consideration of the envisioned contract. In a right of first refusal, while the object might be made determinate, the exercise of the right, however, would be dependent not only on the grantor's eventual intention to enter into a binding juridical relation with another but also on terms, including the price, that obviously are yet to be later firmed up. Prior thereto, it can at best be so described as merely belonging to a class of preparatory juridical relations governed not by contracts (since the essential elements to establish the vinculum juris would still be indefinite and inconclusive) but by, among other laws of general application, the pertinent scattered provisions of the Civil Code on human conduct. Even on the premise that such right of first refusal has been decreed under a final judgment, like here, its breach cannot justify correspondingly an issuance of a writ of execution under a judgment that merely recognizes its existence, nor would it sanction an action for specific performance without thereby negating the indispensable element of consensuality in the perfection of contracts. 11 It is not to say, however, that the right of first refusal would be inconsequential for, such as already intimated above, an unjustified disregard thereof, given, for instance, the circumstances expressed in Article 19 12 of the Civil Code, can warrant a recovery for damages. The final judgment in Civil Case No. 87-41058, it must be stressed, has merely accorded a "right of first refusal" in favor of petitioners. The consequence of such a declaration entails no more than what has heretofore been said. In fine, if, as it is here so conveyed to us, petitioners are aggrieved by the failure of private respondents to honor the right of first refusal, the remedy is not a writ of execution on the judgment, since there is none to execute, but an action for damages in a proper forum for the purpose. Furthermore, whether private respondent Buen Realty Development Corporation, the alleged purchaser of the property, has acted in good faith or bad faith and whether or not it should, in any case, be considered bound to respect the registration of the lis pendens in Civil Case No. 87-41058 are matters that must be independently addressed in appropriate proceedings. Buen Realty, not having been impleaded in Civil Case No. 87-41058, cannot be held subject to the writ of execution issued by respondent Judge, let alone ousted from the ownership and possession of the property, without first being duly afforded its day in court. We are also unable to agree with petitioners that the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that the writ of execution varies the terms of the judgment in Civil Case No. 87-41058, later affirmed in CA-G.R. CV-21123. The Court of Appeals, in this regard, has observed:
Finally, the questioned writ of execution is in variance with the decision of the trial court 13 as modified by this Court. As already stated, there was nothing in said decision that decreed the execution of a deed of sale between the Cu Unjiengs and respondent lessees, or the fixing of the price of the sale, or the cancellation of title in the name of petitioner (Limpin vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 516; Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. IAC, 143 SCRA 311; De Guzman vs. CA, 137 SCRA 730; Pastor vs. CA, 122 SCRA 885).

It is likewise quite obvious to us that the decision in Civil Case No. 87-41058 could not have decreed at the time the execution of any deed of sale between the Cu Unjiengs and petitioners. WHEREFORE, we UPHOLD the Court of Appeals in ultimately setting aside the questioned Orders, dated 30 August 1991 and 27 September 1991, of the court a quo. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Kapunan, J., took no part. Feliciano, J., is on leave.

CASE DIGEST- G.R. No. 109125, December 2, 1994

FACTS: Petitioners allege that they are tenants or lessees of residential and commercial spaces owned by defendants in Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila since 1935 and that on several occasions before October 9, 1986, defendants informed plaintiffs that they are offering to sell the premises and are giving them priority to acquire the same. During the negotiations, Bobby Cu Unjieng offered a price of P6-million while petitioners made a counter offer of P5-million. On October 24, 1986, petitioners asked the respondents to specify the terms and conditions of the offer to sell. Petitioners now raise that since respondents failed to specify the terms and conditions of the offer to sell and because of information received that the latter were about to sell the property, plaintiffs were compelled to file the complaint to compel defendants to sell the property to them. The trial court found that the respondents offer to sell was never accepted by the petitioners for the reason that they did not agree upon the terms and conditions of the proposed sale, hence, there was no contract of sale at all. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court. This decision was brought to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari which subsequently denied the appeal on May 6, 1991 for insufficiency in form and substance. On November 15, 1990, while CA-G.R. CV No. 21123 was pending consideration by this Court, the Cu Unjieng spouses executed a Deed of Sale transferring the property in question to herein respondent Buen Realty and Development Corporation, for P15,000,000.00. On July 1, 1991, respondent as the new owner of the subject property wrote a letter to the petitioners demanding that the latter vacate the premises. On July 16, 1991, the petitioners wrote a reply to respondent corporation stating that the latter brought the

property subject to the notice of lis pendens regarding Civil Case No. 87-41058 annotated on TCT No. 105254/T-881 in the name of the Cu Unjiengs. The lessees filed a Motion for Execution dated August 27, 1991 of the Decision in Civil Case No. 87-41058 as modified by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21123. On August 30, 1991, the RTC ordered the Cu Unjiengs to execute the necessary Deed of Sale of the property in litigation in favor of plaintiffs Ang Yu Asuncion, Keh Tiong and Arthur Go for the consideration of P15 Million pesos in recognition of petitioners right of first refusal and that a new Transfer Certificate of Title be issued in favor of the buyer. The court also set aside the title issued to Buen Realty Corporation for having been executed in bad faith. On September 22, 1991, the Judge issued a writ of execution. On 04 December 1991, the appellate court, on appeal to it by private respondent, set aside and declared without force and effect the above questioned orders of the court a quo. ISSUE Whether or not Buen Realty can be bound by the writ of execution by virtue of the notice of lis pendens, carried over on TCT No. 195816 issued in the name of Buen Realty, at the time of the latters purchase of the property on 15 November 1991 from the Cu Unjiengs. HELD We affirm the decision of the appellate court. In the law on sales, the so-called right of first refusal is an innovative juridical relation. Needless to point out, it cannot be deemed a perfected contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code. In a right of first refusal, while the object might be made determinate, the exercise of the right, however, would be dependent not only on the grantors eventual intention to enter into a binding juridical relation with another but also on terms, including the price, that obviously are yet to be later firmed up. Prior thereto, it can at best be so described as merely belonging to a class of preparatory juridical relations governed not by contracts (since the essential elements to establish the vinculum juris would still be indefinite and inconclusive) but by, among other laws of general application, the pertinent scattered provisions of the Civil Code on human conduct. The final judgment in Civil Case No. 87-41058, it must be stressed, has merely accorded a right of first refusal in favor of petitioners. The consequence of such a declaration entails no more than what has heretofore been said. In fine, if, as it is here so conveyed to us, petitioners are aggrieved by the failure of private respondents to honor the right of first refusal, the remedy is not a writ of execution on the judgment, since there is none to execute, but an action for damages in a proper forum for the purpose.

Furthermore, Buen Realty, not having been impleaded in Civil Case No. 87-41058, cannot be held subject to the writ of execution issued by respondent Judge, let alone ousted from the ownership and possession of the property, without first being duly afforded its day in court.

G.R. No. 115129 February 12, 1997 IGNACIO BARZAGA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ANGELITO ALVIAR, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.: The Fates ordained that Christmas 1990 be bleak for Ignacio Barzaga and his family. On the nineteenth of December Ignacio's wife succumbed to a debilitating ailment after prolonged pain and suffering. Forewarned by her attending physicians of her impending death, she expressed her wish to be laid to rest before Christmas day to spare her family from keeping lonely vigil over her remains while the whole of Christendom celebrate the Nativity of their Redeemer. Drained to the bone from the tragedy that befell his family yet preoccupied with overseeing the wake for his departed wife, Ignacio Barzaga set out to arrange for her interment on the twenty-fourth of December in obediencesemper fidelis to her dying wish. But her final entreaty, unfortunately, could not be carried out. Dire events conspired to block his plans that forthwith gave him and his family their gloomiest Christmas ever. This is Barzaga's story. On 21 December 1990, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, he went to the hardware store of respondent Angelito Alviar to inquire about the availability of certain materials to be used in the construction of a niche for his wife. He also asked if the materials could be delivered at once. Marina Boncales, Alviar's storekeeper, replied that she had yet to verify if the store had pending deliveries that afternoon because if there were then all subsequent purchases would have to be delivered the following day. With that reply petitioner left. At seven o'clock the following morning, 22 December, Barzaga returned to Alviar's hardware store to follow up his purchase of construction materials. He told the store employees that the materials he was buying would have to be delivered at the Memorial Cemetery in Dasmarinas, Cavite, by eight o'clock that morning since his hired workers were already at the burial site and time was of the essence. Marina Boncales agreed to deliver the items at the designated time, date and place. With this assurance, Barzaga purchased the materials and paid in full the amount of P2,110.00. Thereafter he joined his workers at the cemetery, which was only a kilometer away, to await the delivery. The construction materials did not arrive at eight o'clock as promised. At nine o'clock, the delivery was still nowhere in sight. Barzaga returned to the hardware store to inquire about the delay. Boncales assured him that although the delivery truck was not yet around it had already left the garage and that as soon as it arrived the materials would be brought over to the cemetery in no time at all. That left petitioner no choice but to rejoin his workers at the memorial park and wait for the materials.

By ten o'clock, there was still no delivery. This prompted petitioner to return to the store to inquire about the materials. But he received the same answer from respondent's employees who even cajoled him to go back to the burial place as they would just follow with his construction materials. After hours of waiting which seemed interminable to him Barzaga became extremely upset. He decided to dismiss his laborers for the day. He proceeded to the police station, which was just nearby, and lodged a complaint against Alviar. He had his complaint entered in the police blotter. When he returned again to the store he saw the delivery truck already there but the materials he purchased were not yet ready for loading. Distressed that Alviar's employees were not the least concerned, despite his impassioned pleas, Barzaga decided to cancel his transaction with the store and look for construction materials elsewhere. In the afternoon of that day, petitioner was able to buy from another store. But since darkness was already setting in and his workers had left, he made up his mind to start his project the following morning, 23 December. But he knew that the niche would not be finish in time for the scheduled burial the following day. His laborers had to take a break on Christmas Day and they could only resume in the morning of the twenty-sixth. The niche was completed in the afternoon and Barzaga's wife was finally laid to rest. However, it was two-and-a-half (2-1/2) days behind schedule. On 21 January 1991, tormented perhaps by his inability to fulfill his wife's dying wish, Barzaga wrote private respondent Alviar demanding recompense for the damage he suffered. Alviar did not respond. Consequently, petitioner sued him before the Regional Trial Court. 1 Resisting petitioner's claim, private respondent contended that legal delay could not be validly ascribed to him because no specific time of delivery was agreed upon between them. He pointed out that the invoices evidencing the sale did not contain any stipulation as to the exact time of delivery and that assuming that the materials were not delivered within the period desired by petitioner, the delivery truck suffered a flat tire on the way to the store to pick up the materials. Besides, his men were ready to make the delivery by ten-thirty in the morning of 22 December but petitioner refused to accept them. According to Alviar, it was this obstinate refusal of petitioner to accept delivery that caused the delay in the construction of the niche and the consequent failure of the family to inter their loved one on the twenty-fourth of December, and that, if at all, it was petitioner and no other who brought about all his personal woes. Upholding the proposition that respondent incurred in delay in the delivery of the construction materials resulting in undue prejudice to petitioner, the trial court ordered respondent Alviar to pay petitioner (a) P2,110.00 as refund for the purchase price of the materials with interest per annum computed at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint, (b) P5,000.00 as temperate damages, (c) P20,000.00 as moral damages, (d) P5,000.00 as litigation expenses, and (e) P5,000.00 as attorney's fees. On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and ruled that there was no contractual commitment as to the exact time of delivery since this was not indicated in the invoice receipts covering the sale. 2

The arrangement to deliver the materials merely implied that delivery should be made within a reasonable time but that the conclusion that since petitioner's workers were already at the graveyard the delivery had to be made at that precise moment, is non-sequitur. The Court of Appeals also held that assuming that there was delay, petitioner still had sufficient time to construct the tomb and hold his wife's burial as she wished. We sustain the trial court. An assiduous scrutiny of the record convinces us that respondent Angelito Alviar was negligent and incurred in delay in the performance of his contractual obligation. This sufficiently entitles petitioner Ignacio Barzaga to be indemnified for the damage he suffered as a consequence of delay or a contractual breach. The law expressly provides that those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. 3 Contrary to the appellate court's factual determination, there was a specific time agreed upon for the delivery of the materials to the cemetery. Petitioner went to private respondent's store on 21 December precisely to inquire if the materials he intended to purchase could be delivered immediately. But he was told by the storekeeper that if there were still deliveries to be made that afternoon his order would be delivered the following day. With this in mind Barzaga decided to buy the construction materials the following morning after he was assured of immediate delivery according to his time frame. The argument that the invoices never indicated a specific delivery time must fall in the face of the positive verbal commitment of respondent's storekeeper. Consequently it was no longer necessary to indicate in the invoices the exact time the purchased items were to be brought to the cemetery. In fact, storekeeper Boncales admitted that it was her custom not to indicate the time of delivery whenever she prepared invoices. 4 Private respondent invokes fortuitous event as his handy excuse for that "bit of delay" in the delivery of petitioner's purchases. He maintains that Barzaga should have allowed his delivery men a little more time to bring the construction materials over to the cemetery since a few hours more would not really matter and considering that his truck had a flat tire. Besides, according to him, Barzaga still had sufficient time to build the tomb for his wife. This is a gratuitous assertion that borders on callousness. Private respondent had no right to manipulate petitioner's timetable and substitute it with his own. Petitioner had a deadline to meet. A few hours of delay was no piddling matter to him who in his bereavement had yet to attend to other pressing family concerns. Despite this, respondent's employees still made light of his earnest importunings for an immediate delivery. As petitioner bitterly declared in court " . . . they (respondent's employees) were making a fool out of me." 5 We also find unacceptable respondent's justification that his truck had a flat tire, for this event, if indeed it happened, was forseeable according to the trial court, and as such should have been reasonably guarded against. The nature of private respondent's business requires that he should be ready at all times to meet contingencies of this kind. One piece of testimony by respondent's witness Marina Boncales has caught our attention - that the delivery truck arrived a little late than usual because it came from a delivery of materials in Langcaan, Dasmarinas, Cavite. 6 Significantly, this information was withheld by Boncales from petitioner when the latter was negotiating with her for the purchase of construction

materials. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to suppose that had she told petitioner of this fact and that the delivery of the materials would consequently be delayed, petitioner would not have bought the materials from respondent's hardware store but elsewhere which could meet his time requirement. The deliberate suppression of this information by itself manifests a certain degree of bad faith on the part of respondent's storekeeper. The appellate court appears to have belittled petitioner's submission that under the prevailing circumstances time was of the essence in the delivery of the materials to the grave site. However, we find petitioner's assertion to be anchored on solid ground. The niche had to be constructed at the very least on the twenty-second of December considering that it would take about two (2) days to finish the job if the interment was to take place on the twenty-fourth of the month. Respondent's delay in the delivery of the construction materials wasted so much time that construction of the tomb could start only on the twenty-third. It could not be ready for the scheduled burial of petitioner's wife. This undoubtedly prolonged the wake, in addition to the fact that work at the cemetery had to be put off on Christmas day. This case is clearly one of non-performance of a reciprocal obligation. 7 In their contract of purchase and sale, petitioner had already complied fully with what was required of him as purchaser, i.e., the payment of the purchase price of P2,110.00. It was incumbent upon respondent to immediately fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods otherwise delay would attach. We therefore sustain the award of moral damages. It cannot be denied that petitioner and his family suffered wounded feelings, mental anguish and serious anxiety while keeping watch on Christmas day over the remains of their loved one who could not be laid to rest on the date she herself had chosen. There is no gainsaying the inexpressible pain and sorrow Ignacio Barzaga and his family bore at that moment caused no less by the ineptitude, cavalier behavior and bad faith of respondent and his employees in the performance of an obligation voluntarily entered into. We also affirm the grant of exemplary damages. The lackadaisical and feckless attitude of the employees of respondent over which he exercised supervisory authority indicates gross negligence in the fulfillment of his business obligations. Respondent Alviar and his employees should have exercised fairness and good judgment in dealing with petitioner who was then grieving over the loss of his wife. Instead of commiserating with him, respondent and his employees contributed to petitioner's anguish by causing him to bear the agony resulting from his inability to fulfill his wife's dying wish. We delete however the award of temperate damages. Under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages are more than nominal but less than compensatory, and may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. In this case, the trial court found that plaintiff suffered damages in the form of wages for the hired workers for 22 December 1990 and expenses incurred during the extra two (2) days of the wake. The record however does not show that petitioner presented proof of the actual amount of expenses he incurred which seems to be the reason the trial court awarded to him temperate damages instead. This is an erroneous application of the concept of temperate

damages. While petitioner may have indeed suffered pecuniary losses, these by their very nature could be established with certainty by means of payment receipts. As such, the claim falls unequivocally within the realm of actual or compensatory damages. Petitioner's failure to prove actual expenditure consequently conduces to a failure of his claim. For in determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss. 8 We affirm the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Award of damages, attorney's fees and litigation costs is left to the sound discretion of the court, and if such discretion be well exercised, as in this case, it will not be disturbed on appeal. 9 WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE except insofar as it GRANTED on a motion for reconsideration the refund by private respondent of the amount of P2,110.00 paid by petitioner for the construction materials. Consequently, except for the award of P5,000.00 as temperate damages which we delete, the decision of the Regional Trial Court granting petitioner (a) P2,110.00 as refund for the value of materials with interest computed at the legal rate per annum from the date of the filing of the case; (b) P20,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; (d) P5,000.00 as litigation expenses; and (4) P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Padilla, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Barzaga vs CA 1998 (DELAY) Facts: Petitioners wife died and her wish is to be buried before Christmas. After her death on Dec 21, 1990, in fulfillment of her wishes, petitioner went to respondents store to inquire the availability of materials to be used in building his wifes niche. Respondents employee advised petitioner that to come back the following morning. That following morning, petitioner made a payment of P2,100 to secure the delivery of the materials. However, the materials were not delivered on time. Several times petitioner went to respondents store to ask for the delivery. Later that day, the petitioner was forced to dismiss his laborer since there is nothing to work with for the materials did not arrive. Petitioner however purchased the materials from other stores. After his wife was buried, he sued respondent for damages because of delay For his part, respondent offered a lame excuse of fortuitous event that the reason for delay is because the trucks tires were flat. Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of delay that will entitle petitioner for damages, although it was not specified in the invoice the exact time of delivery? Held: Yes! The law expressly provides that those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. (Art 1170 of the Civil Code). The appellate court appears to have belittled petitioners submission that under the prevailing circumstances time was of the essence in the delivery of the materials to the grave site. However, we find petitioners assertion to be anchored on solid ground. The niche had to be constructed at the very least on the twenty-second of December considering that it would take about two (2) days to finish the job if the interment was to take place on the twenty-fourth of the month. Respondents delay in the delivery of the construction materials wasted so much time that construction of the tomb could start only on the twentythird. It could not be ready for the scheduled burial of petitioners wife. This undoubtedly prolonged the wake, in addition to the fact that work at the cemetery had to be put off on Christmas day. 7 This case is clearly one of non-performance of a reciprocal obligation. In their contract of purchase and sale, petitioner had already complied fully with what was required of him as purchaser, i.e., the payment of the purchase price of P2,110.00. It was incumbent upon respondent to immediately fulfill his obligation to deliver the goods otherwise delay would attach.

G.R. No. L-47851 October 3, 1986 JUAN F. NAKPIL & SONS, and JUAN F. NAKPIL, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., JUAN J. CARLOS, and the PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, respondents. G.R. No. L-47863 October 3, 1986 THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents. G.R. No. L-47896 October 3, 1986 PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

PARAS, J.:

These are petitions for review on certiorari of the November 28, 1977 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51771-R modifying the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch V, in Civil Case No. 74958 dated September 21, 1971 as modified by the Order of the lower court dated December 8, 1971. The Court of Appeals in modifying the decision of the lower court included an award of an additional amount of P200,000.00 to the Philippine Bar Association to be paid jointly and severally by the defendant United Construction Co. and by the third-party defendants Juan F. Nakpil and Sons and Juan F. Nakpil. The dispositive portion of the modified decision of the lower court reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (a) Ordering defendant United Construction Co., Inc. and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta) to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P989,335.68 with interest at the legal rate from November 29, 1968, the date of the filing of the complaint until full payment; (b) Dismissing the complaint with respect to defendant Juan J. Carlos; (c) Dismissing the third-party complaint; (d) Dismissing the defendant's and third-party defendants' counterclaims for lack of merit;

(e) Ordering defendant United Construction Co., Inc. and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta) to pay the costs in equal shares. SO ORDERED. (Record on Appeal p. 521; Rollo, L- 47851, p. 169). The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified to include an award of P200,000.00 in favor of plaintiff-appellant Philippine Bar Association, with interest at the legal rate from November 29, 1968 until full payment to be paid jointly and severally by defendant United Construction Co., Inc. and third party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta). In all other respects, the judgment dated September 21, 1971 as modified in the December 8, 1971 Order of the lower court is hereby affirmed with COSTS to be paid by the defendant and third party defendant (except Roman Ozaeta) in equal shares. SO ORDERED. Petitioners Juan F. Nakpil & Sons in L-47851 and United Construction Co., Inc. and Juan J. Carlos in L-47863 seek the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals, among other things, for exoneration from liability while petitioner Philippine Bar Association in L-47896 seeks the modification of aforesaid decision to obtain an award of P1,830,000.00 for the loss of the PBA building plus four (4) times such amount as damages resulting in increased cost of the building, P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 as attorney's fees. These petitions arising from the same case filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila were consolidated by this Court in the resolution of May 10, 1978 requiring the respective respondents to comment. (Rollo, L-47851, p. 172). The facts as found by the lower court (Decision, C.C. No. 74958; Record on Appeal, pp. 269-348; pp. 520-521; Rollo, L-47851, p. 169) and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are as follows: The plaintiff, Philippine Bar Association, a civic-non-profit association, incorporated under the Corporation Law, decided to construct an office building on its 840 square meters lot located at the comer of Aduana and Arzobispo Streets, Intramuros, Manila. The construction was undertaken by the United Construction, Inc. on an "administration" basis, on the suggestion of Juan J. Carlos, the president and general manager of said corporation. The proposal was approved by plaintiff's board of directors and signed by its president Roman Ozaeta, a third-party defendant in this case. The plans and specifications for the building were prepared by the other thirdparty defendants Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The building was completed in June, 1966. In the early morning of August 2, 1968 an unusually strong earthquake hit Manila and its environs and the building in question sustained major damage. The front columns of the building buckled, causing the building to tilt forward dangerously. The tenants

vacated the building in view of its precarious condition. As a temporary remedial measure, the building was shored up by United Construction, Inc. at the cost of P13,661.28. On November 29, 1968, the plaintiff commenced this action for the recovery of damages arising from the partial collapse of the building against United Construction, Inc. and its President and General Manager Juan J. Carlos as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the collapse of the building was accused by defects in the construction, the failure of the contractors to follow plans and specifications and violations by the defendants of the terms of the contract. Defendants in turn filed a third-party complaint against the architects who prepared the plans and specifications, alleging in essence that the collapse of the building was due to the defects in the said plans and specifications. Roman Ozaeta, the then president of the plaintiff Bar Association was included as a third-party defendant for damages for having included Juan J. Carlos, President of the United Construction Co., Inc. as party defendant. On March 3, 1969, the plaintiff and third-party defendants Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil presented a written stipulation which reads: 1. That in relation to defendants' answer with counterclaims and thirdparty complaints and the third-party defendants Nakpil & Sons' answer thereto, the plaintiff need not amend its complaint by including the said Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil personally as parties defendant. 2. That in the event (unexpected by the undersigned) that the Court should find after the trial that the above-named defendants Juan J. Carlos and United Construction Co., Inc. are free from any blame and liability for the collapse of the PBA Building, and should further find that the collapse of said building was due to defects and/or inadequacy of the plans, designs, and specifications p by the third-party defendants, or in the event that the Court may find Juan F. Nakpil and Sons and/or Juan F. Nakpil contributorily negligent or in any way jointly and solidarily liable with the defendants, judgment may be rendered in whole or in part. as the case may be, against Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and/or Juan F. Nakpil in favor of the plaintiff to all intents and purposes as if plaintiff's complaint has been duly amended by including the said Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil as parties defendant and by alleging causes of action against them including, among others, the defects or inadequacy of the plans, designs, and specifications prepared by them and/or failure in the performance of their contract with plaintiff. 3. Both parties hereby jointly petition this Honorable Court to approve this stipulation. (Record on Appeal, pp. 274-275; Rollo, L-47851,p.169).

Upon the issues being joined, a pre-trial was conducted on March 7, 1969, during which among others, the parties agreed to refer the technical issues involved in the case to a Commissioner. Mr. Andres O. Hizon, who was ultimately appointed by the trial court, assumed his office as Commissioner, charged with the duty to try the following issues: 1. Whether the damage sustained by the PBA building during the August 2, 1968 earthquake had been caused, directly or indirectly, by: (a) The inadequacies or defects in the plans and specifications prepared by third-party defendants; (b) The deviations, if any, made by the defendants from said plans and specifications and how said deviations contributed to the damage sustained; (c) The alleged failure of defendants to observe the requisite quality of materials and workmanship in the construction of the building; (d) The alleged failure to exercise the requisite degree of supervision expected of the architect, the contractor and/or the owner of the building; (e) An act of God or a fortuitous event; and (f) Any other cause not herein above specified. 2. If the cause of the damage suffered by the building arose from a combination of the above-enumerated factors, the degree or proportion in which each individual factor contributed to the damage sustained; 3. Whether the building is now a total loss and should be completely demolished or whether it may still be repaired and restored to a tenantable condition. In the latter case, the determination of the cost of such restoration or repair, and the value of any remaining construction, such as the foundation, which may still be utilized or availed of (Record on Appeal, pp. 275-276; Rollo, L-47851, p. 169). Thus, the issues of this case were divided into technical issues and non-technical issues. As aforestated the technical issues were referred to the Commissioner. The non-technical issues were tried by the Court. Meanwhile, plaintiff moved twice for the demolition of the building on the ground that it may topple down in case of a strong earthquake. The motions were opposed by the defendants and the matter was referred to the Commissioner. Finally, on April 30, 1979 the building was authorized to be demolished at the expense of the plaintiff, but not another earthquake of high intensity on April 7, 1970 followed by other strong earthquakes on April 9, and 12, 1970, caused further damage to the property. The

actual demolition was undertaken by the buyer of the damaged building. (Record on Appeal, pp. 278-280; Ibid.) After the protracted hearings, the Commissioner eventually submitted his report on September 25, 1970 with the findings that while the damage sustained by the PBA building was caused directly by the August 2, 1968 earthquake whose magnitude was estimated at 7.3 they were also caused by the defects in the plans and specifications prepared by the third-party defendants' architects, deviations from said plans and specifications by the defendant contractors and failure of the latter to observe the requisite workmanship in the construction of the building and of the contractors, architects and even the owners to exercise the requisite degree of supervision in the construction of subject building. All the parties registered their objections to aforesaid findings which in turn were answered by the Commissioner. The trial court agreed with the findings of the Commissioner except as to the holding that the owner is charged with full nine supervision of the construction. The Court sees no legal or contractual basis for such conclusion. (Record on Appeal, pp. 309328; Ibid). Thus, on September 21, 1971, the lower court rendered the assailed decision which was modified by the Intermediate Appellate Court on November 28, 1977. All the parties herein appealed from the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. Hence, these petitions. On May 11, 1978, the United Architects of the Philippines, the Association of Civil Engineers, and the Philippine Institute of Architects filed with the Court a motion to intervene as amicus curiae. They proposed to present a position paper on the liability of architects when a building collapses and to submit likewise a critical analysis with computations on the divergent views on the design and plans as submitted by the experts procured by the parties. The motion having been granted, the amicus curiae were granted a period of 60 days within which to submit their position. After the parties had all filed their comments, We gave due course to the petitions in Our Resolution of July 21, 1978. The position papers of the amicus curiae (submitted on November 24, 1978) were duly noted. The amicus curiae gave the opinion that the plans and specifications of the Nakpils were not defective. But the Commissioner, when asked by Us to comment, reiterated his conclusion that the defects in the plans and specifications indeed existed. Using the same authorities availed of by the amicus curiae such as the Manila Code (Ord. No. 4131) and the 1966 Asep Code, the Commissioner added that even if it can be proved that the defects in theconstruction alone (and not in the plans and design)

caused the damage to the building, still the deficiency in the original design and jack of specific provisions against torsion in the original plans and the overload on the ground floor columns (found by an the experts including the original designer) certainly contributed to the damage which occurred. (Ibid, p. 174). In their respective briefs petitioners, among others, raised the following assignments of errors: Philippine Bar Association claimed that the measure of damages should not be limited to P1,100,000.00 as estimated cost of repairs or to the period of six (6) months for loss of rentals while United Construction Co., Inc. and the Nakpils claimed that it was an act of God that caused the failure of the building which should exempt them from responsibility and not the defective construction, poor workmanship, deviations from plans and specifications and other imperfections in the case of United Construction Co., Inc. or the deficiencies in the design, plans and specifications prepared by petitioners in the case of the Nakpils. Both UCCI and the Nakpils object to the payment of the additional amount of P200,000.00 imposed by the Court of Appeals. UCCI also claimed that it should be reimbursed the expenses of shoring the building in the amount of P13,661.28 while the Nakpils opposed the payment of damages jointly and solidarity with UCCI. The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not an act of God-an unusually strong earthquake-which caused the failure of the building, exempts from liability, parties who are otherwise liable because of their negligence. The applicable law governing the rights and liabilities of the parties herein is Article 1723 of the New Civil Code, which provides: Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damage if the edifice fags within the same period on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. On the other hand, the general rule is that no person shall be responsible for events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, were inevitable (Article 1174, New Civil Code).

An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been expected, could have been prevented. (1 Corpus Juris 1174). There is no dispute that the earthquake of August 2, 1968 is a fortuitous event or an act of God. To exempt the obligor from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due to an "act of God," the following must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must be either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor. (Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553; Estrada v. Consolacion, 71 SCRA 423; Austria v. Court of Appeals, 39 SCRA 527; Republic of the Phil. v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., 21 SCRA 279; Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657). Thus, if upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any manner of the tenor of the obligation as provided for in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot escape liability. The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God. (1 Corpus Juris, pp. 1174-1175). Thus it has been held that when the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate cause of the damage was the act of God. To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of God, he must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which that loss or damage may have been occasioned. (Fish & Elective Co. v. Phil. Motors, 55 Phil. 129; Tucker v. Milan, 49 O.G. 4379; Limpangco & Sons v. Yangco Steamship Co., 34 Phil. 594, 604; Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657). The negligence of the defendant and the third-party defendants petitioners was established beyond dispute both in the lower court and in the Intermediate Appellate Court. Defendant United Construction Co., Inc. was found to have made substantial deviations from the plans and specifications. and to have failed to observe the requisite workmanship in the construction as well as to exercise the requisite degree of supervision; while the third-party defendants were found to have inadequacies or defects in the plans and specifications prepared by them. As correctly assessed by both courts, the defects in the construction and in the plans and specifications were the proximate causes that rendered the PBA building unable to withstand the

earthquake of August 2, 1968. For this reason the defendant and third-party defendants cannot claim exemption from liability. (Decision, Court of Appeals, pp. 3031). It is well settled that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and on this court (cases cited in Tolentino vs. de Jesus, 56 SCRA 67; Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 105, 121), unless (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting , (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees (Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., February 8, 1967, 19 SCRA 289, 291-292; Roque vs. Buan, Oct. 31, 1967, 21 SCRA 648, 651); (7) the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents (Garcia vs. CA, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 622; Alsua-Bett vs. Court of Appeals, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 322, 366); (10) the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by evidence on record (Salazar vs. Gutierrez, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 243, 247; Cited in G.R. No. 66497-98, Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, July 10, 1986). It is evident that the case at bar does not fall under any of the exceptions abovementioned. On the contrary, the records show that the lower court spared no effort in arriving at the correct appreciation of facts by the referral of technical issues to a Commissioner chosen by the parties whose findings and conclusions remained convincingly unrebutted by the intervenors/amicus curiae who were allowed to intervene in the Supreme Court. In any event, the relevant and logical observations of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals that "while it is not possible to state with certainty that the building would not have collapsed were those defects not present, the fact remains that several buildings in the same area withstood the earthquake to which the building of the plaintiff was similarly subjected," cannot be ignored. The next issue to be resolved is the amount of damages to be awarded to the PBA for the partial collapse (and eventual complete collapse) of its building. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the trial court based on the report of the Commissioner that the total amount required to repair the PBA building and to restore it to tenantable condition was P900,000.00 inasmuch as it was not initially a total loss. However, while the trial court awarded the PBA said amount as damages, plus unrealized rental income for one-half year, the Court of Appeals modified the amount by awarding in favor of PBA an additional sum of P200,000.00 representing the damage suffered by the PBA building as a result of another earthquake that occurred on April 7, 1970 (L-47896, Vol. I, p. 92).

The PBA in its brief insists that the proper award should be P1,830,000.00 representing the total value of the building (L-47896, PBA's No. 1 Assignment of Error, p. 19), while both the NAKPILS and UNITED question the additional award of P200,000.00 in favor of the PBA (L- 47851, NAKPIL's Brief as Petitioner, p. 6, UNITED's Brief as Petitioner, p. 25). The PBA further urges that the unrealized rental income awarded to it should not be limited to a period of one-half year but should be computed on a continuing basis at the rate of P178,671.76 a year until the judgment for the principal amount shall have been satisfied L- 47896, PBA's No. 11 Assignment of Errors, p. 19). The collapse of the PBA building as a result of the August 2, 1968 earthquake was only partial and it is undisputed that the building could then still be repaired and restored to its tenantable condition. The PBA, however, in view of its lack of needed funding, was unable, thru no fault of its own, to have the building repaired. UNITED, on the other hand, spent P13,661.28 to shore up the building after the August 2, 1968 earthquake (L-47896, CA Decision, p. 46). Because of the earthquake on April 7, 1970, the trial court after the needed consultations, authorized the total demolition of the building (L-47896, Vol. 1, pp. 53-54). There should be no question that the NAKPILS and UNITED are liable for the damage resulting from the partial and eventual collapse of the PBA building as a result of the earthquakes. We quote with approval the following from the erudite decision penned by Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) while still an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals: There is no question that an earthquake and other forces of nature such as cyclones, drought, floods, lightning, and perils of the sea are acts of God. It does not necessarily follow, however, that specific losses and suffering resulting from the occurrence of these natural force are also acts of God. We are not convinced on the basis of the evidence on record that from the thousands of structures in Manila, God singled out the blameless PBA building in Intramuros and around six or seven other buildings in various parts of the city for collapse or severe damage and that God alone was responsible for the damages and losses thus suffered. The record is replete with evidence of defects and deficiencies in the designs and plans, defective construction, poor workmanship, deviation from plans and specifications and other imperfections. These deficiencies are attributable to negligent men and not to a perfect God. The act-of-God arguments of the defendants- appellants and third party defendants-appellants presented in their briefs are premised on legal generalizations or speculations and on theological fatalism both of which ignore the plain facts. The lengthy discussion of United on ordinary earthquakes and unusually strong earthquakes and on

ordinary fortuitous events and extraordinary fortuitous events leads to its argument that the August 2, 1968 earthquake was of such an overwhelming and destructive character that by its own force and independent of the particular negligence alleged, the injury would have been produced. If we follow this line of speculative reasoning, we will be forced to conclude that under such a situation scores of buildings in the vicinity and in other parts of Manila would have toppled down. Following the same line of reasoning, Nakpil and Sons alleges that the designs were adequate in accordance with pre-August 2, 1968 knowledge and appear inadequate only in the light of engineering information acquired after the earthquake. If this were so, hundreds of ancient buildings which survived the earthquake better than the twoyear old PBA building must have been designed and constructed by architects and contractors whose knowledge and foresight were unexplainably auspicious and prophetic. Fortunately, the facts on record allow a more down to earth explanation of the collapse. The failure of the PBA building, as a unique and distinct construction with no reference or comparison to other buildings, to weather the severe earthquake forces was traced to design deficiencies and defective construction, factors which are neither mysterious nor esoteric. The theological allusion of appellant United that God acts in mysterious ways His wonders to perform impresses us to be inappropriate. The evidence reveals defects and deficiencies in design and construction. There is no mystery about these acts of negligence. The collapse of the PBA building was no wonder performed by God. It was a result of the imperfections in the work of the architects and the people in the construction company. More relevant to our mind is the lesson from the parable of the wise man in the Sermon on the Mount "which built his house upon a rock; and the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house; and it fen not; for it was founded upon a rock" and of the "foolish upon the sand. And the rain descended and man which built his house the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell and great was the fall of it. (St. Matthew 7: 24-27)." The requirement that a building should withstand rains, floods, winds, earthquakes, and natural forces is precisely the reason why we have professional experts like architects, and engineers. Designs and constructions vary under varying circumstances and conditions but the requirement to design and build well does not change. The findings of the lower Court on the cause of the collapse are more rational and accurate. Instead of laying the blame solely on the motions and forces generated by the earthquake, it also examined the ability of the PBA building, as designed and constructed, to withstand and successfully weather those forces. The evidence sufficiently supports a conclusion that the negligence and fault of both United and Nakpil and Sons, not a mysterious act of an

inscrutable God, were responsible for the damages. The Report of the Commissioner, Plaintiff's Objections to the Report, Third Party Defendants' Objections to the Report, Defendants' Objections to the Report, Commissioner's Answer to the various Objections, Plaintiffs' Reply to the Commissioner's Answer, Defendants' Reply to the Commissioner's Answer, Counter-Reply to Defendants' Reply, and Third-Party Defendants' Reply to the Commissioner's Report not to mention the exhibits and the testimonies show that the main arguments raised on appeal were already raised during the trial and fully considered by the lower Court. A reiteration of these same arguments on appeal fails to convince us that we should reverse or disturb the lower Court's factual findings and its conclusions drawn from the facts, among them: The Commissioner also found merit in the allegations of the defendants as to the physical evidence before and after the earthquake showing the inadequacy of design, to wit: Physical evidence before the earthquake providing (sic) inadequacy of design; 1. inadequate design was the cause of the failure of the building. 2. Sun-baffles on the two sides and in front of the building; a. Increase the inertia forces that move the building laterally toward the Manila Fire Department. b. Create another stiffness imbalance. 3. The embedded 4" diameter cast iron down spout on all exterior columns reduces the cross-sectional area of each of the columns and the strength thereof. 4. Two front corners, A7 and D7 columns were very much less reinforced. Physical Evidence After the Earthquake, Proving Inadequacy of design; 1. Column A7 suffered the severest fracture and maximum sagging. Also D7. 2. There are more damages in the front part of the building than towards the rear, not only in columns but also in slabs. 3. Building leaned and sagged more on the front part of the building.

4. Floors showed maximum sagging on the sides and toward the front corner parts of the building. 5. There was a lateral displacement of the building of about 8", Maximum sagging occurs at the column A7 where the floor is lower by 80 cm. than the highest slab level. 6. Slab at the corner column D7 sagged by 38 cm. The Commissioner concluded that there were deficiencies or defects in the design, plans and specifications of the PBA building which involved appreciable risks with respect to the accidental forces which may result from earthquake shocks. He conceded, however, that the fact that those deficiencies or defects may have arisen from an obsolete or not too conservative code or even a code that does not require a design for earthquake forces mitigates in a large measure the responsibility or liability of the architect and engineer designer. The Third-party defendants, who are the most concerned with this portion of the Commissioner's report, voiced opposition to the same on the grounds that (a) the finding is based on a basic erroneous conception as to the design concept of the building, to wit, that the design is essentially that of a heavy rectangular box on stilts with shear wan at one end; (b) the finding that there were defects and a deficiency in the design of the building would at best be based on an approximation and, therefore, rightly belonged to the realm of speculation, rather than of certainty and could very possibly be outright error; (c) the Commissioner has failed to back up or support his finding with extensive, complex and highly specialized computations and analyzes which he himself emphasizes are necessary in the determination of such a highly technical question; and (d) the Commissioner has analyzed the design of the PBA building not in the light of existing and available earthquake engineering knowledge at the time of the preparation of the design, but in the light of recent and current standards. The Commissioner answered the said objections alleging that thirdparty defendants' objections were based on estimates or exhibits not presented during the hearing that the resort to engineering references posterior to the date of the preparation of the plans was induced by the third-party defendants themselves who submitted computations of the third-party defendants are erroneous. The issue presently considered is admittedly a technical one of the highest degree. It involves questions not within the ordinary competence of the bench and the bar to resolve by themselves. Counsel for the third-party defendants has aptly remarked that "engineering, although dealing in mathematics, is not an exact science and that the

present knowledge as to the nature of earthquakes and the behaviour of forces generated by them still leaves much to be desired; so much so "that the experts of the different parties, who are all engineers, cannot agree on what equation to use, as to what earthquake co-efficients are, on the codes to be used and even as to the type of structure that the PBA building (is) was (p. 29, Memo, of third- party defendants before the Commissioner). The difficulty expected by the Court if tills technical matter were to be tried and inquired into by the Court itself, coupled with the intrinsic nature of the questions involved therein, constituted the reason for the reference of the said issues to a Commissioner whose qualifications and experience have eminently qualified him for the task, and whose competence had not been questioned by the parties until he submitted his report. Within the pardonable limit of the Court's ability to comprehend the meaning of the Commissioner's report on this issue, and the objections voiced to the same, the Court sees no compelling reasons to disturb the findings of the Commissioner that there were defects and deficiencies in the design, plans and specifications prepared by third-party defendants, and that said defects and deficiencies involved appreciable risks with respect to the accidental forces which may result from earthquake shocks. (2) (a) The deviations, if any, made by the defendants from the plans and specifications, and how said deviations contributed to the damage sustained by the building. (b) The alleged failure of defendants to observe the requisite quality of materials and workmanship in the construction of the building. These two issues, being interrelated with each other, will be discussed together. The findings of the Commissioner on these issues were as follows: We now turn to the construction of the PBA Building and the alleged deficiencies or defects in the construction and violations or deviations from the plans and specifications. All these may be summarized as follows: a. Summary of alleged defects as reported by Engineer Mario M. Bundalian. (1) Wrongful and defective placing of reinforcing bars. (2) Absence of effective and desirable integration of the 3 bars in the cluster.

(3) Oversize coarse aggregates: 1-1/4 to 2" were used. Specification requires no larger than 1 inch. (4) Reinforcement assembly is not concentric with the column, eccentricity being 3" off when on one face the main bars are only 1 1/2' from the surface. (5) Prevalence of honeycombs, (6) Contraband construction joints, (7) Absence, or omission, or over spacing of spiral hoops, (8) Deliberate severance of spirals into semi-circles in noted on Col. A-5, ground floor, (9) Defective construction joints in Columns A-3, C-7, D-7 and D-4, ground floor, (10) Undergraduate concrete is evident, (11) Big cavity in core of Column 2A-4, second floor, (12) Columns buckled at different planes. Columns buckled worst where there are no spirals or where spirals are cut. Columns suffered worst displacement where the eccentricity of the columnar reinforcement assembly is more acute. b. Summary of alleged defects as reported by Engr. Antonio Avecilla. Columns are first (or ground) floor, unless otherwise stated. (1) Column D4 Spacing of spiral is changed from 2" to 5" on centers, (2) Column D5 No spiral up to a height of 22" from the ground floor, (3) Column D6 Spacing of spiral over 4 l/2, (4) Column D7 Lack of lateral ties, (5) Column C7 Absence of spiral to a height of 20" from the ground level, Spirals are at 2" from the exterior column face and 6" from the inner column face, (6) Column B6 Lack of spiral on 2 feet below the floor beams, (7) Column B5 Lack of spirals at a distance of 26' below the beam,

(8) Column B7 Spirals not tied to vertical reinforcing bars, Spirals are uneven 2" to 4", (9) Column A3 Lack of lateral ties, (10) Column A4 Spirals cut off and welded to two separate clustered vertical bars, (11) Column A4 (second floor Column is completely hollow to a height of 30" (12) Column A5 Spirals were cut from the floor level to the bottom of the spandrel beam to a height of 6 feet, (13) Column A6 No spirals up to a height of 30' above the ground floor level, (14) Column A7 Lack of lateralties or spirals, c. Summary of alleged defects as reported by the experts of the ThirdParty defendants. Ground floor columns. (1) Column A4 Spirals are cut, (2) Column A5 Spirals are cut, (3) Column A6 At lower 18" spirals are absent, (4) Column A7 Ties are too far apart, (5) Column B5 At upper fourth of column spirals are either absent or improperly spliced, (6) Column B6 At upper 2 feet spirals are absent, (7) Column B7 At upper fourth of column spirals missing or improperly spliced. (8) Column C7 Spirals are absent at lowest 18" (9) Column D5 At lowest 2 feet spirals are absent, (10) Column D6 Spirals are too far apart and apparently improperly spliced,

(11) Column D7 Lateral ties are too far apart, spaced 16" on centers. There is merit in many of these allegations. The explanations given by the engineering experts for the defendants are either contrary to general principles of engineering design for reinforced concrete or not applicable to the requirements for ductility and strength of reinforced concrete in earthquake-resistant design and construction. We shall first classify and consider defects which may have appreciable bearing or relation to' the earthquake-resistant property of the building. As heretofore mentioned, details which insure ductility at or near the connections between columns and girders are desirable in earthquake resistant design and construction. The omission of spirals and ties or hoops at the bottom and/or tops of columns contributed greatly to the loss of earthquake-resistant strength. The plans and specifications required that these spirals and ties be carried from the floor level to the bottom reinforcement of the deeper beam (p. 1, Specifications, p. 970, Reference 11). There were several clear evidences where this was not done especially in some of the ground floor columns which failed. There were also unmistakable evidences that the spacings of the spirals and ties in the columns were in many cases greater than those called for in the plans and specifications resulting again in loss of earthquakeresistant strength. The assertion of the engineering experts for the defendants that the improper spacings and the cutting of the spirals did not result in loss of strength in the column cannot be maintained and is certainly contrary to the general principles of column design and construction. And even granting that there be no loss in strength at the yield point (an assumption which is very doubtful) the cutting or improper spacings of spirals will certainly result in the loss of the plastic range or ductility in the column and it is precisely this plastic range or ductility which is desirable and needed for earthquakeresistant strength. There is no excuse for the cavity or hollow portion in the column A4, second floor, and although this column did not fail, this is certainly an evidence on the part of the contractor of poor construction. The effect of eccentricities in the columns which were measured at about 2 1/2 inches maximum may be approximated in relation to column loads and column and beam moments. The main effect of eccentricity is to change the beam or girder span. The effect on the measured eccentricity of 2 inches, therefore, is to increase or diminish the column load by a maximum of about 1% and to increase or diminish the column or beam movements by about a maximum of 2%. While these can certainly be absorbed within the factor of safety, they nevertheless diminish said factor of safety.

The cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor is the subject of great contention between the parties and deserves special consideration. The proper placing of the main reinforcements and spirals in column A5, ground floor, is the responsibility of the general contractor which is the UCCI. The burden of proof, therefore, that this cutting was done by others is upon the defendants. Other than a strong allegation and assertion that it is the plumber or his men who may have done the cutting (and this was flatly denied by the plumber) no conclusive proof was presented. The engineering experts for the defendants asserted that they could have no motivation for cutting the bar because they can simply replace the spirals by wrapping around a new set of spirals. This is not quite correct. There is evidence to show that the pouring of concrete for columns was sometimes done through the beam and girder reinforcements which were already in place as in the case of column A4 second floor. If the reinforcement for the girder and column is to subsequently wrap around the spirals, this would not do for the elasticity of steel would prevent the making of tight column spirals and loose or improper spirals would result. The proper way is to produce correct spirals down from the top of the main column bars, a procedure which can not be done if either the beam or girder reinforcement is already in place. The engineering experts for the defendants strongly assert and apparently believe that the cutting of the spirals did not materially diminish the strength of the column. This belief together with the difficulty of slipping the spirals on the top of the column once the beam reinforcement is in place may be a sufficient motivation for the cutting of the spirals themselves. The defendants, therefore, should be held responsible for the consequences arising from the loss of strength or ductility in column A5 which may have contributed to the damages sustained by the building. The lack of proper length of splicing of spirals was also proven in the visible spirals of the columns where spalling of the concrete cover had taken place. This lack of proper splicing contributed in a small measure to the loss of strength. The effects of all the other proven and visible defects although nor can certainly be accumulated so that they can contribute to an appreciable loss in earthquake-resistant strength. The engineering experts for the defendants submitted an estimate on some of these defects in the amount of a few percent. If accumulated, therefore, including the effect of eccentricity in the column the loss in strength due to these minor defects may run to as much as ten percent. To recapitulate: the omission or lack of spirals and ties at the bottom and/or at the top of some of the ground floor columns contributed greatly to the collapse of the PBA building since it is at these points

where the greater part of the failure occurred. The liability for the cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor, in the considered opinion of the Commissioner rests on the shoulders of the defendants and the loss of strength in this column contributed to the damage which occurred. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the proven defects, deficiencies and violations of the plans and specifications of the PBA building contributed to the damages which resulted during the earthquake of August 2, 1968 and the vice of these defects and deficiencies is that they not only increase but also aggravate the weakness mentioned in the design of the structure. In other words, these defects and deficiencies not only tend to add but also to multiply the effects of the shortcomings in the design of the building. We may say, therefore, that the defects and deficiencies in the construction contributed greatly to the damage which occurred. Since the execution and supervision of the construction work in the hands of the contractor is direct and positive, the presence of existence of all the major defects and deficiencies noted and proven manifests an element of negligence which may amount to imprudence in the construction work. (pp. 42-49, Commissioners Report). As the parties most directly concerned with this portion of the Commissioner's report, the defendants voiced their objections to the same on the grounds that the Commissioner should have specified the defects found by him to be "meritorious"; that the Commissioner failed to indicate the number of cases where the spirals and ties were not carried from the floor level to the bottom reinforcement of the deeper beam, or where the spacing of the spirals and ties in the columns were greater than that called for in the specifications; that the hollow in column A4, second floor, the eccentricities in the columns, the lack of proper length of splicing of spirals, and the cut in the spirals in column A5, ground floor, did not aggravate or contribute to the damage suffered by the building; that the defects in the construction were within the tolerable margin of safety; and that the cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor, was done by the plumber or his men, and not by the defendants. Answering the said objections, the Commissioner stated that, since many of the defects were minor only the totality of the defects was considered. As regards the objection as to failure to state the number of cases where the spirals and ties were not carried from the floor level to the bottom reinforcement, the Commissioner specified groundfloor columns B-6 and C-5 the first one without spirals for 03 inches at the top, and in the latter, there were no spirals for 10 inches at the bottom. The Commissioner likewise specified the first storey columns where the spacings were greater than that called for in the specifications to be columns B-5, B-6, C-7, C-6, C-5, D-5 and B-7. The objection to the failure of the Commissioner to specify the number of columns where there was lack of proper length of splicing of spirals, the Commissioner mentioned groundfloor columns B-6 and B-5 where all the splices were less than 1-1/2 turns and were not welded, resulting in some loss of strength

which could be critical near the ends of the columns. He answered the supposition of the defendants that the spirals and the ties must have been looted, by calling attention to the fact that the missing spirals and ties were only in two out of the 25 columns, which rendered said supposition to be improbable. The Commissioner conceded that the hollow in column A-4, second floor, did not aggravate or contribute to the damage, but averred that it is "evidence of poor construction." On the claim that the eccentricity could be absorbed within the factor of safety, the Commissioner answered that, while the same may be true, it also contributed to or aggravated the damage suffered by the building. The objection regarding the cutting of the spirals in Column A-5, groundfloor, was answered by the Commissioner by reiterating the observation in his report that irrespective of who did the cutting of the spirals, the defendants should be held liable for the same as the general contractor of the building. The Commissioner further stated that the loss of strength of the cut spirals and inelastic deflections of the supposed lattice work defeated the purpose of the spiral containment in the column and resulted in the loss of strength, as evidenced by the actual failure of this column. Again, the Court concurs in the findings of the Commissioner on these issues and fails to find any sufficient cause to disregard or modify the same. As found by the Commissioner, the "deviations made by the defendants from the plans and specifications caused indirectly the damage sustained and that those deviations not only added but also aggravated the damage caused by the defects in the plans and specifications prepared by third-party defendants. (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 128-142) The afore-mentioned facts clearly indicate the wanton negligence of both the defendant and the third-party defendants in effecting the plans, designs, specifications, and construction of the PBA building and We hold such negligence as equivalent to bad faith in the performance of their respective tasks. Relative thereto, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Tucker v. Milan (49 O.G. 4379, 4380) which may be in point in this case reads: One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the act of a third person, or an act of God for which he is not responsible, intervenes to precipitate the loss. As already discussed, the destruction was not purely an act of God. Truth to tell hundreds of ancient buildings in the vicinity were hardly affected by the earthquake. Only one thing spells out the fatal difference; gross negligence and evident bad faith, without which the damage would not have occurred. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and considering the special and environmental circumstances of this case, We deem it reasonable to render a decision imposing, as We do hereby impose, upon the defendant and the third-party defendants (with the exception of Roman Ozaeta) a solidary (Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra, p. 10) indemnity in favor of the Philippine Bar Association of FIVE

MILLION (P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all damages (with the exception of attorney's fees) occasioned by the loss of the building (including interest charges and lost rentals) and an additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney's fees, the total sum being payable upon the finality of this decision. Upon failure to pay on such finality, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall be imposed upon afore-mentioned amounts from finality until paid. Solidary costs against the defendant and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta). SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Cruz, JJ., concur.

NAKPIL & SONS v. CA To be exempt from liability due to an act of God, the engineer/architect/contractor must not have been negligent in the construction of the building.

FACTS: Private respondents Philippine Bar Association (PBA) a non-profit organization formed under the corporation law decided to put up a building in Intramuros, Manila. Hired to plan the specifications of the building were Juan Nakpil & Sons, while United Construction was hired to construct it. The proposal was approved by the Board of Directors and signed by the President, Ramon Ozaeta. The building was completed in 1966.

In 1968, there was an unusually strong earthquake which caused the building heavy damage, which led the building to tilt forward, leading the tenants to vacate the premises. United Construction took remedial measures to sustain the building.

PBA filed a suit for damages against United Construction, but United Construction subsequently filed a suit against Nakpil and Sons, alleging defects in the plans and specifications.

Technical Issues in the case were referred to Mr. Hizon, as a court appointed Commissioner. PBA moved for the demolition of the building, but was opposed. PBA eventually paid for the demolition after the building suffered more damages in 1970 due

to previous earthquakes. The Commissioner found that there were deviations in the specifications and plans, as well as defects in the construction of the building.

ISSUE: Whether or not an act of God (fortuitous event) exempts from liability parties who would otherwise be due to negligence?

HELD: Art. 1723 dictates that the engineer/architect and contractor are liable for damages should the building collapse within 15 years from completion.

Art. 1174 of the NCC, however, states that no person shall be responsible for events, which could not be foreseen. But to be exempt from liability due to an act of God, the ff must occur:

1) cause of breach must be independent of the will of the debtor 2) event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable 3) event must be such that it would render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation 4) debtor must be free from any participation or aggravation of the industry to the creditor.

In the case at bar, although the damage was ultimately caused by the earthquake which was an act of God, the defects in the construction, as well as the deviations in the specifications and plans aggravated the damage, and lessened the preventive measures that the building would otherwise have had.

G.R. No. 103577 October 7, 1996 ROMULO A. CORONEL, ALARICO A. CORONEL, ANNETTE A. CORONEL, ANNABELLE C. GONZALES (for herself and on behalf of Florida C. Tupper, as attorney-in-fact), CIELITO A. CORONEL, FLORAIDA A. ALMONTE, and CATALINA BALAIS MABANAG, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, CONCEPCION D. ALCARAZ, and RAMONA PATRICIA ALCARAZ, assisted by GLORIA F. NOEL as attorney-in-fact, respondents.

MELO, J.:p The petition before us has its roots in a complaint for specific performance to compel herein petitioners (except the last named, Catalina Balais Mabanag) to consummate the sale of a parcel of land with its improvements located along Roosevelt Avenue in Quezon City entered into by the parties sometime in January 1985 for the price of P1,240,000.00. The undisputed facts of the case were summarized by respondent court in this wise: On January 19, 1985, defendants-appellants Romulo Coronel, et al. (hereinafter referred to as Coronels) executed a document entitled "Receipt of Down Payment" (Exh. "A") in favor of plaintiff Ramona Patricia Alcaraz (hereinafter referred to as Ramona) which is reproduced hereunder: RECEIPT OF DOWN PAYMENT P1,240,000.00 Total amount 50,000 Down payment P1,190,000.00 Balance Received from Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz of 146 Timog, Quezon City, the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos purchase price of our inherited house and lot, covered by TCT No. 119627 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, in the total amount of P1,240,000.00. We bind ourselves to effect the transfer in our names from our deceased father, Constancio P. Coronel, the transfer certificate of title immediately upon receipt of the down payment above-stated. On our presentation of the TCT already in or name, We will immediately execute the deed of absolute sale of said property and Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz shall immediately pay the balance of the P1,190,000.00. Clearly, the conditions appurtenant to the sale are the following:

1. Ramona will make a down payment of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos upon execution of the document aforestated; 2. The Coronels will cause the transfer in their names of the title of the property registered in the name of their deceased father upon receipt of the Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos down payment; 3. Upon the transfer in their names of the subject property, the Coronels will execute the deed of absolute sale in favor of Ramona and the latter will pay the former the whole balance of One Million One Hundred Ninety Thousand (P1,190,000.00) Pesos. On the same date (January 15, 1985), plaintiff-appellee Concepcion D. Alcaraz (hereinafter referred to as Concepcion), mother of Ramona, paid the down payment of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos (Exh. "B", Exh. "2"). On February 6, 1985, the property originally registered in the name of the Coronels' father was transferred in their names under TCT No. 327043 (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4") On February 18, 1985, the Coronels sold the property covered by TCT No. 327043 to intervenor-appellant Catalina B. Mabanag (hereinafter referred to as Catalina) for One Million Five Hundred Eighty Thousand (P1,580,000.00) Pesos after the latter has paid Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos (Exhs. "F-3"; Exh. "6-C") For this reason, Coronels canceled and rescinded the contract (Exh. "A") with Ramona by depositing the down payment paid by Concepcion in the bank in trust for Ramona Patricia Alcaraz. On February 22, 1985, Concepcion, et al., filed a complaint for specific performance against the Coronels and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of TCT No. 327403 (Exh. "E"; Exh. "5"). On April 2, 1985, Catalina caused the annotation of a notice of adverse claim covering the same property with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City (Exh. "F"; Exh. "6"). On April 25, 1985, the Coronels executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property in favor of Catalina (Exh. "G"; Exh. "7"). On June 5, 1985, a new title over the subject property was issued in the name of Catalina under TCT No. 351582 (Exh. "H"; Exh. "8"). (Rollo, pp. 134-136) In the course of the proceedings before the trial court (Branch 83, RTC, Quezon City) the parties agreed to submit the case for decision solely on the basis of documentary exhibits.

Thus, plaintiffs therein (now private respondents) proffered their documentary evidence accordingly marked as Exhibits "A" through "J", inclusive of their corresponding submarkings. Adopting these same exhibits as their own, then defendants (now petitioners) accordingly offered and marked them as Exhibits "1" through "10", likewise inclusive of their corresponding submarkings. Upon motion of the parties, the trial court gave them thirty (30) days within which to simultaneously submit their respective memoranda, and an additional 15 days within which to submit their corresponding comment or reply thereof, after which, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution. On April 14, 1988, the case was submitted for resolution before Judge Reynaldo Roura, who was then temporarily detailed to preside over Branch 82 of the RTC of Quezon City. On March 1, 1989, judgment was handed down by Judge Roura from his regular bench at Macabebe, Pampanga for the Quezon City branch, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment for specific performance is hereby rendered ordering defendant to execute in favor of plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale covering that parcel of land embraced in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 327403 (now TCT No. 331582) of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, together with all the improvements existing thereon free from all liens and encumbrances, and once accomplished, to immediately deliver the said document of sale to plaintiffs and upon receipt thereof, the said document of sale to plaintiffs and upon receipt thereof, the plaintiffs are ordered to pay defendants the whole balance of the purchase price amounting to P1,190,000.00 in cash. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 331582 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City in the name of intervenor is hereby canceled and declared to be without force and effect. Defendants and intervenor and all other persons claiming under them are hereby ordered to vacate the subject property and deliver possession thereof to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' claim for damages and attorney's fees, as well as the counterclaims of defendants and intervenors are hereby dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. So Ordered. Macabebe, Pampanga for Quezon City, March 1, 1989. (Rollo, p. 106) A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner before the new presiding judge of the Quezon City RTC but the same was denied by Judge Estrella T. Estrada, thusly: The prayer contained in the instant motion, i.e., to annul the decision and to render anew decision by the undersigned Presiding Judge should be denied for the following reasons: (1) The instant case became submitted for decision as of April 14, 1988 when the parties terminated the presentation of their respective documentary evidence and when the Presiding Judge at that time was Judge Reynaldo Roura. The fact that they were allowed to file

memoranda at some future date did not change the fact that the hearing of the case was terminated before Judge Roura and therefore the same should be submitted to him for decision; (2) When the defendants and intervenor did not object to the authority of Judge Reynaldo Roura to decide the case prior to the rendition of the decision, when they met for the first time before the undersigned Presiding Judge at the hearing of a pending incident in Civil Case No. Q-46145 on November 11, 1988, they were deemed to have acquiesced thereto and they are now estopped from questioning said authority of Judge Roura after they received the decision in question which happens to be adverse to them; (3) While it is true that Judge Reynaldo Roura was merely a Judge-on-detail at this Branch of the Court, he was in all respects the Presiding Judge with full authority to act on any pending incident submitted before this Court during his incumbency. When he returned to his Official Station at Macabebe, Pampanga, he did not lose his authority to decide or resolve such cases submitted to him for decision or resolution because he continued as Judge of the Regional Trial Court and is of co-equal rank with the undersigned Presiding Judge. The standing rule and supported by jurisprudence is that a Judge to whom a case is submitted for decision has the authority to decide the case notwithstanding his transfer to another branch or region of the same court (Sec. 9, Rule 135, Rule of Court). Coming now to the twin prayer for reconsideration of the Decision dated March 1, 1989 rendered in the instant case, resolution of which now pertains to the undersigned Presiding Judge, after a meticulous examination of the documentary evidence presented by the parties, she is convinced that the Decision of March 1, 1989 is supported by evidence and, therefore, should not be disturbed. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the "Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Annul Decision and Render Anew Decision by the Incumbent Presiding Judge" dated March 20, 1989 is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines, July 12, 1989. (Rollo, pp. 108-109) Petitioners thereupon interposed an appeal, but on December 16, 1991, the Court of Appeals (Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Abad Santos (P), JJ.) rendered its decision fully agreeing with the trial court. Hence, the instant petition which was filed on March 5, 1992. The last pleading, private respondents' Reply Memorandum, was filed on September 15, 1993. The case was, however, re-raffled to undersigned ponente only on August 28, 1996, due to the voluntary inhibition of the Justice to whom the case was last assigned.

While we deem it necessary to introduce certain refinements in the disquisition of respondent court in the affirmance of the trial court's decision, we definitely find the instant petition bereft of merit. The heart of the controversy which is the ultimate key in the resolution of the other issues in the case at bar is the precise determination of the legal significance of the document entitled "Receipt of Down Payment" which was offered in evidence by both parties. There is no dispute as to the fact that said document embodied the binding contract between Ramona Patricia Alcaraz on the one hand, and the heirs of Constancio P. Coronel on the other, pertaining to a particular house and lot covered by TCT No. 119627, as defined in Article 1305 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which reads as follows: Art. 1305. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. While, it is the position of private respondents that the "Receipt of Down Payment" embodied a perfected contract of sale, which perforce, they seek to enforce by means of an action for specific performance, petitioners on their part insist that what the document signified was a mere executory contract to sell, subject to certain suspensive conditions, and because of the absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz, who left for the United States of America, said contract could not possibly ripen into a contract absolute sale. Plainly, such variance in the contending parties' contentions is brought about by the way each interprets the terms and/or conditions set forth in said private instrument. Withal, based on whatever relevant and admissible evidence may be available on record, this, Court, as were the courts below, is now called upon to adjudge what the real intent of the parties was at the time the said document was executed. The Civil Code defines a contract of sale, thus: Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. Sale, by its very nature, is a consensual contract because it is perfected by mere consent. The essential elements of a contract of sale are the following: a) Consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; b) Determinate subject matter; and c) Price certain in money or its equivalent. Under this definition, a Contract to Sell may not be considered as a Contract of Sale because the first essential element is lacking. In a contract to sell, the prospective seller explicity reserves the transfer of title to the prospective buyer, meaning, the prospective

seller does not as yet agree or consent to transfer ownership of the property subject of the contract to sell until the happening of an event, which for present purposes we shall take as the full payment of the purchase price. What the seller agrees or obliges himself to do is to fulfill is promise to sell the subject property when the entire amount of the purchase price is delivered to him. In other words the full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of which prevents the obligation to sell from arising and thus, ownership is retained by the prospective seller without further remedies by the prospective buyer. In Roque vs. Lapuz (96 SCRA 741 [1980]), this Court had occasion to rule: Hence, We hold that the contract between the petitioner and the respondent was a contract to sell where the ownership or title is retained by the seller and is not to pass until the full payment of the price, such payment being a positive suspensive condition and failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but simply an event that prevented the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force. Stated positively, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the full payment of the purchase price, the prospective seller's obligation to sell the subject property by entering into a contract of sale with the prospective buyer becomes demandable as provided in Article 1479 of the Civil Code which states: Art. 1479. A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. A contract to sell may thus be defined as a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price. A contract to sell as defined hereinabove, may not even be considered as a conditional contract of sale where the seller may likewise reserve title to the property subject of the sale until the fulfillment of a suspensive condition, because in a conditional contract of sale, the first element of consent is present, although it is conditioned upon the happening of a contingent event which may or may not occur. If the suspensive condition is not fulfilled, the perfection of the contract of sale is completely abated (cf. Homesite and housing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 777 [1984]). However, if the suspensive condition is fulfilled, the contract of sale is thereby perfected, such that if there had already been previous delivery of the property subject of the sale to the buyer, ownership thereto automatically transfers to the buyer by operation of law without any further act having to be performed by the seller.

In a contract to sell, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the full payment of the purchase price, ownership will not automatically transfer to the buyer although the property may have been previously delivered to him. The prospective seller still has to convey title to the prospective buyer by entering into a contract of absolute sale. It is essential to distinguish between a contract to sell and a conditional contract of sale specially in cases where the subject property is sold by the owner not to the party the seller contracted with, but to a third person, as in the case at bench. In a contract to sell, there being no previous sale of the property, a third person buying such property despite the fulfillment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be deemed a buyer in bad faith and the prospective buyer cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the property. There is no double sale in such case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration because there is no defect in the ownerseller's title per se, but the latter, of course, may be used for damages by the intending buyer. In a conditional contract of sale, however, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition, the sale becomes absolute and this will definitely affect the seller's title thereto. In fact, if there had been previous delivery of the subject property, the seller's ownership or title to the property is automatically transferred to the buyer such that, the seller will no longer have any title to transfer to any third person. Applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code, such second buyer of the property who may have had actual or constructive knowledge of such defect in the seller's title, or at least was charged with the obligation to discover such defect, cannot be a registrant in good faith. Such second buyer cannot defeat the first buyer's title. In case a title is issued to the second buyer, the first buyer may seek reconveyance of the property subject of the sale. With the above postulates as guidelines, we now proceed to the task of deciphering the real nature of the contract entered into by petitioners and private respondents. It is a canon in the interpretation of contracts that the words used therein should be given their natural and ordinary meaning unless a technical meaning was intended (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 586 [1992]). Thus, when petitioners declared in the said "Receipt of Down Payment" that they Received from Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz of 146 Timog, Quezon City, the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos purchase price of our inherited house and lot, covered by TCT No. 1199627 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, in the total amount of P1,240,000.00. without any reservation of title until full payment of the entire purchase price, the natural and ordinary idea conveyed is that they sold their property. When the "Receipt of Down Payment" is considered in its entirety, it becomes more manifest that there was a clear intent on the part of petitioners to transfer title to the buyer, but since the transfer certificate of title was still in the name of petitioner's father, they could not fully effect such transfer although the buyer was then willing and able to immediately pay the purchase price. Therefore, petitioners-sellers undertook upon receipt of the down

payment from private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz, to cause the issuance of a new certificate of title in their names from that of their father, after which, they promised to present said title, now in their names, to the latter and to execute the deed of absolute sale whereupon, the latter shall, in turn, pay the entire balance of the purchase price. The agreement could not have been a contract to sell because the sellers herein made no express reservation of ownership or title to the subject parcel of land. Furthermore, the circumstance which prevented the parties from entering into an absolute contract of sale pertained to the sellers themselves (the certificate of title was not in their names) and not the full payment of the purchase price. Under the established facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may safely presume that, had the certificate of title been in the names of petitioners-sellers at that time, there would have been no reason why an absolute contract of sale could not have been executed and consummated right there and then. Moreover, unlike in a contract to sell, petitioners in the case at bar did not merely promise to sell the properly to private respondent upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition. On the contrary, having already agreed to sell the subject property, they undertook to have the certificate of title changed to their names and immediately thereafter, to execute the written deed of absolute sale. Thus, the parties did not merely enter into a contract to sell where the sellers, after compliance by the buyer with certain terms and conditions, promised to sell the property to the latter. What may be perceived from the respective undertakings of the parties to the contract is that petitioners had already agreed to sell the house and lot they inherited from their father, completely willing to transfer full ownership of the subject house and lot to the buyer if the documents were then in order. It just happened, however, that the transfer certificate of title was then still in the name of their father. It was more expedient to first effect the change in the certificate of title so as to bear their names. That is why they undertook to cause the issuance of a new transfer of the certificate of title in their names upon receipt of the down payment in the amount of P50,000.00. As soon as the new certificate of title is issued in their names, petitioners were committed to immediately execute the deed of absolute sale. Only then will the obligation of the buyer to pay the remainder of the purchase price arise. There is no doubt that unlike in a contract to sell which is most commonly entered into so as to protect the seller against a buyer who intends to buy the property in installment by withholding ownership over the property until the buyer effects full payment therefor, in the contract entered into in the case at bar, the sellers were the one who were unable to enter into a contract of absolute sale by reason of the fact that the certificate of title to the property was still in the name of their father. It was the sellers in this case who, as it were, had the impediment which prevented, so to speak, the execution of an contract of absolute sale. What is clearly established by the plain language of the subject document is that when the said "Receipt of Down Payment" was prepared and signed by petitioners Romeo A. Coronel, et al., the parties had agreed to a conditional contract of sale, consummation of which is subject only to the successful transfer of the certificate of title from the name of petitioners' father, Constancio P. Coronel, to their names.

The Court significantly notes this suspensive condition was, in fact, fulfilled on February 6, 1985 (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4"). Thus, on said date, the conditional contract of sale between petitioners and private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz became obligatory, the only act required for the consummation thereof being the delivery of the property by means of the execution of the deed of absolute sale in a public instrument, which petitioners unequivocally committed themselves to do as evidenced by the "Receipt of Down Payment." Article 1475, in correlation with Article 1181, both of the Civil Code, plainly applies to the case at bench. Thus, Art. 1475. 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 the moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. Art. 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. Since the condition contemplated by the parties which is the issuance of a certificate of title in petitioners' names was fulfilled on February 6, 1985, the respective obligations of the parties under the contract of sale became mutually demandable, that is, petitioners, as sellers, were obliged to present the transfer certificate of title already in their names to private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz, the buyer, and to immediately execute the deed of absolute sale, while the buyer on her part, was obliged to forthwith pay the balance of the purchase price amounting to P1,190,000.00. It is also significant to note that in the first paragraph in page 9 of their petition, petitioners conclusively admitted that: 3. The petitioners-sellers Coronel bound themselves "to effect the transfer in our names from our deceased father Constancio P. Coronel, the transfer certificate of title immediately upon receipt of the downpayment abovestated". The sale was still subject to this suspensive condition. (Emphasis supplied.) (Rollo, p. 16) Petitioners themselves recognized that they entered into a contract of sale subject to a suspensive condition. Only, they contend, continuing in the same paragraph, that: . . . Had petitioners-sellers not complied with this condition of first transferring the title to the property under their names, there could be no perfected contract of sale. (Emphasis supplied.) (Ibid.)

not aware that they set their own trap for themselves, for Article 1186 of the Civil Code expressly provides that: Art. 1186. The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment. Besides, it should be stressed and emphasized that what is more controlling than these mere hypothetical arguments is the fact that the condition herein referred to was actually and indisputably fulfilled on February 6, 1985, when a new title was issued in the names of petitioners as evidenced by TCT No. 327403 (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4"). The inevitable conclusion is that on January 19, 1985, as evidenced by the document denominated as "Receipt of Down Payment" (Exh. "A"; Exh. "1"), the parties entered into a contract of sale subject only to the suspensive condition that the sellers shall effect the issuance of new certificate title from that of their father's name to their names and that, on February 6, 1985, this condition was fulfilled (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4"). We, therefore, hold that, in accordance with Article 1187 which pertinently provides Art. 1187. The effects of conditional obligation to give, once the condition has been fulfilled, shall retroact to the day of the constitution of the obligation . . . In obligation to do or not to do, the courts shall determine, in each case, the retroactive effect of the condition that has been complied with. the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the perfected contract of sale became mutually due and demandable as of the time of fulfillment or occurrence of the suspensive condition on February 6, 1985. As of that point in time, reciprocal obligations of both seller and buyer arose. Petitioners also argue there could been no perfected contract on January 19, 1985 because they were then not yet the absolute owners of the inherited property. We cannot sustain this argument. Article 774 of the Civil Code defines Succession as a mode of transferring ownership as follows: Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to be extent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by operation of law. Petitioners-sellers in the case at bar being the sons and daughters of the decedent Constancio P. Coronel are compulsory heirs who were called to succession by operation of law. Thus, at the point their father drew his last breath, petitioners stepped into his shoes insofar as the subject property is concerned, such that any rights or obligations pertaining thereto became binding and enforceable upon them.

It is expressly provided that rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent (Article 777, Civil Code; Cuison vs. Villanueva, 90 Phil. 850 [1952]). Be it also noted that petitioners' claim that succession may not be declared unless the creditors have been paid is rendered moot by the fact that they were able to effect the transfer of the title to the property from the decedent's name to their names on February 6, 1985. Aside from this, petitioners are precluded from raising their supposed lack of capacity to enter into an agreement at that time and they cannot be allowed to now take a posture contrary to that which they took when they entered into the agreement with private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz. The Civil Code expressly states that: Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Having represented themselves as the true owners of the subject property at the time of sale, petitioners cannot claim now that they were not yet the absolute owners thereof at that time. Petitioners also contend that although there was in fact a perfected contract of sale between them and Ramona P. Alcaraz, the latter breached her reciprocal obligation when she rendered impossible the consummation thereof by going to the United States of America, without leaving her address, telephone number, and Special Power of Attorney (Paragraphs 14 and 15, Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim to the Amended Complaint, p. 2; Rollo, p. 43), for which reason, so petitioners conclude, they were correct in unilaterally rescinding rescinding the contract of sale. We do not agree with petitioners that there was a valid rescission of the contract of sale in the instant case. We note that these supposed grounds for petitioners' rescission, are mere allegations found only in their responsive pleadings, which by express provision of the rules, are deemed controverted even if no reply is filed by the plaintiffs (Sec. 11, Rule 6, Revised Rules of Court). The records are absolutely bereft of any supporting evidence to substantiate petitioners' allegations. We have stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence (Ng Cho Cio vs. Ng Diong, 110 Phil. 882 [1961]; Recaro vs. Embisan, 2 SCRA 598 [1961]. Mere allegation is not an evidence (Lagasca vs. De Vera, 79 Phil. 376 [1947]). Even assuming arguendo that Ramona P. Alcaraz was in the United States of America on February 6, 1985, we cannot justify petitioner-sellers' act of unilaterally and extradicially rescinding the contract of sale, there being no express stipulation authorizing the sellers to extarjudicially rescind the contract of sale. (cf. Dignos vs. CA, 158 SCRA 375 [1988]; Taguba vs. Vda. de Leon, 132 SCRA 722 [1984]) Moreover, petitioners are estopped from raising the alleged absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz because although the evidence on record shows that the sale was in the name of Ramona

P. Alcaraz as the buyer, the sellers had been dealing with Concepcion D. Alcaraz, Ramona's mother, who had acted for and in behalf of her daughter, if not also in her own behalf. Indeed, the down payment was made by Concepcion D. Alcaraz with her own personal check (Exh. "B"; Exh. "2") for and in behalf of Ramona P. Alcaraz. There is no evidence showing that petitioners ever questioned Concepcion's authority to represent Ramona P. Alcaraz when they accepted her personal check. Neither did they raise any objection as regards payment being effected by a third person. Accordingly, as far as petitioners are concerned, the physical absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz is not a ground to rescind the contract of sale. Corollarily, Ramona P. Alcaraz cannot even be deemed to be in default, insofar as her obligation to pay the full purchase price is concerned. Petitioners who are precluded from setting up the defense of the physical absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz as above-explained offered no proof whatsoever to show that they actually presented the new transfer certificate of title in their names and signified their willingness and readiness to execute the deed of absolute sale in accordance with their agreement. Ramona's corresponding obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price in the amount of P1,190,000.00 (as buyer) never became due and demandable and, therefore, she cannot be deemed to have been in default. Article 1169 of the Civil Code defines when a party in a contract involving reciprocal obligations may be considered in default, to wit: Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something, incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. xxx xxx xxx In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfill his obligation, delay by the other begins. (Emphasis supplied.) There is thus neither factual nor legal basis to rescind the contract of sale between petitioners and respondents. With the foregoing conclusions, the sale to the other petitioner, Catalina B. Mabanag, gave rise to a case of double sale where Article 1544 of the Civil Code will apply, to wit: Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should if be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The record of the case shows that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 25, 1985 as proof of the second contract of sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City giving rise to the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of Catalina B. Mabanag on June 5, 1985. Thus, the second paragraph of Article 1544 shall apply. The above-cited provision on double sale presumes title or ownership to pass to the first buyer, the exceptions being: (a) when the second buyer, in good faith, registers the sale ahead of the first buyer, and (b) should there be no inscription by either of the two buyers, when the second buyer, in good faith, acquires possession of the property ahead of the first buyer. Unless, the second buyer satisfies these requirements, title or ownership will not transfer to him to the prejudice of the first buyer. In his commentaries on the Civil Code, an accepted authority on the subject, now a distinguished member of the Court, Justice Jose C. Vitug, explains: The governing principle is prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer's rights except when the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale (Olivares vs. Gonzales, 159 SCRA 33). Conversely, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, since knowledge taints his registration with bad faith (see also Astorga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 58530, 26 December 1984). In Cruz vs. Cabana (G.R. No. 56232, 22 June 1984, 129 SCRA 656), it has held that it is essential, to merit the protection of Art. 1544, second paragraph, that the second realty buyer must act in good faith in registering his deed of sale (citing Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 99, Crisostomo vs. CA, G.R. No. 95843, 02 September 1992). (J. Vitug Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 Edition, p. 604). Petitioner point out that the notice of lis pendens in the case at bar was annoted on the title of the subject property only on February 22, 1985, whereas, the second sale between petitioners Coronels and petitioner Mabanag was supposedly perfected prior thereto or on February 18, 1985. The idea conveyed is that at the time petitioner Mabanag, the second buyer, bought the property under a clean title, she was unaware of any adverse claim or previous sale, for which reason she is buyer in good faith. We are not persuaded by such argument. In a case of double sale, what finds relevance and materiality is not whether or not the second buyer was a buyer in good faith but whether or not said second buyer registers such second sale in good faith, that is, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold.

As clearly borne out by the evidence in this case, petitioner Mabanag could not have in good faith, registered the sale entered into on February 18, 1985 because as early as February 22, 1985, a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on the transfer certificate of title in the names of petitioners, whereas petitioner Mabanag registered the said sale sometime in April, 1985. At the time of registration, therefore, petitioner Mabanag knew that the same property had already been previously sold to private respondents, or, at least, she was charged with knowledge that a previous buyer is claiming title to the same property. Petitioner Mabanag cannot close her eyes to the defect in petitioners' title to the property at the time of the registration of the property. This Court had occasions to rule that: If a vendee in a double sale registers that sale after he has acquired knowledge that there was a previous sale of the same property to a third party or that another person claims said property in a pervious sale, the registration will constitute a registration in bad faith and will not confer upon him any right. (Salvoro vs. Tanega, 87 SCRA 349 [1978]; citing Palarca vs. Director of Land, 43 Phil. 146; Cagaoan vs. Cagaoan, 43 Phil. 554; Fernandez vs. Mercader, 43 Phil. 581.) Thus, the sale of the subject parcel of land between petitioners and Ramona P. Alcaraz, perfected on February 6, 1985, prior to that between petitioners and Catalina B. Mabanag on February 18, 1985, was correctly upheld by both the courts below. Although there may be ample indications that there was in fact an agency between Ramona as principal and Concepcion, her mother, as agent insofar as the subject contract of sale is concerned, the issue of whether or not Concepcion was also acting in her own behalf as a co-buyer is not squarely raised in the instant petition, nor in such assumption disputed between mother and daughter. Thus, We will not touch this issue and no longer disturb the lower courts' ruling on this point. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the appealed judgment AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr. and Francisco, JJ., concur. Panganiban, J., took no part.

Coronel et al vs CA GR no. 103577. Oct. 7, 1996 Facts: Ramona Alcatraz and Romulo Coronel had an agreement for a sale of land worth 1.24 million. Ramonagave a downpayment of 50k with the condition that upon receipt of the downpayment, the Coronels would cause the transfer of Ramonas name over the TCT of the land. The title of the land was in the name of Romulos father. Furthermore, upon transfer of Ramonas name, the Coronels would execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of Ramona, and that Ramona would pay the remaining balance of 1.9 million. The Coronels did transfer Ramonas name upon receipt of the downpayment but the

Coronels later sold the land to Catalina Mabanag for the price of 1.5 million. The Coronels then rescinded the earlier contract of sale. Ramona filedspecific performance against Coronel and caused the annotation of lis pendens at the back of TCT. Issues: 1. Is the agreement between Coronel and Ramona as evidenced by receipt of downpayment a contractto sell or contract of sale?2. Is the contract of sale between Coronel and Catalina valid? Held: 1. The contract entered upon by Coronel and Ramona is a contract of sale and not a contract to sell.Check 1305, 1458, and 1479. The agreement could not have been a contract to sell because the sellers herein made no expressreservation of ownership or title to the subject parcel of land. Furthermore, the circumstance whichprevented the parties from entering into an absolute contract of sale pertained to the sellers themselves(the certificate of title was not in their names) and not the full payment of the purchase price. 2. The sale between Coronel and Catalina is void. Check Art. 1544- double sale.The governing principle is prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyers rights except when the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale. Conversely, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats hisrights even if he is first to register, since knowledge taints his registration with bad faith. In a case of doublesale, what finds relevance and materiality is not whether or not the second buyer in good faith butwhether or not said second buyer registers such second sale in good faith, that is, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold. Mabanag could not have in good faith, registered the sale enteredinto on February 18, 1985 because as early as February 22, 1985, a notice of lis pendens had been annotated onthe transfer certificate of title in the names of petitioners.

G.R. No. L-48194 March 15, 1990 JOSE M. JAVIER and ESTRELLA F. JAVIER, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LEONARDO TIRO, respondents. Eddie Tamondong for petitioners. Lope Adriano and Emmanuel Pelaez, Jr. for private respondent.

REGALADO, J.: Petitioners pray for the reversal of the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 52296-R, dated March 6, 1978, 1 the dispositive portion whereof decrees:
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside and another one entered ordering the defendants-appellees, jointly and solidarily, to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P79,338.15 with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint, plus attorney's 2 fees in the amount of P8,000.00. Costs against defendants-appellees.

As found by respondent court or disclosed by the records, 3 this case was generated by the following antecedent facts. Private respondent is a holder of an ordinary timber license issued by the Bureau of Forestry covering 2,535 hectares in the town of Medina, Misamis Oriental. On February 15, 1966 he executed a "Deed of Assignment" 4 in favor of herein petitioners the material parts of which read as follows: xxx xxx xxx I, LEONARDO A. TIRO, of legal age, married and a resident of Medina, Misamis Oriental, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P120,000.00), Philippine Currency, do by these presents, ASSIGN, TRANSFER AND CONVEY, absolutely and forever unto JOSE M. JAVIER and ESTRELLA F. JAVIER, spouses, of legal age and a resident (sic) of 2897 F.B. Harrison, Pasay City, my shares of stocks in the TIMBERWEALTH CORPORATION in the total amount of P120,000.00, payment of which shall be made in the following manner: 1. Twenty thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos upon signing of this contract; 2. The balance of P100,000.00 shall be paid P10,000.00 every shipment of export logs actually produced from the forest concession of Timberwealth Corporation.

That I hereby agree to sign and endorse the stock certificate in favor of Mr. & Mrs. Jose M. Javier, as soon as stock certificates are issued. xxx xxx xxx At the time the said deed of assignment was executed, private respondent had a pending application, dated October 21, 1965, for an additional forest concession covering an area of 2,000 hectares southwest of and adjoining the area of the concession subject of the deed of assignment. Hence, on February 28, 1966, private respondent and petitioners entered into another "Agreement" 5 with the following stipulations: xxx xxx xxx 1. That LEONARDO TIRO hereby agrees and binds himself to transfer, cede and convey whatever rights he may acquire, absolutely and forever, to TIMBERWEALTH CORPORATION, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, over a forest concession which is now pending application and approval as additional area to his existing licensed area under O.T. License No. 391-103166, situated at Medina, Misamis Oriental; 2. That for and in consideration of the aforementioned transfer of rights over said additional area to TIMBERWEALTH CORPORATION, ESTRELLA F. JAVIER and JOSE M. JAVIER, both directors and stockholders of said corporation, do hereby undertake to pay LEONARDO TIRO, as soon as said additional area is approved and transferred to TIMBERWEALTH CORPORATION the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00), which amount of money shall form part of their paid up capital stock in TIMBERWEALTH CORPORATION; 3. That this Agreement is subject to the approval of the members of the Board of Directors of the TIMBERWEALTH CORPORATION. xxx xxx xxx On November 18, 1966, the Acting Director of Forestry wrote private respondent that his forest concession was renewed up to May 12, 1967 under O.T.L. No. 391-51267, but since the concession consisted of only 2,535 hectares, he was therein informed that:
In pursuance of the Presidential directive of May 13, 1966, you are hereby given until May 12, 1967 to form an organization such as a cooperative, partnership or corporation with other adjoining licensees so as to have a total holding area of not less than 20,000 hectares of contiguous and compact territory and an aggregate allowable annual cut of 6 not less than 25,000 cubic meters, otherwise, your license will not be further renewed.

Consequently, petitioners, now acting as timber license holders by virtue of the deed of assignment executed by private respondent in their favor, entered into a Forest Consolidation Agreement 7 on April 10, 1967 with other ordinary timber license holders in Misamis Oriental, namely, Vicente L. De Lara, Jr., Salustiano R. Oca and Sanggaya

Logging Company. Under this consolidation agreement, they all agreed to pool together and merge their respective forest concessions into a working unit, as envisioned by the aforementioned directives. This consolidation agreement was approved by the Director of Forestry on May 10, 1967. 8 The working unit was subsequently incorporated as the North Mindanao Timber Corporation, with the petitioners and the other signatories of the aforesaid Forest Consolidation Agreement as incorporators. 9 On July 16, 1968, for failure of petitioners to pay the balance due under the two deeds of assignment, private respondent filed an action against petitioners, based on the said contracts, for the payment of the amount of P83,138.15 with interest at 6% per annum from April 10, 1967 until full payment, plus P12,000.00 for attorney's fees and costs. On September 23, 1968, petitioners filed their answer admitting the due execution of the contracts but interposing the special defense of nullity thereof since private respondent failed to comply with his contractual obligations and, further, that the conditions for the enforceability of the obligations of the parties failed to materialize. As a counterclaim, petitioners sought the return of P55,586.00 which private respondent had received from them pursuant to an alleged management agreement, plus attorney's fees and costs. On October 7, 1968, private respondent filed his reply refuting the defense of nullity of the contracts in this wise:
What were actually transferred and assigned to the defendants were plaintiff's rights and interest in a logging concession described in the deed of assignment, attached to the complaint and marked as Annex A, and agreement Annex E; that the "shares of stocks" referred to in paragraph II of the complaint are terms used therein merely to designate or identify those rights and interests in said logging concession. The defendants actually made use of or enjoyed not the "shares of stocks" but the logging concession itself; that since the proposed Timberwealth Corporation was owned solely and entirely by defendants, the personalities of the former and the latter are one and the same. Besides, before the logging concession of the plaintiff or the latter's rights and interests therein were assigned or transferred to defendants, they never became the property or assets of the Timberwealth Corporation which is at most only an association of persons composed 10 of the defendants.

and contending that the counterclaim of petitioners in the amount of P55,586.39 is actually only a part of the sum of P69,661.85 paid by the latter to the former in partial satisfaction of the latter's claim. 11 After trial, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing private respondent's complaint and ordering him to pay petitioners the sum of P33,161.85 with legal interest at six percent per annum from the date of the filing of the answer until complete payment. 12 As earlier stated, an appeal was interposed by private respondent to the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the court of a quo. On March 28, 1978, petitioners filed a motion in respondent court for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, for the reason that they needed to change counsel. 13 Respondent court, in its resolution dated March 31, 1978, gave petitioners fifteen (15) days from March 28, 1978 within which to file said motion for reconsideration, provided

that the subject motion for extension was filed on time. 14 On April 11, 1978, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals. 15 On April 21, 1978, private respondent filed a consolidated opposition to said motion for reconsideration on the ground that the decision of respondent court had become final on March 27, 1978, hence the motion for extension filed on March 28, 1978 was filed out of time and there was no more period to extend. However, this was not acted upon by the Court of Appeals for the reason that on April 20, 1978, prior to its receipt of said opposition, a resolution was issued denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, thus:
The motion for reconsideration filed on April 11, 1978 by counsel for defendantsappellees is denied. They did not file any brief in this case. As a matter of fact this case was submitted for decision without appellees' brief. In their said motion, they merely tried 16 to refute the rationale of the Court in deciding to reverse the appealed judgment.

Petitioners then sought relief in this Court in the present petition for review on certiorari. Private respondent filed his comment, reiterating his stand that the decision of the Court of Appeals under review is already final and executory. Petitioners countered in their reply that their petition for review presents substantive and fundamental questions of law that fully merit judicial determination, instead of being suppressed on technical and insubstantial reasons. Moreover, the aforesaid one (1) day delay in the filing of their motion for extension is excusable, considering that petitioners had to change their former counsel who failed to file their brief in the appellate court, which substitution of counsel took place at a time when there were many successive intervening holidays. On July 26, 1978, we resolved to give due course to the petition. The one (1) day delay in the filing of the said motion for extension can justifiably be excused, considering that aside from the change of counsel, the last day for filing the said motion fell on a holiday following another holiday, hence, under such circumstances, an outright dismissal of the petition would be too harsh. Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities. In a number of cases, this Court, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, has relaxed the stringent application of technical rules in order to resolve the case on its merits. 17 Rules of procedure are intended to promote, not to defeat, substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. We now proceed to the resolution of this case on the merits. The assignment of errors of petitioners hinges on the central issue of whether the deed of assignment dated February 15, 1966 and the agreement of February 28, 1966 are null and void, the former for total absence of consideration and the latter for non-fulfillment of the conditions stated therein. Petitioners contend that the deed of assignment conveyed to them the shares of stocks of private respondent in Timberwealth Corporation, as stated in the deed itself. Since said corporation never came into existence, no share of stocks was ever transferred to them, hence the said deed is null and void for lack of cause or consideration.

We do not agree. As found by the Court of Appeals, the true cause or consideration of said deed was the transfer of the forest concession of private respondent to petitioners for P120,000.00. This finding is supported by the following considerations, viz: 1. Both parties, at the time of the execution of the deed of assignment knew that the Timberwealth Corporation stated therein was non-existent. 18 2. In their subsequent agreement, private respondent conveyed to petitioners his inchoate right over a forest concession covering an additional area for his existing forest concession, which area he had applied for, and his application was then pending in the Bureau of Forestry for approval. 3. Petitioners, after the execution of the deed of assignment, assumed the operation of the logging concessions of private respondent. 19 4. The statement of advances to respondent prepared by petitioners stated: "P55,186.39 advances to L.A. Tiro be applied to succeeding shipments. Based on the agreement, we pay P10,000.00 every after (sic) shipment. We had only 2 shipments" 20 5. Petitioners entered into a Forest Consolidation Agreement with other holders of forest concessions on the strength of the questioned deed of assignment. 21 The aforesaid contemporaneous and subsequent acts of petitioners and private respondent reveal that the cause stated in the questioned deed of assignment is false. It is settled that the previous and simultaneous and subsequent acts of the parties are properly cognizable indica of their true intention. 22 Where the parties to a contract have given it a practical construction by their conduct as by acts in partial performance, such construction may be considered by the court in construing the contract, determining its meaning and ascertaining the mutual intention of the parties at the time of contracting. 23 The parties' practical construction of their contract has been characterized as a clue or index to, or as evidence of, their intention or meaning and as an important, significant, convincing, persuasive, or influential factor in determining the proper construction of the agreement. 24 The deed of assignment of February 15, 1966 is a relatively simulated contract which states a false cause or consideration, or one where the parties conceal their true agreement. 25 A contract with a false consideration is not null and void per se. 26 Under Article 1346 of the Civil Code, a relatively simulated contract, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real agreement. The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not err in holding petitioners liable under the said deed and in ruling that
. . . In view of the analysis of the first and second assignment of errors, the defendantsappellees are liable to the plaintiff-appellant for the sale and transfer in their favor of the latter's forest concessions. Under the terms of the contract, the parties agreed on a consideration of P120,000.00. P20,000.00 of which was paid, upon the signing of the contract and the balance of P100,000.00 to be paid at the rate of P10,000.00 for every shipment of export logs actually produced from the forest concessions of the appellant

sold to the appellees. Since plaintiff-appellant's forest concessions were consolidated or merged with those of the other timber license holders by appellees' voluntary act under the Forest Consolidation Agreement (Exhibit D), approved by the Bureau of Forestry (Exhibit D-3), then the unpaid balance of P49,338.15 (the amount of P70,661.85 having been received by the plaintiff-appellant from the defendants-appellees) became due and 27 demandable.

As to the alleged nullity of the agreement dated February 28, 1966, we agree with petitioners that they cannot be held liable thereon. The efficacy of said deed of assignment is subject to the condition that the application of private respondent for an additional area for forest concession be approved by the Bureau of Forestry. Since private respondent did not obtain that approval, said deed produces no effect. When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth or effectivity can take place only if and when the event which constitutes the condition happens or is fulfilled. 28 If the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties would stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed. 29 The said agreement is a bilateral contract which gave rise to reciprocal obligations, that is, the obligation of private respondent to transfer his rights in the forest concession over the additional area and, on the other hand, the obligation of petitioners to pay P30,000.00. The demandability of the obligation of one party depends upon the fulfillment of the obligation of the other. In this case, the failure of private respondent to comply with his obligation negates his right to demand performance from petitioners. Delivery and payment in a contract of sale, are so interrelated and intertwined with each other that without delivery of the goods there is no corresponding obligation to pay. The two complement each other. 30 Moreover, under the second paragraph of Article 1461 of the Civil Code, the efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is deemed subject to the condition that the thing will come into existence. In this case, since private respondent never acquired any right over the additional area for failure to secure the approval of the Bureau of Forestry, the agreement executed therefor, which had for its object the transfer of said right to petitioners, never became effective or enforceable. WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby MODIFIED. The agreement of the parties dated February 28, 1966 is declared without force and effect and the amount of P30,000.00 is hereby ordered to be deducted from the sum awarded by respondent court to private respondent. In all other respects, said decision of respondent court is affirmed. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento JJ., concur.

CASE DIGEST- JAVIER vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 48194, March 15, 1990, J. Regalado Tiro was a holder of an ordinary timber license which he had assigned to the Javier spouses in a Deed of Assignment for 120K, 20K of which was paid upon execution of the contract and 100K to be paid in installments of 10K per shipment of logs from the forest concession. Tiro had filed an application for

another timber license to cover 2,000 hectares of the adjoining land. During the pendency of the application with the Bureau of Forestry, he executed another deed of assignment in favor of the spouses; payment would be of 30,000.00php, subject to the condition that the transfer shall be executed upon approval of the application. Upon assumption of the timber license, the spouses were informed that the license was renewed, but would not be renewed again until they are able to create an organization with other adjoining timber license holders for a total of 20,000 hectares. Thus, along with de Lara, Oca and the Sanggaya Logging Comp. the spouses consolidated their licenses, which created a consolidation agreement approved by the BOF. The working unit was thereafter called the North Mindanao Timber Corporation. The spouses failed to pay the balance of the two assignment deeds, and thus, Tiro filed action in the lower court for the balances due. The lower court dismissed the complaint, and ordered Tiro to pay 33K to the spouses. The CA reversed and ordered the spouses to pay Tiro 79K as the remaining balance. Whether or not the deed of assignment dated February 15, 1966 and the agreement of February 28, 1966 are null and void, the former for total absence of consideration and the latter for non-fulfillment of the conditions stated therein. Yes. As found by the Court of Appeals, the true cause or consideration of said deed was the transfer of the forest concession of private respondent to petitioners for P120,000.00. The aforesaid contemporaneous and subsequent acts of petitioners and private respondent reveal that the cause stated in the questioned deed of assignment is false. It is settled that the previous and simultaneous and subsequent acts of the parties are properly cognizable indica of their true intention. The deed of assignment of February 15, 1966 is a relatively simulated contract which states a false cause or consideration, or one where the parties conceal their true agreement. A contract with a false consideration is not null and void per se. Under Article 1346 of the Civil Code, a relatively simulated contract, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real agreement. As to the 2nd agreement or assignment, the spouses are not liable under such, as the suspensive condition, which is the approval of the additional license, did not take place. Thus, it did not give rise to any obligation. The said agreement is a bilateral contract which gave rise to reciprocal obligations, that is, the obligation of private respondent to transfer his rights in the forest concession over the additional area and, on the other hand, the obligation of petitioners to pay P30,000.00. The demandability of the obligation of one party depends upon the fulfillment of the obligation of the other. In this case, the failure of private respondent to comply with his obligation negates his right to demand performance from petitioners. Delivery and payment in a contract of sale, are so interrelated and intertwined with each other that without delivery of the goods there is no corresponding obligation to pay . The two complement each other. Moreover, under the second paragraph of Article 1461 of the Civil Code, the efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is deemed subject to the condition that the thing will come into existence. In this case, since private respondent never acquired any right over the additional area for failure to secure the approval of the Bureau of Forestry, the agreement executed therefore, which had for its object the transfer of said right to petitioners, never became effective or enforceable.