ANNEX- "A"

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 10
Manila

MIGUEL RAMONKITO MENDOZA,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 4455.

FOR: Breach of Contract.

ABIGAIL SOL MENDOZA,

Defendant.
X ---------------------------------------------------------X

DECISION

I.
Before this Court is a Complaint for Breach of Contract filed on
September 23, 2019.
The record discloses that on August 20, 2019, Miguel Ramontiko
Mendoza (Miguel) and Abigail (Abigail) Mendoza, (Mendoza Siblings),
executed a notarized contract of sale where the latter is supposed to deliver
to the former a Hello Kitty and Keroppi Japanese collector's items
amounting to Php 250,000. Upon execution of the contract, Miguel gave
Abigail a down payment amounting to PhP 100,000.00. However, 2 days
before the agreed delivery time, Abigail had a sudden change of heart and
decided that she no longer interested in selling the said items. Miguel
resented Abigail’s decision and thereafter, Miguel learned that another
contract to sell involving the subject items was executed by Abigail in favor
of Monico Aggabao, Jr.
To protect his interest, the plaintiff demanded from Abigail that she
honors her obligation to him but the same fell on deaf ears. A series of
correspondence between the parties took place, with the plaintiff constantly
reiterating defendant's’ alleged violations of the contract. The dispute then
was sent to the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa but settlement deemed
futile. As a consequent, on September 23, 2019, this case was filed. The
plaintiff thus prayed, as follows:

WHEREFORE, plaintiff asks this Honorable Court that the

complaint may be given weight and credence and judgment be rendered
ordering Abigail and all persons acting on her behalf:

a. Be required to specifically perform the said agreement;

b. Return the down payment to the plaintiff the sum of Php100,
000 with legal interest from the date the complaint is filed; and
c. If specific performance is not granted, have plaintiff the
judgment against defendant in the sum of Php100, 000 with
legal interest.
d. Other just and equitable relief available in the premises is
likewise prayed for.
Defendant submitted her Answer  to which respondent filed its Reply.

In her Answer, defendant claimed that the allegations against her

were groundless. She had in fact delivered the Hello Kitty and Keroppi
Japanese collector's items at the close of business hours on the last day of the
30-day extended period as shown by the proof of delivery where the
common law spouse of the plaintiff, Katty Perry signed as the recipient of
the delivered items.

In his reply, plaintiff specifically admitted the receipt of his common

law spouse of the alleged items but interpose as a defense that the items
received were not the items stipulated in the contract. As after examination
by a toy collector expert, it was discovered that the items delivered were
fake and counterfeited as the same toys that can be bought in Divisoria upon
assessment of the manufacturer’s marks and packaging.

The parties agreed to submit the case for resolution on the basis of
their admissions and stipulations, and their respective testimonial and
documentary evidence.

II.

The basic issue in this case is whether the defendant breached the
contract of sale and thus entitled the plaintiff to ask for specific performance
of the obligation, the return of down payment given and consequently, to ask
for damages under the Civil Code.

III.
 Black’s Law Dictionary defined specific performance as "the remedy
of requiring exact performance of a contract in the specific form in which it
was made, or according to the precise terms agreed upon. The actual
accomplishment of a contract by a party bound to fulfill it".

Evidently, before the remedy of specific performance may be availed

of, there must be a breach of the contract. There is breach of contract when
either of the contracting parties contravene any of the tenor of the contract.
Article 1159 of the New Civil Code provides:

Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the
contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.

As established by an expert witness, the items that were delivered to

the plaintiff were fake and merely imitations of the original, a scheme that
run rampant in the selling industry nowadays. Normally, courts are not
bound by expert testimonies. However, this Court gives due weight and
credence to the testimony of the expert witness because of the peculiar
circumstance of the case. As held in People v. Basite:

"Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert

testimonies, they may place whatever weight they may choose
upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case.
The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is
peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide,
considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions
upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning
by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in
favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid
witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of
the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters
which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the
expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by
the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case
and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion
may be given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility
of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left
to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not
reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion."

Further, even absence of the expert testimony the fact that the item
delivered was fake was still proven to this court with sufficient basis. The
plaintiff admitted that he in fact received some items from the defendant. In
turn, the defendant also admitted as having delivered such item. As a
collector himself it is a natural tendency for the plaintiff to keep the items if
they are not defective, since the very purpose why he purchase the same is to
have it in his possession as a collector's item. In addition, it is not disputed
that the plaintiff made an advanced payment for the items. The intention of
the plaintiff, therefore, to fully consummate the contract is very clear from
the facts on record. Thus, it is absurd and does not follow that the plaintiff
will just return the objects absent any sensible reason.

Moreover, the defendant manifested bad faith in her dealings with the
plaintiff. It bears stressing that the allegation that another contract to sell
involving the same object was entered by the defendant with a certain
Monico was not specifically denied. The defendant in her answer made no
mention about this allegation but instead interpose as a defense that an item
was in fact delivered. Elementary is the rule that a material allegation not
specifically denied are deemed admitted. The Higher Court in J.P. Juan &
Sons, Inc. v. Lianga Industries, Inc. ruled in the following manner:

"Time and again, this Court has stressed that "An unexplained
denial of information and belief of a matter of records, the
means of information concerning which are within the control
of the pleader, or are readily accessible to him, is evasive and
is insufficient to constitute an effective denial. ..."  and
that "the form of denial ... adopted by the appellants, although
allowed by the Rules of Court must be availed of with sincerity
and in good faith, — certainly neither for the purpose of
confusing the adverse party as to what allegations of the
complaint are really put in issue nor for the purpose of delay.

Although the defendant had the occasion to interpose a new matter the
rules do not give him a room not to specifically denied material allegations
that needs to denied with particularity. To permit the same is a
circumspection of the rules. It does not serve the purpose of requiring the
defendant to make a specific denial, which is to compel him to specify the
matters which he intends to disprove and disclose the matters upon which he
relies to support his denial, thereby limiting the issues and avoiding
unnecessary delays and surprises. 

The matter of breach being sufficiently lay down above, the remedy of
specific performance is therefore available to the herein plaintiff.

With respect to the award of damages. Article 1170 of the New Civil Code is
clear, to wit:
 "Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty
of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof are liable for damages."

WHEREFORE, above-premises considered this Court orders

defendant to deliver, if practicable, the Hello Kitty and Keroppi Japanese
collector's items that are the proper subject of the contract of sale herein
disputed. If delivery is no longer feasible to pay the plaintiff in the amount
of Php 100, 000.00 with legal interest.

The defendant is likewise ordered to return the advanced payment

made by the plaintiff in the amount of Php 100,000.00 if delivery can no
longer be made, in addition to the award of damages and costs herein
provided.

Further, in either case whether delivery is possible or not, the

defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff a compensatory damages in
the amount of Php 50,000.00 and attorney's fees in the amount of Php
50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

November 25, 2019, Manila City.

ROSEMARIE C. ARNAIZ
Presiding Judge
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 10
Manila

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JANIL JAY S. EQUIZA

Counsel for Plaintiff
#773-A Sisa St. Samplaoc
Manila

ATTY. RALPH JEMIL E. SIERVO

Counsel for Defendant
A.R. Delfin St.,
Marulas, Valenzuela City