Republ

icoft
hePhi
li
ppi
nes

SUPREMECOURT

Mani
la

ENBANC

G.
R.No.
L-31141 
   
  Mar
ch11,
1930

W.
R.MACFARLANE,
 
plai
nti
ff
-appel
lant
, 

vs
.

B.
A.GREEN,
 
def
endant
-appel
lee.

Ros
s,Lawr
enc
eandSel
phandAnt
oni
oT.
Car
ras
cos
o,j
r.f
orappel
lant
.

Vi
ctor
ianoYamz
onf
orappel
leeGr
een.

J
.W.
Fer
rierf
orAbuc
ayPl
ant
ati
onCo.

VI
LLA-
REAL,
 
J.:

Thi
sisanappealbythepl
ainti
ffW.R.
Mac f
arl
anefr
om adec
reeoft
heCour
tofFi
rstI
nst
anc
eof
Bat
aan,thedi
sposi
ti
vepartofwhic
hreadsasf
oll
ows:

Byt hevi rtueofal lt

hef oregoingc ourther ebydec laresthatthes aleatpubl icauc ti
onoft he
Abuc ayPl antat
ionmadebyt hes herif
foft hePr ovinceofBat aanonOc tober27, 1928,isnulland
void;t hatallproceedingstakenbys aids herif
fr elativetos ai
ds al
ear enul landvoi d,andt he
saleisher ebydisapproved;andi ti
sor deredt hatwi thinfif
teendayst heplaintif
forhi satt
orney-
in-f
ac trenderandac countofal lthes umsofmoneybyhi mr ec
eivedinpaymentoft heresaleof
theManhat t
anHot el
,andoft heamount spai dinc onnec ti
onwi ththemor tgagec r
editofs ixty
thous andpes os(P60,
000),interest,
cos t
s,andexpens es.
Theappel
lantass
ignsthef
oll
owi
ngal
legeder
ror
sonappel
lant
,asi
ncur
redbyt
hec
our
tbel
ow
ini
tsdeci
si
on,towit:

1.Thelowerc ourterr
edinref
usingt oconf
irmt hesaleatpubli
caucti
onoftheAbucay
Pl
antati
onsi
tuatedinAbuc
ay,
Bataan,andmortgagedbythedef
endantt
othedef
endantt
othe
pl
aint
if
f.

2.Thelowerc ourterr
edi nadmi t
tingparolevidenceofac er
tainal
legedagr
eementbet weenthe
defendantandJ .F.Br omfi
eld,t heplainti
ff
'sattorney-i
n-factt
ot heeffectthatshouldthe
plai
ntif
fresellthedefendant'
spr opert
ys it
uatedinMani l
aandknownasManhat tanHotel
,aft
er
deducti
ngal lexpensesanddis bursement,theplaint
iffwouldapplytothedefendant
'sdebtany
sum hemi ghtreali
zeoverandaboveP65, 000f orwhichsaidManhattanHotelwassoldatpubli
c
aucti
on.

3.
Thel
owerc
our
ter
redi
ndenyi
ngt
hepl
aint
if
f'
smot
ionf
oranewt
rial
.

Thefol
lowi
ngper
tinentf
act
sar
enec
ess
aryf
ort
hes
olut
ionoft
heonl
yques
tiont
obedec
idedi
n
thi
sappeal
:

Byanins t
rumentdatedDecember1, 1921,thedefendantmortgagedtotheplai
nti
fffort
hesum
ofP60,000,t
woparcelsofland,onesit
uatedintheCi t
yofMani l
a,andtheotherintheProvi
nce
ofBataan,st
ati
ngthereinthatthelandint heCityofManilawass ubj
ecttoafir
stmor t
gagein
thesumofP40,000infavorofthePhili
ppinePostaSavingsBank.

Whenthemor t
gagefelldue,theplai
nti
ffbroughtt woact
ions,oneintheCit
yofManilaforthe
f
orec
losureofsai
dmor tgageinsofarasitaffect
st hel
andl ocat
edinthecit
y,andt
heot herin
t
heCour tofFirs
tInst
anc eofBataanast ot hel andins ai
dpr ovi
nce.I
neachofs aidcases
j
udgmentwasrenderedint heamountofP60,000.

Inthecaus
eins
tit
utedbef
oretheCourtofFi
rstI
nst
anceofMani
la,ci
vilc
aseNo.22285,
awr itof
execut
ionwasi
ssuedandatpubl
icauc
t i
onheldonSept
ember18,1925,themor
tgagedproperty
knownast
heManhat
tanHot
elwass
oldf
orP65,
000t
othepl
aint
if
fwhowast
hehi
ghes
tbi
dder
.

OnApr
il15,
1926,
itwasr
esol
dbyt
hepl
aint
if
ftoFl
orenc
eDal
andCadwal
laderf
orP135,
000.

Afters aidexec uti

ons aleupont hejudgmenti nc ivilcaseNo. 22285oft heCour tofFi rstInstance
ofMani la,not hingwasdonewi thr especttot hej udgmentr ender edint hecasei nstitutedi nthe
Cour tofFi rstInstanceofBat aan,unt ilt
heper iodf orexec utionwasaboutt ol aps e,whent he
plaintiffpr ayedf ortheexec utionoft hesaidjudgment .Thedef endantobj ectedt ot hei ssuance
oft hewr i
tofexec ut
ionbutt hec ourt,byor derofSept ember26,1928,di rectedt hatt hes ame
shoul di ss
ue, andt hepr ovincials herif
fofBat aanl evi
edat tac hmentons ai
dmor t
gagedpr operty,
knownasAbuc ayPl ant ati
on,andonOc tober27,1928,s oldi tatpubl i
cauc ti
onf ort hes um of
P33, 000t ot hepl ainti
ffast hehi ghestbidder .Whent hepl aint i
ffaskedf ortheappr ovalofs ai
d
sale,t hedef endantobj ec t
ed,al legingamongot hergr oundst hathehadwi thdrawnhi spr otest
whent hes aleatpubl icauc ti
onoft heManhat tanHot elint heCi tyofMani l
atookpl ace, because
ther ewasanagr eementbet weenhi m andt hepl ai
ntiff'
sat torney- i
n-factthatt hes aleoft he
saidpr oper tyt ot hepl ai
ntif
fwasont heunder st
andi ngt hats houldt hel atters ucceedi n
resel l
ingt hepr oper t
yf orahi gherpr i
ce,thediffer encewoul dbec redi
tedt othedef endant .

DefendantB.A.
Greentes
tif
iedatt
het
rialont
hisor
alagr
eementwi
thoutt
imel
yobj
ect
ionf
rom
theplai
nti
ff,
asfol
lows
:

As hor tt i
meaf terni nei nthemor ning,thedeput ys heriffapproac hedt hemai ndooroft hec our t
-roomandr eadt heor derofs ale. Het henc all
edf orbi dder sfort hepr oper t
y. Onl yoneans wer ed,
andt hatwasMr .Br omf i
eld,whobi di nt henameofMr .Mac f arlanef orP65, 000.Thes her if
f
call
edf orot herbi ds ,andj us tashewasaboutt oawar dt hepr oper t ytoMac far
lane,s hor t l
y
beforet hes ale,Is aidt ohim:" Jus tamoment ,Mr .Sher iff.
"Jus tt hen,Br omf ieldheldmebyt he
arms ayi ng:" Wai tabi t;Iwantt os peakt oyou. "SoIs aidt ot hes her i
ff:"Wai tamoment ,Iwi l
l
speakwi thMr .Br omf iel
d."Wet henmovedawayaboutt hreeorf ourmet ersf rom thes her iff,
andBr omf ieldc al l
edt oSellnert oc ome.Thenhet ur nedt omeandas ked:" Whywi l
lyouobj ect
tot hes ale?Whati st heus eofmaki ngmor etroubl ei nt hi
sc as e?'It ol dBr omf iel
dIc oul dnot
permi tt hepr oper tyt obes ol df orP65, 000,unl essheagr eedt ot hec onditionswehasal r eady
discus seds ever alt imes ,
andt hatanyexc es satt her esales houldbec r
edi t
edt ome. "Youknow, "
heans wer ed," t
hatIdonotwantt oas s
umet hatr es ponsibi
lity;butl ookher e,Iwi llputt he
mat terupt oMac "(meani ngMac farl
ane) ;"Iam pr et tys urehedoesnomeant ogetanypr of i
t
from t her esal e,"andhes aid" Anyexc essovert hes el
lingpr i
c ewi llbec reditedt oyou. "It hen
toldhi m, "
Ic an' twai ts olong, Brommy( Bromf ield);thatwoul dmeant woort hreemont hs,andI
shouldlosemyt opr otestagainstthes aleandi t
sapproval.Imus thaveanagr eementwi t
hyou
i
nbehal fofyourpr incipal
, r
ightnow, orlosemyr ightt
opr otestagains tt hesal
eoft hispr operty,
oritsapproval."ButBr omf i
eldagains aidtome, "Youknowver ywel lt hatMacwoul dc r
edi tany
excessatt her esal
et oyou;butt hatIam unwi l
li
ngtoas sumet her es pons
ibil
itybec aus eIam
onlyactingasaf riend,wi t
houtc ommi ssionorc ompensat i
onf orthes ethi
ngs .
""I
nt hatc ase,"
sai
dI ,
"thepr otestmus tgoon. Youmus tenterintothi
sagr eementwi thme, inrepresent ationof
Mac f
arlane."ThenBr omfield,hesit
atingabi t
,said:"
Verywel l
,Iagr eet oc r
edityouwi t
ht he
excessofther esaleovert hecosttoMr . Macfarl
aneandexpens es .
"

WhenB.A.Gr eenc amet ot

hispartofhi
stest
imony,counselforthepl
ainti
ffi
nter
ruptedhim
wit
ht hefol
lowingpeti
tiont
ot hecour
t:"
Weas kthatt
histesti
monybes truckf
rom therec
ord
becausei
tisnotthebestevi
dence,
andthepowerofatt
orneymus tbeinwriti
ng.
"

Itthusappearsthatt hepet i
ti
onofpl aint
iff
'sc ounselrefer
st oBr omf i
eld'sauthorityt oenter
intoac ompromisewit hsaidB.A.Gr eenupont hepubl i
cauc t
ions al
eoft heManhat tanHot el
,
andnott ot hemanneri nwhi chs aidcompromi s
ewasmade.Couns elfort heplaintiffhaving
admittedtheexistenceofs ai
daut horit
y,thec ourtbelowdeni edt hepet iti
ont oexpunget hat
porti
onofthet es
timony. Whenhi sturncame, t
hepl ainti
ff
'scounselcr os
s-exami nedB. A.Green
atgreatlengthupont hec ompr omisebetweenhi m andBr omf i
eld,asat torney-i
n-factf orthe
plai
nti
ffatthepublicauctions al
eoft heManhat tanHot el.

Ast hepl ainti

ff'
sc ouns eldi dnotobj ec ttodef endantB.A.Gr een'
st es ti
monyr egar dingt he
compr omis ebet weenhi m andBr omfield,asat t
orney- in-f
ac tf
ort hepl ainti
ff,totheef fectthat
sai
ddef endantwi thdr ewhi spr ot
estagai nstthepubl icauc t
ions aleofManhat tanHot elbec ause
Bromf i
eld,inhi srepr esentat i
vec har
ac ter,agreedt oc redi
ts ai
dB.A.Gr eenwi thanypr ofitthat
mightber eali
zedf rom t her esaleaft
erc overi
ngc ostandexpens esbornebyMac farlane;andas
hec ross
-exami nedt hewi t
nes supont hes everypoi ntsafterhismot i
ont os t
rikeouthadbeen
denied,hewai vedhi sr ight,unders ec ti
on335oft heCodeofCi vilProc edure,toobj ec ttoany
parolevidenc euponac ompr omi serelativetor ealpr operty,whi chsaids ectiondec larest obe
i
nvalidunl esssetfor thinwr i
ting.

I
nTongc
o vs
. 
Vianz
on(
50Phi
l.
,698)
,thi
scour
tlai
ddownt
hef
oll
owi
ngdoc
tri
ne:

WAIVER BY CROSS-EXAMINATION.— A waiverisaccompli

shed when t
he adverse par
ty
under
takest
ocross
-examinetheint
eres
tedper
sonwit
hrespec
ttoprohi
bit
edmatters.
Whi l
eiti str
uet hatthisdoc tr
iner eferst oawi tness'si ncapaci
t ytotest i
fyuponamat teroff act
whicht ookpl acebeforet hedeat hofaper s onagainstwhos ees tate,exec utor,
oradmi nist
r at
or,
apr oceedingi spending,t hes amer ulei sapplicablet othei nstantc ase,bec aus
eal thoughi t
dealswi ththeinadmi s
sibili
tyofpar olevi dencec oncer ningac ompr omis ebyt helawhel dinvali
d
unlessreduc edtowr it
ing, t
heai mi nvi ewi sthes ame, whi chis,toexcludeevi dencenotal lowed
bylaw;and, asinbotht hesecas esther i
ghtoft headver separtyt oobjec ttothepr es
ent at
ionof
sai
devi denc eispers
onal ,hemaywai ves aidright,eitherbynotobj ectingt othepr es
ent at
ionof
the evi dence or by c ross-exami ning t he wi t
nes s per mitted t ot esti
fy by t he c ourt
notwiths t
andinghisoppos i
ti
on.

I
nAbr
eni
ca 
vs.
 
GondaandDeGr
aci
a(34Phi
l.
,739)
,thi
scour
tlai
ddownt
hef
oll
owi
ngdoc
tri
ne:

EFFECTOFFAI LURETOOBJ ECT.— Whennot i

melyobj ect
ionorpr ot
estwasmadeagai ns
tt he
admissi
onofpar olevi
denceinrespec tt
oac ontr
actrelati
vetorealestate,andwhenthemot ion
tostr
ikeoutsaidevidencecamet oolate;andif
,ontheot herhand,thepar t
yagains
twhoms uch
evi
dencewaspr esentedcross
-ques t
ionedthewitnesseswhot est
ifi
edinr espec
ttothecontract,
thesaidpartywi llbeunder st
oodt ohavewai vedt hebenefitsoft hel aw,andsuchpar ol
evi
denceiscompet entandadmiss i
ble.

Intheins t
antcasecounself
ortheplai
ntif
fmadet i
melyobjectiontothetes
t imonyofB. A.Green
aboutt heaf or
esai
dc ompromiseoragr eementbet weenhi m andt hepl aint
iff
'sagent.Said
objecti
on,however,wasnotast otheinadmissi
bil
it
yofpar olevidenc
eons aidc ompromise,but
ast otheinadmissi
bil
it
yofs uc
hevidenceont heexist
enceoft heauthor
ityofs aidagent,which
wasl ateradmitt
edbyc ouns
el,t
husrenderingunnecessar
yallevidencet
ot hatef f
ect
.

Forthef oregoingc onsi

derations,wear eofopinionandsohol d:(
1)Thatfail
uretoobjecttoparol
evi
denc e,notadmi ssi
blebecaus eitrelatestoanagreementunenf or
ceableunderthelawunl ess
inwriti
ng, impor tswaiveroft hepers onalri
ghttoobject,andrenderssaidevidenc
eadmi ssi
ble;
and (2)t hat t he c r
oss-exami nat
ion of a wi tness permitted by the c our
tt ot estif
y,
notwithstandingat imelyobj ect
ion,uponanagr eementunenf orci
bleundert helaw unles
si n
writi
ng,i mportsawai verofs ai
dobj ectionandr ender
ss ai
dpar olevidenceadmi s
sibl
e,ifno
exceptionwast aken.
Therefore,ithavi ng been s hown thatBr omfield,as at torney-i
n-factforpl ainti
ffW.R.
Mac farl
ane,ent ered into an agreementorc ompr omi s
e wi th defendantB.A.Gr een,in
considerati
onwher eofthel att
erwithdrew hispr otestagai nstt hepubl i
cauc ti
ons aleoft he
Manhat tanHot el,uponc ondi
tionthatinc aseofr es aleanypr ofit
,afterc overingc os tand
expens estothepl ainti
ff,wouldbec redi
tedt osaiddef endant ,sai
dpl ai
ntif
fisr espons ibl
efor
thef ulfi
ll
mentoft hisobligat
ioncontract
edbyhi sr epr esentati
vei nhisbehal f,andhemus t
thereforerenderanac c
ountoft heproceedsofthes aleofManhat t
anHot eltothedef endantin
ordertodet er
mi net hestateoftheaccountsbetweent hem.

Byvir
tuewhereof,andfi
ndi
ngnoerr
orintheorderappeal
edf
rom,
thes
amei
sher
ebyaf
fi
rmed
i
nitsent
iret
y,wit
hc ost
sagai
nstt
heappel
lant
.Soordered.

J
ohns
on,
Mal
col
m,Vi
ll
amor
,Os
trandandJ
ohns
,JJ
.,c
onc
ur.

TheLawphi
lPr
ojec
t-Ar
ell
anoLawFoundat
ion