CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI AND/OR NIRMLA V. RAMNANI and MOTI I.

THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED

G. RAMNANI, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ISHWAR GRAVE ERROR AND HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN
JETHMAL RAMNANI, SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI and OVERSEAS ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS
HOLDING CO., LTD., respondents. G.R. No. 85494 May 7, 1991 HONORABLE COURT—

SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI AND SONYA JET RAMNANI, A) IN PROMULGATING THE QUESTIONED AMENDED DECISION
petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ORTIGAS & CO., (ANNEX "A") RELIEVING RESPONDENT ORTIGAS FROM LIABILITY AND
LTD. PARTNERSHIP, and OVERSEAS HOLDING CO., LTD., respondents. DISMISSING PETITIONERS' AMENDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 534-
G.R. No. 85496 May 7, 1991 P, AS AGAINST SAID RESPONDENT ORTIGAS;

This case involves the bitter quarrel of two brothers over two (2) parcels of land B) IN HOLDING IN SAID AMENDED DECISION THAT AT ANY RATE
and its improvements now worth a fortune. The bone of contention is the NO ONE EVER TESTIFIED THAT ORTIGAS WAS A SUBSCRIBER TO THE
apparently conflicting factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court, the MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION OR THAT ANY OF ITS OFFICERS READ THE
resolution of which will materially affect the result of the contest. NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN THE MANILA TIMES, THEREBY ERRONEOUSLY
CONCLUDING THAT FOR RESPONDENT ORTIGAS TO BE
The following facts are not disputed. CONSTRUCTIVELY BOUND BY THE PUBLISHED NOTICE OF REVOCATION,
ORTIGAS AND/OR ANY OF ITS OFFICERS MUST BE A SUBSCRIBER
Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of AND/OR THAT ANY OF ITS OFFICERS SHOULD READ THE NOTICE AS
the full blood. Ishwar and his spouse Sonya had their main business based in ACTUALLY PUBLISHED;
New York. Realizing the difficulty of managing their investments in the
Philippines they executed a general power of attorney on January 24, 1966 C) IN HOLDING IN SAID AMENDED DECISION THAT ORTIGAS
appointing Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact, empowering them to COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WITH THE
manage and conduct their business concern in the Philippines.1 DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND NIRMLA RAMNANI, AS
ORTIGAS RELIED ON THE WORD OF CHOITHRAM THAT ALL ALONG HE
On February 1, 1966 and on May 16, 1966, Choithram, in his capacity as WAS ACTING FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HIS BROTHER ISHWAR WHEN IT
aforesaid attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, entered into two agreements for the TRANSFERRED THE RIGHTS OF THE LATTER TO NIRMLA V. RAMNANI;
purchase of two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from
Ortigas & Company, Ltd. Partnership (Ortigas for short) with a total area of D) IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE DULY PRESENTED AND
approximately 10,048 square meters.2 Per agreement, Choithram paid the down ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL THAT ORTIGAS WAS PROPERLY NOTIFIED
payment and installments on the lot with his personal checks. A building was OF THE NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF THE GENERAL POWER OF
constructed thereon by Choithram in 1966 and this was occupied and rented by ATTORNEY GIVEN TO CHOITHRAM, EVIDENCED BY THE PUBLICATION IN
Jethmal Industries and a wardrobe shop called Eppie's Creation. Three other THE MANILA TIMES ISSUE OF APRIL 2, 1971 (EXH. F) WHICH
buildings were built thereon by Choithram through a loan of P100,000.00 CONSTITUTES NOTICE TO THE WHOLE WORLD; THE RECEIPT OF THE
obtained from the Merchants Bank as well as the income derived from the first NOTICE OF SUCH REVOCATION WHICH WAS SENT TO ORTIGAS ON MAY
building. The buildings were leased out by Choithram as attorney-in-fact of 22, 1971 BY ATTY. MARIANO P. MARCOS AND RECEIVED BY ORTIGAS ON
Ishwar. Two of these buildings were later burned. MAY 24, 1971 (EXH. G) AND THE FILING OF THE NOTICE WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON MARCH 29,1971 (EXH. H);
Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and
expenses relative to these properties during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram E) IN DISCARDING ITS FINDINGS CONTAINED IN ITS DECISION OF
failed and refused to render such accounting. As a consequence, on February 4, 14 MARCH 1988 (ANNEX B) THAT ORTIGAS WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THE
1971, Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney. Choithram and Ortigas were REVOCATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF CHOITHRAM, HENCE
duly notified of such revocation on April 1, 1971 and May 24, 1971, respectively.3 ORTIGAS ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN EXECUTING THE DEED OF SALE TO
Said notice was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION IN FAVOR OF NIRMLA V. RAMNANI;
on March 29, 19714 and was published in the April 2, 1971 issue of The Manila
Times for the information of the general public.5 F) IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT ORTIGAS VACUOUS REHASHED
ARGUMENTS IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT IT WOULD
Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, transferred all rights NOT GAIN ONE CENTAVO MORE FROM CHOITHRAM FOR THE SALE OF
and interests of Ishwar and Sonya in favor of his daughter-in-law, Nirmla SAID LOTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE SAME TO THE
Ramnani, on February 19, 1973. Her husband is Moti, son of Choithram. Upon MATTER'S DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, AND THAT IT WAS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN
complete payment of the lots, Ortigas executed the corresponding deeds of sale IT TRANSFERRED ISHWAR'S RIGHTS TO THE LOTS IN QUESTION.
in favor of Nirmla.6 Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the
Register of Deeds of Rizal were issued in her favor. II. THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SO FAR
DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL
Thus, on October 6, 1982, Ishwar and Sonya (spouses Ishwar for short) filed a PROCEEDING WHEN IT HELD IN THE QUESTIONED AMENDED DECISION
complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Choithram and/or OF 17 NOVEMBER 1988 (ANNEX A) THAT RESPONDENT ORTIGAS & CO.,
spouses Nirmla and Moti (Choithram et al. for brevity) and Ortigas for LTD., IS NOT JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH DEFENDANTS-
reconveyance of said properties or payment of its value and damages. An APPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND NIRMLA RAMNANI IN SPITE OF ITS
amended complaint for damages was thereafter filed by said spouses. ORIGINAL DECISION OF 14 MARCH 1988 THAT ORTIGAS WAS DULY
NOTIFIED OF THE REVOCATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF
After the issues were joined and the trial on the merits, a decision was rendered CHOITHRAM RAMNANI.10
by the trial court on December 3, 1985 dismissing the complaint and
counterclaim. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by spouses Ishwar was The center of controversy is the testimony of Ishwar that during the latter part of
denied on March 3, 1986. 1965, he sent the amount of US $150,000.00 to Choithram in two bank drafts of
US$65,000.00 and US$85,000.00 for the purpose of investing the same in real
An appeal therefrom was interposed by spouses Ishwar to the Court of Appeals estate in the Philippines. The trial court considered this lone testimony unworthy
wherein in due course a decision was promulgated on March 14, 1988, the of faith and credit. On the other hand, the appellate court found that the trial court
dispositive part of which reads as follows: misapprehended the facts in complete disregard of the evidence, documentary
and testimonial.
Acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by Choithram, et al. and Ortigas, the
appellate court promulgated an amended decision on October 17, 1988 granting Another crucial issue is the claim of Choithram that because he was then a
the motion for reconsideration of Ortigas by affirming the dismissal of the case by British citizen, as a temporary arrangement, he arranged the purchase of the
the lower court as against Ortigas but denying the motion for reconsideration of properties in the name of Ishwar who was an American citizen and who was then
Choithram, et al.8 qualified to purchase property in the Philippines under the then Parity
Amendment. The trial court believed this account but it was debunked by the
Choithram, et al. thereafter filed a petition for review of said judgment of the appellate court.
appellate court alleging the following grounds:
As to the issue of whether of not spouses Ishwar actually sent US$150,000.00 to
1. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in making a Choithram precisely to be used in the real estate business, the trial court made
factual finding not supported by and contrary, to the evidence presented at the the following disquisition —
Trial Court.
After a careful, considered and conscientious examination of the evidence
2. The Court of Appeals acted in excess of jurisdiction in awarding adduced in the case at bar, plaintiff Ishwar Jethmal Ramanani's main evidence,
damages based on the value of the real properties in question where the cause which centers on the alleged payment by sending through registered mail from
of action of private respondents is recovery of a sum of money. New York two (2) US$ drafts of $85,000.00 and $65,000.00 in the latter part of
1965 (TSN 28 Feb. 1984, p. 10-11). The sending of these moneys were before
ARGUMENTS the execution of that General Power of Attorney, which was dated in New York,
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION on January 24, 1966. Because of these alleged remittances of US $150,000.00
IN MAKING A FACTUAL FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT ISHWAR and the subsequent acquisition of the properties in question, plaintiffs averred
REMITTED THE AMOUNT OF US $150,000.00 TO PETITIONER CHOITHRAM that they constituted a trust in favor of defendant Choithram Jethmal Ramnani.
IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF SUCH REMITTANCE. This Court can be in full agreement if the plaintiffs were only able to prove
preponderantly these remittances. The entire record of this case is bereft of even
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION a shred of proof to that effect. It is completely barren. His uncorroborated
AND MANIFEST PARTIALITY IN DISREGARDING THE TRIAL COURTS testimony that he remitted these amounts in the "later part of 1965" does not
FINDINGS BASED ON THE DIRECT DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL engender enough faith and credence. Inadequacy of details of such remittance
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY CHOITHRAM IN THE TRIAL COURT on the two (2) US dollar drafts in such big amounts is completely not positive,
ESTABLISHING THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED WITH credible, probable and entirely not in accord with human experience. This is a
PERSONAL FUNDS OF PETITIONER CHOITHRAM AND NOT WITH MONEY classic situation, plaintiffs not exhibiting any commercial document or any
ALLEGEDLY REMITTED BY RESPONDENT ISHWAR. document and/or paper as regard to these alleged remittances. Plaintiff Ishwar
Ramnani is not an ordinary businessman in the strict sense of the word.
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN Remember his main business is based in New York, and he should know better
AWARDING DAMAGES BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AND how to send these alleged remittances. Worst, plaintiffs did not present even a
THE FRUITS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON.9 scum of proof, that defendant Choithram Ramnani received the alleged two US
dollar drafts. Significantly, he does not know even the bank where these two (2)
Similarly, spouses Ishwar filed a petition for review of said amended decision of US dollar drafts were purchased. Indeed, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani's lone
the appellate court exculpating Ortigas of liability based on the following assigned testimony is unworthy of faith and credit and, therefore, deserves scant
errors consideration, and since the plaintiffs' theory is built or based on such testimony,
their cause of action collapses or falls with it.
Further, the rate of exchange that time in 1966 was P4.00 to $1.00. The alleged Q From where did your father- in-law sent these two bank drafts?
two US dollar drafts amounted to $150,000.00 or about P600,000.00. Assuming
A From Switzerland.
the cash price of the two (2) lots was only P530,000.00 (ALTHOUGH he said:
"Based on my knowledge I have no evidence," when asked if he even knows the Q He was in Switzerland.
cash price of the two lots). If he were really the true and bonafide investor and
purchaser for profit as he asserted, he could have paid the price in full in cash A Probably, they sent out these two drafts from Switzerland.
directly and obtained the title in his name and not thru "Contracts To Sell" in
(TSN, 7 March 1984, pp. 16-17; Emphasis supplied.)
installments paying interest and thru an attorney-in fact (TSN of May 2, 1984, pp.
10-11) and, again, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani told this Court that he does not know
whether or not his late father-in-law borrowed the two US dollar drafts from the This positive and affirmative testimony of plaintiff-appellant that he sent the two
(2) bank drafts totalling US $ 150,000.00 to his brother, is proof of said
Swiss Bank or whether or not his late father-in-law had any debit memo from the
Swiss Bank (TSN of May 2, 1984, pp. 9-10).11 remittance. Such positive testimony has greater probative force than defendant-
appellee's denial of receipt of said bank drafts, for a witness who testifies
On the other hand, the appellate court, in giving credence to the version of affirmatively that something did happen should be believed for it is unlikely that a
witness will remember what never happened (Underhill's Cr. Guidance, 5th Ed.,
Ishwar, had this to say —
Vol. 1, pp. 10-11).
While it is true, that generally the findings of fact of the trial court are binding
upon the appellate courts, said rule admits of exceptions such as when (1) the That is not all. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff-appellant Ishwar Ramnani executed a
General Power of Attorney (Exhibit "A") dated January 24, 1966 appointing his
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and
conjectures; (2) when the inferences made is manifestly mistaken, absurd and brothers, defendants-appellees Navalrai and Choithram as attorney-in-fact
empowering the latter to conduct and manage plaintiffs-appellants' business
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts and when the court, in making its findings, affairs in the Philippines and specifically—
went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions
of both appellant and appellee (Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 63 SCRA 33; No. 14. To acquire, purchase for us, real estates and improvements for the
purpose of real estate business anywhere in the Philippines and to develop,
Philippine American Life Assurance Co. vs. Santamaria, 31 SCRA 798; Aldaba
vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 189). subdivide, improve and to resell to buying public (individual, firm or corporation);
to enter in any contract of sale in oar behalf and to enter mortgages between the
The evidence on record shows that the t court acted under a misapprehension of vendees and the herein grantors that may be needed to finance the real estate
business being undertaken.
facts and the inferences made on the evidence palpably a mistake.
Pursuant thereto, on February 1, 1966 and May 16, 1966, Choithram Jethmal
The trial court's observation that "the entire records of the case is bereft of even a
shred of proof" that plaintiff-appellants have remitted to defendant-appellee Ramnani entered into Agreements (Exhibits "B' and "C") with the other
defendant. Ortigas and Company, Ltd., for the purchase of two (2) parcels of land
Choithram Ramnani the amount of US $ 150,000.00 for investment in real estate
in the Philippines, is not borne by the evidence on record and shows the trial situated at Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, with said defendant-appellee signing the
Agreements in his capacity as Attorney-in-fact of Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani.
court's misapprehension of the facts if not a complete disregard of the evidence,
both documentary and testimonial.
Again, on January 5, 1972, almost seven (7) years after Ishwar sent the US $
Plaintiff-appellant Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani testifying in his own behalf, declared 150,000.00 in 1965, Choithram Ramnani, as attorney-in fact of Ishwar entered
into a Contract of Lease with Sigma-Mariwasa (Exhibit "P") thereby re-affirming
that during the latter part of 1965, he sent the amount of US $150,000.00 to his
brother Choithram in two bank drafts of US $65,000.00 and US $85,000.00 for the ownership of Ishwar over the disputed property and the trust relationship
between the latter as principal and Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar.
the purpose of investing the same in real estate in the Philippines. His testimony
is as follows:
All of these facts indicate that if plaintiff-appellant Ishwar had not earlier sent the
ATTY. MARAPAO: Mr. Witness, you said that your attorney-in-fact paid in your US $ 150,000.00 to his brother, Choithram, there would be no purpose for him to
execute a power of attorney appointing his brothers as s attorney-in-fact in
behalf. Can you tell this Honorable Court where your attorney-in-fact got the
money to pay this property? buying real estate in the Philippines.

ATTY. CRUZ: Wait. It is now clear it becomes incompetent or hearsay. As against Choithram's denial that he did not receive the US $150,000.00
remitted by Ishwar and that the Power of Attorney, as well as the Agreements
COURT: Witness can answer. entered into with Ortigas & Co., were only temporary arrangements, Ishwar's
testimony that he did send the bank drafts to Choithram and was received by the
A: I paid through my attorney-in-fact. I am the one who gave him the money. latter, is the more credible version since it is natural, reasonable and probable. It
is in accord with the common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary
ATTY. MARAPAO: men (Gardner vs. Wentors 18 Iowa 533). And in determining where the superior
weight of the evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider the
Q You gave him the money?
probability or improbability of the testimony of the witness (Sec. 1, Rule 133,
A That's right. Rules of Court).

Q How much money did you give him? Contrary, therefore, to the trial court's sweeping observation that 'the entire
records of the case is bereft of even a shred of proof that Choithram received the
A US $ 150,000.00.
alleged bank drafts amounting to US $ 150,000.00, we have not only testimonial
Q How was it given then? evidence but also documentary and circumstantial evidence proving said
remittance of the money and the fiduciary relationship between the former and
A Through Bank drafts. US $65,000.00 and US $85,000.00 bank drafts. The total Ishwar.12
amount which is $ 150,000.00 (TSN, 28 February 1984, p. 10; Emphasis supplied.)
The Court agrees. The environmental circumstances of this case buttress the
xxx xxx xxx
claim of Ishwar that he did entrust the amount of US $ 150,000.00 to his brother,
ATTY. CRUZ: Choithram, which the latter invested in the real property business subject of this
litigation in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar.
Q The two bank drafts which you sent I assume you bought that from some banks
in New York? True it is that there is no receipt whatever in the possession of Ishwar to
evidence the same, but it is not unusual among brothers and close family
A No, sir.
members to entrust money and valuables to each other without any formalities or
Q But there is no question those two bank drafts were for the purpose of paying receipt due to the special relationship of trust between them.
down payment and installment of the two parcels of land?
And another proof thereof is the fact that Ishwar, out of frustration when
A Down payment, installment and to put up the building. Choithram failed to account for the realty business despite his demands, revoked
the general power of attorney he extended to Choithram and Navalrai.
Q I thought you said that the buildings were constructed . . . subject to our
Thereafter, Choithram wrote a letter to Ishwar pleading that the power of attorney
continuing objection from rentals of first building?
be renewed or another authority to the same effect be extended, which reads as
ATTY. MARAPAO: Your Honor, that is misleading. follows:

COURT; Witness (may) answer. June 25,1971

A Yes, the first building was immediately put up after the purchase of the two
MR. ISHWAR JETHMAL
parcels of land that was in 1966 and the finds were used for the construction of the building
from the US $150,000.00 (TSN, 7 March 1984, page 14; Emphasis supplied.) NEW YORK

xxx xxx xxx (1) Send power of Atty. immediately, because the case has been
postponed for two weeks. The same way as it has been send before in favor of
Q These two bank drafts which you mentioned and the use for it you sent them by both names. Send it immediately otherwise everything will be lost unnecessarily,
registered mail, did you send them from New Your?
and then it will take us in litigation. Now that we have gone ahead with a case
A That is right. and would like to end it immediately otherwise squatters will take the entire land.
Therefore, send it immediately.
Q And the two bank drafts which were put in the registered mail, the registered mail
was addressed to whom? (2) Ortigas also has sued us because we are holding the installments,
because they have refused to give a rebate of P5.00 per meter which they have
A Choithram Ramnani. (TSN, 7 March 1984, pp. 14-15).
to give us as per contract. They have filed the law suit that since we have not
On cross-examination, the witness reiterated the remittance of the money to his brother paid the installment they should get back the land. The hearing of this case is in
Choithram, which was sent to him by his father-in-law, Rochiram L. Mulchandoni from the month of July. Therefore, please send the power immediately. In one case
Switzerland, a man of immense wealth, which even defendants-appellees' witness Navalrai DADA (Elder Brother) will represent and in another one, I shall.
Ramnani admits to be so (tsn., p. 16, S. Oct. 13, 1985). Thus, on cross-examination, Ishwar
testified as follows: (3) In case if you do not want to give power then make one letter in favor
of Dada and the other one in my favor showing that in any litigation we can
Q How did you receive these two bank drafts from the bank the name of which you
cannot remember? represent you and your wife, and whatever the court decide it will be acceptable
by me. You can ask any lawyer, he will be able to prepare these letters. After that
A I got it from my father-in-law.
you can have these letters ratify before P.I. Consulate. It should be dated April probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human
15, 1971. testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience.
Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of
(4) Try to send the power because it will be more useful. Make it in any judicial cognizance. (Daggers vs. Van Dyek 37 M.J. Eq. 130, 132).
manner whatever way you have confident in it. But please send it immediately.
Another factor that can be counted against the temporary arrangement excuse is
You have cancelled the power. Therefore, you have lost your reputation that upon the revocation on February 4, 1971 of the Power of attorney dated
everywhere. What can I further write you about it. I have told everybody that due January 24, 1966 in favor of Navalrai and Choithram by Ishwar, Choithram wrote
to certain reasons I have written you to do this that is why you have done this. (tsn, p. 21, S. July 19, 1985) a letter dated June 25, 1971 (Exhibits R, R-1, R-2
This way your reputation have been kept intact. Otherwise if I want to do and R-3) imploring Ishwar to execute a new power of attorney in their favor. That
something about it, I can show you that inspite of the power you have cancelled if he did not want to give power, then Ishwar could make a letter in favor of Dada
you can not do anything. You can keep this letter because my conscience is and another in his favor so that in any litigation involving the properties in
clear. I do not have anything in my mind. question, both of them could represent Ishwar and his wife. Choithram tried to
convince Ishwar to issue the power of attorney in whatever manner he may want.
I should not be writing you this, but because my conscience is clear do you know In said letter no mention was made at all of any temporary arrangement.
that if I had predated papers what could you have done? Or do you know that I
have many paper signed by you and if had done anything or do then what can On the contrary, said letter recognize(s) the existence of principal and attorney-
you do about it? It is not necessary to write further about this. It does not matter if in-fact relationship between Ishwar and himself. Choithram wrote: . . . do you
you have cancelled the power. At that time if I had predated and done something know that if I had predated papers what could you have done? Or do you know
about it what could you have done? You do not know me. I am not after money. I that I have many papers signed by you and if I had done anything or do then
can earn money anytime. It has been ten months since I have not received a what can you do about it?' Choithram was saying that he could have repudiated
single penny for expenses from Dada (elder brother). Why there are no the trust and ran away with the properties of Ishwar by predating documents and
expenses? We can not draw a single penny from knitting (factory). Well I am not Ishwar would be entirely helpless. He was bitter as a result of Ishwar's revocation
going to write you further, nor there is any need for it. This much I am writing you of the power of attorney but no mention was made of any temporary arrangement
because of the way you have conducted yourself. But remember, whenever I or a claim of ownership over the properties in question nor was he able to
hale the money I will not keep it myself Right now I have not got anything at all. present any memorandum or document to prove the existence of such temporary
arrangement.
I am not going to write any further.
Choithram is also estopped in pais or by deed from claiming an interest over the
Keep your business clean with Naru. Otherwise he will discontinue because he properties in question adverse to that of Ishwar. Section 3(a) of Rule 131 of the
likes to keep his business very clean.13 Rules of Court states that whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing
The said letter was in Sindhi language. It was translated to English by the First true and act upon such belief, he cannot in any litigation arising out of such
Secretary of the Embassy of Pakistan, which translation was verified correct by declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify it.' While estoppel by deed is a
the Chairman, Department of Sindhi, University of Karachi.14 bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against
the other and his privies any right of title in derogation of the deed, or from
From the foregoing letter what could be gleaned is that— denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it (31 C.J.S. 195; 19 Am. Jur.
603).
1. Choithram asked for the issuance of another power of attorney in
their favor so they can continue to represent Ishwar as Ortigas has sued them for Thus, defendants-appellees are not permitted to repudiate their admissions and
unpaid installments. It also appears therefrom that Ortigas learned of the representations or to assert any right or title in derogation of the deeds or from
revocation of the power of attorney so the request to issue another. denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the (1) power of attorney dated
January 24, 1966 (Exhibit A); (2) the Agreements of February 1, 1966 and May
2. Choithram reassured Ishwar to have confidence in him as he was not 16, 1966 (Exhibits B and C); and (3) the Contract of Lease dated January 5,
after money, and that he was not interested in Ishwar's money. 1972 (Exhibit P).

3. To demonstrate that he can be relied upon, he said that he could . . . The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair
have ante-dated the sales agreement of the Ortigas lots before the issuance of dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against
the powers of attorney and acquired the same in his name, if he wanted to, but his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they
he did not do so. were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of estoppel
springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is designed to aid
4. He said he had not received a single penny for expenses from Dada the law in the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result.
(their elder brother Navalrai). Thus, confirming that if he was not given money by It has been applied by court wherever and whenever special circumstances of a
Ishwar to buy the Ortigas lots, he could not have consummated the sale. case so demands' (Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 357,
368 [1979]).
5. It is important to note that in said letter Choithram never claimed
ownership of the property in question. He affirmed the fact that he bought the It was only after the services of counsel has been obtained that Choithram
same as mere agent and in behalf of Ishwar. Neither did he mention the alleged alleged for the first time in his Answer that the General Power of attorney (Annex
temporary arrangement whereby Ishwar, being an American citizen, shall appear A) with the Contracts to Sell (Annexes B and C) were made only for the sole
to be the buyer of the said property, but that after Choithram acquires Philippine purpose of assuring defendants' acquisition and ownership of the lots described
citizenship, its ownership shall be transferred to Choithram. thereon in due time under the law; that said instruments do not reflect the true
intention of the parties (par. 2, Answer dated May 30, 1983), seventeen (17) long
This brings us to this temporary arrangement theory of Choithram. years from the time he received the money transmitted to him by his brother,
Ishwar.
The appellate court disposed of this matter in this wise
Moreover, Choithram's 'temporary arrangement,' by which he claimed purchasing
Choithram's claim that he purchased the two parcels of land for himself in 1966 the two (2) parcels in question in 1966 and placing them in the name of Ishwar
but placed it in the name of his younger brother, Ishwar, who is an American who is an American citizen, to circumvent the disqualification provision of aliens
citizen, as a temporary arrangement,' because as a British subject he is acquiring real properties in the Philippines under the 1935 Philippine
disqualified under the 1935 Constitution to acquire real property in the Constitution, as Choithram was then a British subject, show a palpable disregard
Philippines, which is not so with respect to American citizens in view of the of the law of the land and to sustain the supposed "temporary arrangement" with
Ordinance Appended to the Constitution granting them parity rights, there is Ishwar would be sanctioning the perpetration of an illegal act and culpable
nothing in the records showing that Ishwar ever agreed to such a temporary violation of the Constitution.
arrangement.
Defendants-appellees likewise violated the Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth
During the entire period from 1965, when the US $ 150,000. 00 was transmitted Act 108, as amended), which provides in Section 1 thereof that:
to Choithram, and until Ishwar filed a complaint against him in 1982, or over 16
years, Choithram never mentioned of a temporary arrangement nor can he In all cases in which any constitutional or legal provision requires Philippine or
present any memorandum or writing evidencing such temporary arrangement, any other specific citizenship as a requisite for the exercise or enjoyment of a
prompting plaintiff-appellant to observe: right, franchise or privilege, . . . any alien or foreigner profiting thereby, shall be
punished . . . by imprisonment . . . and of a fine of not less than the value of the
The properties in question which are located in a prime industrial site in Ugong, right, franchise or privileges, which is enjoyed or acquired in violation of the
Pasig, Metro Manila have a present fair market value of no less than provisions hereof . . .
P22,364,000.00 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive), and yet for such valuable pieces
of property, Choithram who now belatedly that he purchased the same for Having come to court with unclean hands, Choithram must not be permitted foist
himself did not document in writing or in a memorandum the alleged temporary his 'temporary arrangement' scheme as a defense before this court. Being in
arrangement with Ishwar' (pp. 4-41, Appellant's Brief). delicto, he does not have any right whatsoever being shielded from his own
wrong-doing, which is not so with respect to Ishwar, who was not a party to such
Such verbal allegation of a temporary arrangement is simply improbable and an arrangement.
inconsistent. It has repeatedly been held that important contracts made without
evidence are highly improbable. The falsity of Choithram's defense is further aggravated by the material
inconsistencies and contradictions in his testimony. While on January 23, 1985
The improbability of such temporary arrangement is brought to fore when we he testified that he purchased the land in question on his own behalf (tsn, p. 4, S.
consider that Choithram has a son (Haresh Jethmal Ramnani) who is an Jan. 23, 1985), in the July 18, 1985 hearing, forgetting probably what he stated
American citizen under whose name the properties in question could be before, Choithram testified that he was only an attorney-in-fact of Ishwar (tsn, p.
registered, both during the time the contracts to sell were executed and at the 5, S. July 18, 1985). Also in the hearing of January 23, 1985, Choithram declared
time absolute title over the same was to be delivered. At the time the Agreements that nobody rented the building that was constructed on the parcels of land in
were entered into with defendant Ortigas & Co. in 1966, Haresh, was already 18 question (tsn, pp. 5 and 6), only to admit in the hearing of October 30, 1985, that
years old and consequently, Choithram could have executed the deeds in trust he was in fact renting the building for P12,000. 00 per annum (tsn, p. 3). Again, in
for his minor son. But, he did not do this. Three (3) years, thereafter, or in 1968 the hearing of July 19, 1985, Choithram testified that he had no knowledge of the
after Haresh had attained the age of 21, Choithram should have terminated the revocation of the Power of Attorney (tsn, pp. 20- 21), only to backtrack when
temporary arrangement with Ishwar, which according to him would be effective confronted with the letter of June 25, 1971 (Exhibits R to R-3), which he admitted
only pending the acquisition of citizenship papers. Again, he did not do anything. to be in "his own writing," indicating knowledge of the revocation of the Power of
Attorney.
Evidence to be believed, said Vice Chancellor Van Fleet of New Jersey, must not
only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself These inconsistencies are not minor but go into the entire credibility of the
—such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as testimony of Choithram and the rule is that contradictions on a very crucial point
by a witness, renders s testimony incredible People vs. Rafallo, 80 Phil. 22). Not An opposition thereto was filed by Choithram, et al. but no documents were
only this the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is fully applicable as far produced. A manifestation and reply to the opposition was filed by spouses
as the testimony of Choithram is concerned. The cardinal rule, which has served Ishwar.
in all ages, and has been applied to all conditions of men, is that a witness
willfully falsifying the truth in one particular, when upon oath, ought never to be All these acts of Choithram, et al. appear to be fraudulent attempts to remove
believed upon the strength of his own testimony, whatever he may assert (U.S. these properties to the detriment of spouses Ishwar should the latter prevail in
vs. Osgood 27 Feb. Case No. 15971-a, p. 364); Gonzales vs. Mauricio, 52 Phil, this litigation.
728), for what ground of judicial relief can there be left when the party has shown
such gross insensibility to the difference between right and wrong, between truth On December 10, 1990 the court issued a resolution that substantially reads as
and falsehood? (The Santisima Trinidad, 7 Wheat, 283, 5 U.S. [L. ed.] 454). follows:

True, that Choithram's testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of his Considering the allegations of petitioners Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani and Sonya
brother, Navalrai, but the same would not be of much help to Choithram. Not only Ramnani that respondents Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and
is Navalrai an interested and biased witness, having admitted his close Moti G. Ramnani have fraudulently executed a simulated mortgage of the
relationship with Choithram and that whenever he or Choithram had problems, properties subject of this litigation dated June 20, 1989, in favor of Overseas
they ran to each other (tsn, pp. 17-18, S. Sept. 20, 1985), Navalrai has a Holding Co., Ltd. which appears to be a corporation organized in Cayman
pecuniary interest in the success of Choithram in the case in question. Both he Islands, for the amount of $ 3,000,000.00, which is much more than the value of
and Choithram are business partners in Jethmal and Sons and/or Jethmal the properties in litigation; that said alleged mortgagee appears to be a "shell"
Industries, wherein he owns 60% of the company and Choithram, 40% (p. 62, corporation with a capital of only $100.00; and that this alleged transaction
Appellant's Brief). Since the acquisition of the properties in question in 1966, appears to be intended to defraud petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal
Navalrai was occupying 1,200 square meters thereof as a factory site plus the Ramnani of any favorable judgment that this Court may render in this case;
fact that his son (Navalrais) was occupying the apartment on top of the factory
with his family rent free except the amount of P l,000.00 a month to pay for taxes Wherefore the Court Resolved to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining
on said properties (tsn, p. 17, S. Oct. 3, 1985). and prohibiting said respondents Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V.
Ramnani, Moti G. Ramnani and the Overseas Holding Co., Ltd. from
Inherent contradictions also marked Navalrai testimony. "While the latter was encumbering, selling or otherwise disposing of the properties and improvements
very meticulous in keeping a receipt for the P 10,000.00 that he paid Ishwar as subject of this litigation until further orders of the Court. Petitioners Ishwar and
settlement in Jethmal Industries, yet in the alleged payment of P 100,000.00 to Sonya Jethmal Ramnani are hereby required to post a bond of P 100,000.00 to
Ishwar, no receipt or voucher was ever issued by him (tsn, p. 17, S. Oct. 3, answer for any damages d respondents may suffer by way of this injunction if the
1983).15 Court finally decides the said petitioners are not entitled thereto.

We concur. The Overseas Holding Co., Ltd. with address at P.O. Box 1790 Grand Cayman,
The foregoing findings of facts of the Court of Appeals which are supported by Cayman Islands, is hereby IMPLEADED as a respondent in these cases, and is
the evidence is conclusive on this Court. The Court finds that Ishwar entrusted hereby required to SUBMIT its comment on the Urgent Motion for the Issuance of
US$150,000.00 to Choithram in 1965 for investment in the realty business. Soon a Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Motion for Production of Documents, the
thereafter, a general power of attorney was executed by Ishwar in favor of both Manifestation and the Reply to the Opposition filed by said petitioners, within
Navalrai and Choithram. If it is true that the purpose only is to enable Choithram Sixty (60) days after service by publication on it in accordance with the provisions
to purchase realty temporarily in the name of Ishwar, why the inclusion of their of Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, at the expense of petitioners Ishwar
elder brother Navalrai as an attorney-in-fact? and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani.

Then, acting as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, Choithram purchased two parcels of Let copies of this resolution be served on the Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal,
land located in Barrio Ugong Pasig, Rizal, from Ortigas in 1966. With the balance and the Provincial Assessor of Pasig, Rizal, both in Metro Manila, for its
of the money of Ishwar, Choithram erected a building on said lot. Subsequently, annotation on the transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. 403150 and 403152
with a loan obtained from a bank and the income of the said property, Choithram registered in the name of respondent Nirmla V. Ramnani, and on the tax
constructed three other buildings thereon. He managed the business and declarations of the said properties and its improvements subject of this
collected the rentals. Due to their relationship of confidence it was only in 1970 litigation.21
when Ishwar demanded for an accounting from Choithram. And even as Ishwar
revoked the general power of attorney on February 4, 1971, of which Choithram The required injunction bond in the amount of P 100,000.00 was filed by the
was duly notified, Choithram wrote to Ishwar on June 25, 1971 requesting that he spouses Ishwar which was approved by the Court. The above resolution of the
execute a new power of attorney in their favor.16 When Ishwar did not respond Court was published in the Manila Bulletin issue of December 17, 1990 at the
thereto, Choithram nevertheless proceeded as such attorney-in-fact to assign all expense of said spouses.22 On December 19, 1990 the said resolution and
the rights and interest of Ishwar to his daughter-in-law Nirmla in 1973 without the petition for review with annexes in G.R. Nos. 85494 and 85496 were transmitted
knowledge and consent of Ishwar. Ortigas in turn executed the corresponding to respondent Overseas, Grand Cayman Islands at its address c/o Cayman
deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla after full payment of the purchase accomplice of Overseas Trust Co. Ltd., through the United Parcel Services Bill of Lading23 and
the lots. it was actually delivered to said company on January 23, 1991.24

In the prefatory statement of their petition, Choithram pictured Ishwar to be so On January 22, 1991, Choithram, et al., filed a motion to dissolve the writ of
motivated by greed and ungratefulness, who squandered the family business in preliminary injunction alleging that there is no basis therefor as in the amended
New York, who had to turn to his wife for support, accustomed to living in complaint what is sought is actual damages and not a reconveyance of the
ostentation and who resorted to blackmail in filing several criminal and civil suits property, that there is no reason for its issuance, and that acts already executed
against them. These statements find no support and should be stricken from the cannot be enjoined. They also offered to file a counterbond to dissolve the writ.
records. Indeed, they are irrelevant to the proceeding.
A comment/opposition thereto was filed by spouses Ishwar that there is basis for
Moreover, assuming Ishwar is of such a low character as Choithram proposes to the injunction as the alleged mortgage of the property is simulated and the other
make this Court to believe, why is it that of all persons, under his temporary donations of the shares of Choithram to his children are fraudulent schemes to
arrangement theory, Choithram opted to entrust the purchase of valuable real negate any judgment the Court may render for petitioners.
estate and built four buildings thereon all in the name of Ishwar? Is it not an
unconscious emergence of the truth that this otherwise wayward brother of theirs No comment or answer was filed by Overseas despite due notice, thus it is and
was on the contrary able to raise enough capital through the generosity of his must be considered to be in default and to have lost the right to contest the
father-in-law for the purchase of the very properties in question? As the appellate representations of spouses Ishwar to declare the aforesaid alleged mortgage nun
court aptly observed if truly this temporary arrangement story is the only and void.
motivation, why Ishwar of all people? Why not the own son of Choithram, Haresh
who is also an American citizen and who was already 18 years old at the time of This purported mortgage of the subject properties in litigation appears to be
purchase in 1966? The Court agrees with the observation that this theory is an fraudulent and simulated. The stated amount of $3 Million for which it was
afterthought which surfaced only when Choithram, Nirmla and Moti filed their mortgaged is much more than the value of the mortgaged properties and its
answer. improvements. The alleged mortgagee-company (Overseas) was organized only
on June 26,1989 but the mortgage was executed much earlier, on June 20,
When Ishwar asked for an accounting in 1970 and revoked the general power of 1989, that is six (6) days before Overseas was organized. Overseas is a "shelf"
attorney in 1971, Choithram had a total change of heart. He decided to claim the company worth only $100.00.25 In the manifestation of spouses Ishwar dated
property as his. He caused the transfer of the rights and interest of Ishwar to April 1, 1991, the Court was informed that this matter was brought to the
Nirmla. On his representation, Ortigas executed the deeds of sale of the attention of the Central Bank (CB) for investigation, and that in a letter of March
properties in favor of Nirmla. Choithram obviously surmised Ishwar cannot stake 20, 1991, the CB informed counsel for spouses Ishwar that said alleged foreign
a valid claim over the property by so doing. loan of Choithram, et al. from Overseas has not been previously
approved/registered with the CB.26
Clearly, this transfer to Nirmla is fictitious and, as admitted by Choithram, was
intended only to place the property in her name until Choithram acquires Obviously, this is another ploy of Choithram, et al. to place these properties
Philippine citizenship.17 What appears certain is that it appears to be a scheme beyond the reach of spouses Ishwar should they obtain a favorable judgment in
of Choithram to place the property beyond the reach of Ishwar should he this case. The Court finds and so declares that this alleged mortgage should be
successfully claim the same. Thus, it must be struck down. as it is hereby declared null and void.

Worse still, on September 27, 1990 spouses Ishwar filed an urgent motion for the All these contemporaneous and subsequent acts of Choithram, et al., betray the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and to require Choithram, et al. to weakness of their cause so they had to take an steps, even as the case was
submit certain documents, inviting the attention of this Court to the following: already pending in Court, to render ineffective any judgment that may be
rendered against them.
a) Donation by Choithram of his 2,500 shares of stock in General
Garments Corporation in favor of his children on December 29, 1989;18 The problem is compounded in that respondent Ortigas is caught in the web of
this bitter fight. It had all the time been dealing with Choithram as attorney-in-fact
b) Sale on August 2, 1990 by Choithram of his 100 shares in Biflex of Ishwar. However, evidence had been adduced that notice in writing had been
(Phils.), Inc., in favor of his children;19 and served not only on Choithram, but also on Ortigas, of the revocation of
Choithram's power of attorney by Ishwar's lawyer, on May 24, 1971.27 A
c) Mortgage on June 20, 1989 by Nirmla through her attorney-in-fact, publication of said notice was made in the April 2, 1971 issue of The Manila
Choithram, of the properties subject of this litigation, for the amount of $3 Million Times for the information of the general public.28 Such notice of revocation in a
in favor of Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd., (Overseas for brevity), a corporation newspaper of general circulation is sufficient warning to third persons including
which appears to be organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Ortigas.29 A notice of revocation was also registered with the Securities and
Cayman Islands, with a capital of only $100.00 divided into 100 shares of $1.00 Exchange Commission on March 29, 1 971.30
each, and with address at P.O. Box 1790, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.20
Indeed in the letter of Choithram to Ishwar of June 25, 1971, Choithram was acquisition of said assets he has as much claim to said properties as Ishwar, the
pleading that Ishwar execute another power of attorney to be shown to Ortigas capitalist partner in the joint venture.
who apparently learned of the revocation of Choithram's power of attorney.31
Despite said notices, Ortigas nevertheless acceded to the representation of The scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of $150,000.00 for the
Choithram, as alleged attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, to assign the rights of petitioner business.1âwphi1 They entrusted the money to Choithram to invest in a
Ishwar to Nirmla. While the primary blame should be laid at the doorstep of profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this purpose they appointed
Choithram, Ortigas is not entirely without fault. It should have required Choithram Choithram as their attorney-in-fact.
to secure another power of attorney from Ishwar. For recklessly believing the
pretension of Choithram that his power of attorney was still good, it must, Choithram in turn decided to invest in the real estate business. He bought the
therefore, share in the latter's liability to Ishwar. two (2) parcels of land in question from Ortigas as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar-
Instead of paying for the lots in cash, he paid in installments and used the
In the original complaint, the spouses Ishwar asked for a reconveyance of the balance of the capital entrusted to him, plus a loan, to build two buildings.
properties and/or payment of its present value and damages.32 In the amended Although the buildings were burned later, Choithram was able to build two other
complaint they asked, among others, for actual damages of not less than the buildings on the property. He rented them out and collected the rentals. Through
present value of the real properties in litigation, moral and exemplary damages, the industry and genius of Choithram, Ishwar's property was developed and
attorneys fees, costs of the suit and further prayed for "such other reliefs as may improved into what it is now—a valuable asset worth millions of pesos. As of the
be deemed just and equitable in the premises .33 The amended complaint last estimate in 1985, while the case was pending before the trial court, the
contain the following positive allegations: market value of the properties is no less than P22,304,000.00.39 It should be
worth much more today.
7. Defendant Choithram Ramnani, in evident bad faith and despite due
notice of the revocation of the General Power of Attorney, Annex 'D" hereof, We have a situation where two brothers engaged in a business venture. One
caused the transfer of the rights over the said parcels of land to his daughter-in- furnished the capital, the other contributed his industry and talent. Justice and
law, defendant Nirmla Ramnani in connivance with defendant Ortigas & Co., the equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint investment and
latter having agreed to the said transfer despite receiving a letter from plaintiffs' efforts. Perhaps this Solomonic solution may pave the way towards their
lawyer informing them of the said revocation; copy of the letter is hereto attached reconciliation. Both would stand to gain. No one would end up the loser. After all,
and made an integral part hereof as Annex "H"; blood is thicker than water.

8. Defendant Nirmla Ramnani having acquired the aforesaid property by However, the Court cannot just close its eyes to the devious machinations and
fraud is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of schemes that Choithram employed in attempting to dispose of, if not dissipate,
plaintiff and is obliged to return the same to the latter: the properties to deprive spouses Ishwar of any possible means to recover any
award the Court may grant in their favor. Since Choithram, et al. acted with
9. Several efforts were made to settle the matter within the family but evident bad faith and malice, they should pay moral and exemplary damages as
defendants (Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti Ramnani) refused well as attorney's fees to spouses Ishwar.
and up to now fail and still refuse to cooperate and respond to the same; thus,
the present case; WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 85494 is DENIED, while the petition in
G.R. No. 85496 is hereby given due course and GRANTED. The judgment of the
10. In addition to having been deprived of their rights over the properties Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1988 is hereby modified as follows:
(described in par. 3 hereof), plaintiffs, by reason of defendants' fraudulent act,
suffered actual damages by way of lost rental on the property which defendants 1. Dividing equally between respondents spouses Ishwar, on the one hand, and
petitioner Choithram Ramnani, on the other, (in G.R. No. 85494) the two parcels of land
(Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti Ramnani have collected for
subject of this litigation, including all the improvements thereon, presently covered by transfer
themselves;34 Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the Registry of Deeds, as well as the rental
income of the property from 1967 to the present.
In said amended complaint, spouses Ishwar, among others, pray for payment of
actual damages in an amount no less than the value of the properties in litigation 2. Petitioner Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani
instead of a reconveyance as sought in the original complaint. Apparently they and respondent Ortigas and Company, Limited Partnership (in G.R. No. 85496) are ordered
solidarily to pay in cash the value of said one-half (1/2) share in the said land and
opted not to insist on a reconveyance as they are American citizens as alleged in
improvements pertaining to respondents spouses Ishwar and Sonya at their fair market value
the amended complaint. at the time of the satisfaction of this judgment but in no case less than their value as appraised
by the Asian Appraisal, Inc. in its Appraisal Report dated August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14,
The allegations of the amended complaint above reproduced clearly spelled out inclusive).
that the transfer of the property to Nirmla was fraudulent and that it should be
considered to be held in trust by Nirmla for spouses Ishwar. As above-discussed, 3. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti Ramnani and respondent Ortigas & Co.,
Ltd. Partnership shall also be jointly and severally liable to pay to said respondents spouses
this allegation is well-taken and the transfer of the property to Nirmla should be
Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani one-half (1/2) of the total rental income of said properties and
considered to have created an implied trust by Nirmla as trustee of the property improvements from 1967 up to the date of satisfaction of the judgment to be computed as
for the benefit of spouses Ishwar.35 follows:

The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction filed by Choithram, et al. a. On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to
should be denied. Its issuance by this Court is proper and warranted under the 1973, inclusive, based on the 1967 to 1973 monthly rentals paid by Eppie's Creation;
circumstances of the case. Under Section 3(c) Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a
b. Also on Building C above, occupied by Jethmal Industries and Lavine from 1974
writ of preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after commencement of to 1978, the rental incomes based on then rates prevailing as shown under Exhibit "P"; and
the action and before judgment when it is established: from 1979 to 1981, based on then prevailing rates as indicated under Exhibit "Q";

(c) that the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is c. On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental
procuring or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of plaintiffs's incomes based upon then prevailing rates shown under Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1981,
based on prevailing rates per Exhibit "Q";
rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual. d. On the two Bays Buildings occupied by Sigma-Mariwasa from 1972 to 1978, the
rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on
As above extensively discussed, Choithram, et al. have committed and threaten the Lease Contract, Exhibit "Q".
to commit further acts of disposition of the properties in litigation as well as the
other assets of Choithram, apparently designed to render ineffective any and thereafter commencing 1982, to account for and turn over the rental incomes paid or ought
to be paid for the use and occupancy of the properties and all improvements totalling 10,048
judgment the Court may render favorable to spouses Ishwar.
sq. m., based on the rate per square meter prevailing in 1981 as indicated annually cumulative
up to 1984. Then, commencing 1985 and up to the satisfaction of the judgment, rentals shall
The purpose of the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction is to preserve the be computed at ten percent (10%) annually of the fair market values of the properties as
status quo of the things subject of the litigation and to protect the rights of the appraised by the Asian Appraisals, Inc. in August 1985. (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive.)
spouses Ishwar respecting the subject of the action during the pendency of the
Suit36 and not to obstruct the administration of justice or prejudice the adverse 4. To determine the market value of the properties at the time of the satisfaction of
this judgment and the total rental incomes thereof, the trial court is hereby directed to hold a
party.37 In this case for damages, should Choithram, et al. continue to commit
hearing with deliberate dispatch for this purpose only and to have the judgment immediately
acts of disposition of the properties subject of the litigation, an award of damages executed after such determination.
to spouses Ishwar would thereby be rendered ineffectual and meaningless.38
5. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, are also jointly
Consequently, if only to protect the interest of spouses Ishwar, the Court hereby and severally liable to pay respondents Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani the amount of
finds and holds that the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary P500,000.00 as moral damages, P200,000.00 as exemplary damages and attorney's fees
equal to 10% of the total award. to said respondents spouses.
attachment filed by spouses Ishwar should be granted covering the properties
subject of this litigation. 6. The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction dated December 10,
1990 filed by petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, is hereby
Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides that at the commencement of DENIED and the said injunction is hereby made permanent. Let a writ of attachment be issued
an action or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff or any proper party may have the and levied against the properties and improvements subject of this litigation to secure the
property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any payment of the above awards to spouses Ishwar and Sonya.
judgment that may be recovered, in, among others, the following cases:
7. The mortgage constituted on the subject property dated June 20, 1989 by
petitioners Choithram and Nirmla, both surnamed Ramnani in favor of respondent Overseas
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in Holding, Co. Ltd. (in G.R. No. 85496) for the amount of $3-M is hereby declared null and void.
contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, The Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, is directed to cancel the annotation of d mortgage on
or in concealing or disposing of the property for the taking, detention or the titles of the properties in question.
conversion of which the action is brought;
8. Should respondent Ortigas Co., Ltd. Partnership pay the awards to Ishwar and
Sonya Ramnani under this judgment, it shall be entitled to reimbursement from petitioners
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani.
property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; . . .
9. The above awards shag bear legal rate of interest of six percent (6%) per annum
Verily, the acts of Choithram, et al. of disposing the properties subject of the from the time this judgment becomes final until they are fully paid by petitioners Choithram
litigation disclose a scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar so they may not be able Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani and Ortigas, Co., Ltd. Partnership. Said
petitioners Choithram, et al. and respondent Ortigas shall also pay the costs.
to recover at all given a judgment in their favor, the requiring the issuance of the
writ of attachment in this instance.

Nevertheless, under the peculiar circumstances of this case and despite the fact
that Choithram, et al., have committed acts which demonstrate their bad faith and
scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar and Sonya of their rightful share in the
properties in litigation, the Court cannot ignore the fact that Choithram must have
been motivated by a strong conviction that as the industrial partner in the