THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 112212. March 2, 1998]

GREGORIO FULE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NINEVETCH CRU a!" #UAN
$ELARMINO, respondents.
% E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J.&
This petition for review on certiorari questions the affirmance by the Court of Appeas of the
!ecision
"#$
of the Re%iona Tria Court of San &abo City' (ranch )*' !ismissin% the compaint that
praye! for the nuification of a contract of sae of a #*+hectare property in Tanay' Ri,a in
consi!eration of the amount of &-*'***.** an! a /.0 carat emera!+cut !iamon! 1Civi Case No.
S&+/-002. The ower court3s !ecision !ispose! of the case as foows4
56H7R78OR7' premises consi!ere!' the Court hereby ren!ers 9u!%ment !ismissin% the
compaint for ac: of merit an! or!erin% paintiff to pay4
#. Defen!ant Dra. Ninevetch ;. Cru, the sum of &)**'***.** as an! for mora !ama%es an!
the sum of &#**'***.** as an! for e<empary !ama%es=
/. Defen!ant Atty. >uan (earmino the sum of &/0*'***.** as an! for mora !ama%es an! the
sum of &#0*'***.** as an! for e<empary !ama%es=
). Defen!ant Dra. Cru, an! Atty. (earmino the sum of &/0'***.** each as an! for attorney3s
fees an! iti%ation e<penses= an!
-. The costs of suit.
SO ORD7R7D.?
As foun! by the Court of Appeas an! the ower court' the antece!ent facts of this case are
as foows4
&etitioner @re%orio 8ue' a ban:er by profession an! a 9eweer at the same time' acquire! a #*+
hectare property in Tanay' Ri,a 1hereinafter 5Tanay property?2' covere! by Transfer Certificate of
Tite No. )/*A/0 which use! to be un!er the name of 8r. Antonio >acobe. The atter ha!
mort%a%e! it earier to the Rura (an: of Aaminos 1the (an:2' Ba%una' Inc. to secure a oan in the
amount of &#*'***.**' but the mort%a%e was ater forecose! an! the property offere! for pubic
auction upon his !efaut.
In >uy #CD-' petitioner' as corporate secretary of the ban:' as:e! Remeia Dichoso an!
Oiva ;en!o,a to oo: for a buyer who mi%ht be intereste! in the Tanay property. The two foun!
one in the person of herein private respon!ent Dr. Ninevetch Cru,. It so happene! that at the
time' petitioner ha! shown interest in buyin% a pair of emera!+cut !iamon! earrin%s owne! by Dr.
Cru, which he ha! seen in >anuary of the same year when his mother e<amine! an! appraise!
them as %enuine. Dr. Cru,' however' !ecine! petitioner3s offer to buy the 9ewery
for &#**'***.**. &etitioner then ma!e another bi! to buy them for ESFG'***.** at the e<chan%e
rate of F#.** to &/0.**. At this point' petitioner inspecte! sai! 9ewery at the obby of the
&ru!entia (an: branch in San &abo City an! then ma!e a s:etch thereof. Havin% s:etche! the
9ewery for twenty to thirty minutes' petitioner %ave them bac: to Dr. Cru, who a%ain refuse! to
se them since the e<chan%e rate of the peso at the time appreciate! to &#C.** to a !oar.
Subsequenty' however' ne%otiations for the barter of the 9ewery an! the Tanay property
ensue!. Dr. Cru, requeste! herein private respon!ent Atty. >uan (earmino to chec: the property
who' in turn' foun! out that no sae or barter was feasibe because the one+year perio! for
re!emption of the sai! property ha! not yet e<pire! at the time.
In an effort to cut throu%h any e%a impe!iment' petitioner e<ecute! on October #C' #CD-' a
!ee! of re!emption on behaf of 8r. >acobe purporte!y in the amount of &#0'CDA.AD' an! on
even !ate' 8r. >acobe so! the property to petitioner for &A0'***.**. The haste with which the
two !ee!s were e<ecute! is shown by the fact that the !ee! of sae was notari,e! ahea! of the
!ee! of re!emption. As Dr. Cru, ha! area!y a%ree! to the propose! barter' petitioner went to
&ru!entia (an: once a%ain to ta:e a oo: at the 9ewery.
In the afternoon of October /)' #CD-' petitioner met Atty. (earmino at the atter3s resi!ence
to prepare the !ocuments of sae.
"/$
Dr. Cru, hersef was not aroun! but Atty. (earmino was
aware that she an! petitioner ha! previousy a%ree! to e<chan%e a pair of emera!+cut !iamon!
earrin%s for the Tanay property. Atty. (earmino accor!in%y cause! the preparation of a !ee! of
absoute sae whie petitioner an! Dr. Cru, atten!e! to the safe:eepin% of the 9ewery.
The foowin% !ay' petitioner' to%ether with Dichoso an! ;en!o,a' arrive! at the resi!ence of
Atty. (earmino to finay e<ecute a !ee! of absoute sae. &etitioner si%ne! the !ee! an! %ave
Atty. (earmino the amount of &#)'A**.** for necessary e<penses in the transfer of tite over the
Tanay property. &etitioner aso issue! a certification to the effect that the actua consi!eration of
the sae was &/**'***.** an! not &D*'***.** as in!icate! in the !ee! of absoute sae. The
!isparity between the actua contract price an! the one in!icate! on the !ee! of absoute sae
was purporte!y aime! at minimi,in% the amount of the capita %ains ta< that petitioner wou!
have to shou!er. Since the 9ewery was appraise! ony at &#G*'***.**' the parties a%ree! that
the baance of &-*'***.** wou! 9ust be pai! ater in cash.
As pre+arran%e!' petitioner eft Atty. (earmino3s resi!ence with Dichoso an! ;en!o,a an!
hea!e! for the ban:' arrivin% there at past 04** p.m. Dr. Cru, aso arrive! shorty thereafter' but
the cashier who :ept the other :ey to the !eposit bo< ha! area!y eft the ban:. Dr. Cru, an!
Dichoso' therefore' oo:e! for sai! cashier an! foun! him havin% a haircut. As soon as his
haircut was finishe!' the cashier returne! to the ban: an! arrive! there at 04-D p.m.' ahea! of Dr.
Cru, an! Dichoso who arrive! at 0400 p.m. Dr. Cru, an! the cashier then opene! the safety
!eposit bo<' the former retrievin% a transparent pastic or ceophane ba% with the 9ewery insi!e
an! han!in% over the same to petitioner. The atter too: the 9ewery from the ba%' went near the
eectric i%ht at the ban:3s obby' he! the 9ewery a%ainst the i%ht an! e<amine! it for ten to
fifteen minutes. After a whie' Dr. Cru, as:e!'Okay na ba iyan? &etitioner e<presse! his
satisfaction by no!!in% his hea!.
8or services ren!ere!' petitioner pai! the a%ents' Dichoso an! ;en!o,a' the amount of
ESF)**.** an! some pieces of 9ewery. He !i! not' however' %ive them haf of the pair of
earrin%s in question which he ha! earier promise!.
Bater' at about D4** o3coc: in the evenin% of the same !ay' petitioner arrive! at the
resi!ence of Atty. (earmino compainin% that the 9ewery %iven to him was fa:e. He then use! a
tester to prove the ae%e! fa:ery. ;eanwhie' at D4)* p.m.' Dichoso an! ;en!o,a went to the
resi!ence of Dr. Cru, to borrow her car so that' with Atty. (earmino' they cou! re%ister the Tanay
property. After Dr. Cru, ha! a%ree! to en! her car' Dichoso cae! up Atty. (earmino. The atter'
however' instructe! Dichoso to procee! imme!iatey to his resi!ence because petitioner was
there. (eievin% that petitioner ha! finay a%ree! to %ive them haf of the pair of earrin%s' Dichoso
went posthaste to the resi!ence of Atty. (earmino ony to fin! petitioner area!y !emonstratin%
with a tester that the earrin%s were fa:e. &etitioner then accuse! Dichoso an! ;en!o,a of
!eceivin% him which they' however' !enie!. They countere! that petitioner cou! not have been
fooe! because he ha! vast e<perience re%ar!in% 9ewery. &etitioner nonetheess too: bac: the
ESF)**.** an! 9ewery he ha! %iven them.
Thereafter' the %roup !eci!e! to %o to the house of a certain ;acario Dimayu%a' a 9eweer'
to have the earrin%s teste!. Dimayu%a' after ta:in% one oo: at the earrin%s' imme!iatey
!ecare! them counterfeit. At aroun! C4)* p.m.' petitioner went to one Atty. Reyna!o Acantara
resi!in% at Ba:esi!e Sub!ivision in San &abo City' compainin% about the fa:e 9ewery. Epon
bein% a!vise! by the atter' petitioner reporte! the matter to the poice station where Dichoso an!
;en!o,a i:ewise e<ecute! sworn statements.
On October /G' #CD-' petitioner fie! a compaint before the Re%iona Tria Court of San
&abo City a%ainst private respon!ents prayin%' amon% other thin%s' that the contract of sae over
the Tanay property be !ecare! nu an! voi! on the %roun! of frau! an! !eceit.
On October )*' #CD-' the ower court issue! a temporary restrainin% or!er !irectin% the
Re%ister of Dee!s of Ri,a to refrain from actin% on the pertinent !ocuments invove! in the
transaction. On November /*' #CD-' however' the same court ifte! its previous or!er an! !enie!
the prayer for a writ of preiminary in9unction.
After tria' the ower court ren!ere! its !ecision on ;arch A' #CDC. Confrontin% the issue of
whether or not the %enuine pair of earrin%s use! as consi!eration for the sae was !eivere! by
Dr. Cru, to petitioner' the ower court sai!4
5The Court fin!s that the answer is !efinitey in the affirmative. In!ee!' Dra. Cru, !eivere! 1the2
sub9ect 9eweries 1sic2 into the han!s of paintiff who even raise! the same nearer to the i%hts of
the obby of the ban: near the !oor. 6hen as:e! by Dra. Cru, if everythin% was in or!er' paintiff
even no!!e! his satisfaction 1Hearin% of 8eb. /-' #CDD2. At that instance' paintiff !i! not protest'
compain or be% for a!!itiona time to e<amine further the 9eweries 1sic2. (ein% a professiona
ban:er an! en%a%e! in the 9ewery business paintiff is conversant an! competent to !etect a fa:e
!iamon! from the rea thin%. &aintiff was accor!e! the reasonabe time an! opportunity to
ascertain an! inspect the 9eweries 1sic2 in accor!ance with Artice #0D- of the Civi Co!e. &aintiff
too: !eivery of the sub9ect 9eweries 1sic2 before G4** p.m. of October /-' #CD-. 6hen he went at
D4** p.m. that same !ay to the resi!ence of Atty. (earmino area!y with a tester compainin%
about some fa:e 9eweries 1sic2' there was area!y un!ue !eay because of the apse of a
consi!erabe en%th of time since he %ot ho! of sub9ect 9eweries 1sic2. The apse of two 1/2 hours
more or ess before paintiff compaine! is consi!ere! by the Court as unreasonabe !eay.?
")$
The ower court further rue! that a the eements of a vai! contract un!er Artice #-0D of the
Civi Co!e were present' namey4 1a2 consent or meetin% of the min!s= 1b2 !eterminate sub9ect
matter' an! 1c2 price certain in money or its equivaent. The same eements' accor!in% to the
ower court' were present !espite the fact that the a%reement between petitioner an! Dr. Cru,
was principay a barter contract. The ower court e<paine! thus4
5< < <. &aintiff3s ownership over the Tanay property passe! unto Dra. Cru, upon the constructive
!eivery thereof by virtue of the Dee! of Absoute Sae 17<h. D2. On the other han!' the
ownership of Dra. Cru, over the sub9ect 9eweries 1sic2 transferre! to the paintiff upon her actua
persona !eivery to him at the obby of the &ru!entia (an:. It is e<pressy provi!e! by aw that
the thin% so! sha be un!erstoo! as !eivere!' when it is pace! in the contro an! possession of
the ven!ee 1Art. #-CA' Civi Co!e= Huen,e I Straff vs. 6atson I Co. #) &hi. /G2. The ownership
an!Jor tite over the 9eweries 1sic2 was transmitte! imme!iatey before G4** p.m. of October /-'
#CD-. &aintiff si%nifie! his approva by no!!in% his hea!. Deivery or tra!ition' is one of the
mo!es of acquirin% ownership 1Art. A#/' Civi Co!e2.
Simiary' when 7<hibit D was e<ecute!' it was equivaent to the !eivery of the Tanay
property in favor of Dra. Cru,. The e<ecution of the pubic instrument 17<h. D2 operates as a
forma or symboic !eivery of the Tanay property an! authori,es the buyer' Dra. Cru, to use the
!ocument as proof of ownership 18oren!o v. 8o,' /* &hi. )CC2. ;ore so' since 7<hibit D !oes
not contain any proviso or stipuation to the effect that tite to the property is reserve! with the
ven!or unti fu payment of the purchase price' nor is there a stipuation %ivin% the ven!or the
ri%ht to uniateray rescin! the contract the moment the ven!ee fais to pay within a fi<e! perio!
1Ta%uba v. V!a. De Beon' #)/ SCRA A//= Bu,on (ro:era%e Co. Inc. vs. ;aritime (ui!in% Co.
Inc. DG SCRA )*0= 8roian v. &an Orienta Shippin% Co. et a. #/ SCRA /AG2.?
"-$
Asi!e from concu!in% that the contract of barter or sae ha! in fact been consummate!
when petitioner an! Dr. Cru, parte! ways at the ban:' the tria court i:ewise !wet on the
une<paine! !eay with which petitioner compaine! about the ae%e! fa:ery. Thus4
5< < <. Veriy' paintiff is area!y estoppe! to come bac: after the apse of consi!erabe
en%th of time to caim that what he %ot was fa:e. He is a (usiness ;ana%ement %ra!uate of Ba
Sae Eniversity' Cass #CAD+AC' a professiona ban:er as we as a 9eweer in his own ri%ht. Two
hours is more than enou%h time to ma:e a switch of a Russian !iamon! with the rea !iamon!. It
must be remembere! that in >uy #CD- paintiff ma!e a s:etch of the sub9ect 9eweries 1sic2 at the
&ru!entia (an:. &aintiff ha! a tester at D4** p.m. at the resi!ence of Atty. (earmino. 6hy then
!i! he not brin% it out when he was e<aminin% the sub9ect 9eweries 1sic2 at about G4** p.m. in the
ban:3s obbyK Obviousy' he ha! no nee! for it after bein% satisfie! of the %enuineness of the
sub9ect 9eweries 1sic2. 6hen Dra. Cru, an! paintiff eft the ban: both of them ha! fuy
performe! their respective prestations. Once a contract is shown to have been consummate! or
fuy performe! by the parties thereto' its e<istence an! bin!in% effect can no on%er be
!ispute!. It is irreevant an! immateria to !ispute the !ue e<ecution of a contract if both of them
have in fact performe! their obi%ations thereun!er an! their respective si%natures an! those of
their witnesses appear upon the face of the !ocument 16e!on Construction v. CA @.R. No. B+
)0A/#' Oct. #/' #CDA2.?
"0$
8inay' in awar!in% !ama%es to the !efen!ants' the ower court remar:e!4
5The Court fin!s that paintiff acte! in wanton ba! faith. 7<hibit /+(earmino purports to show that
the Tanay property is worth &/0'***.**. However' aso on that same !ay it was e<ecute!' the
property3s worth was ma%nifie! at &A0'***.** 17<h. )+(earmino2. How cou! in ess than a !ay
1Oct. #C' #CD-2 the vaue wou! 1sic2 tripe un!er norma circumstancesK &aintiff' with the
assistance of his a%ents' was abe to e<chan%e the Tanay property which his ban: vaue! ony
at &/0'***.** in e<chan%e for a %enuine pair of emera! cut !iamon! worth &/**'***.**
beon%in% to Dra. Cru,. He aso retrieve! the ESF)**.** an! 9eweries 1sic2 from his a%ents. (ut
he was not satisfie! in bein% abe to %et sub9ect 9eweries for a son%. He ha! to fie a maicious
an! unfoun!e! case a%ainst Dra. Cru, an! Atty. (earmino who are we :nown' respecte! an!
he! in hi%h esteem in San &abo City where everybo!y practicay :nows everybo!y. &aintiff
came to Court with uncean han!s !ra%%in% the !efen!ants an! soiin% their cean an! %oo!
name in the process. (oth of them are near the twii%ht of their ives after maintainin% an!
nurturin% their %oo! reputation in the community ony to be stunne! with a court case. Since the
fiin% of this case on October /G' #CD- up to the present they were ivin% un!er a pa of
!oubt. Surey' this affecte! not ony their earnin% capacity in their practice of their respective
professions' but aso they suffere! besmirche! reputations. Dra. Cru, runs her own hospita an!
!efen!ant (earmino is a we respecte! e%a practitioner.
The en%th of time this case !ra%%e! on !urin% which perio! their reputation were 1sic2
tarnishe! an! their names mai%ne! by the pen!ency of the case' the Court is of the beief that
some of the !ama%es they praye! for in their answers to the compaint are reasonaby
proportionate to the sufferin%s they un!erwent 1Art. //#C' New Civi Co!e2. ;oreover' because
of the fasity' maice an! baseess nature of the compaint !efen!ants were compee! to
iti%ate. Hence' the awar! of attorney3s fees is warrante! un!er the circumstances 1Art. //*D'
New Civi Co!e2.?
"G$
8rom the tria court3s a!verse !ecision' petitioner eevate! the matter to the Court of
Appeas. On October /*' #CC/' the Court of Appeas' however' ren!ere! a !ecision
"A$
affirmin% in
toto the ower court3s !ecision. His motion for reconsi!eration havin% been !enie! on October #C'
#CC)' petitioner now fies the instant petition ae%in% that4
5I. TH7 TRIAB COERT 7RR7D IN DIS;ISSIN@ &BAINTI883S CO;&BAINT AND IN
HOBDIN@ THAT TH7 &BAINTI88 ACTEABBL R7C7IV7D A @7NEIN7 &AIR O8
7;7RABD CET DIA;OND 7ARRIN@1S2 8RO; D787NDANT CREM < < <=
II. TH7 TRIAB COERT 7RR7D IN A6ARDIN@ ;ORAB AND 7N7;&BARL DA;A@7S
AND ATTORN7L3S 877S IN 8AVOR O8 D787NDANTS AND A@AINST TH7
&BAINTI88 IN THIS CAS7= an!
III.TH7 TRIAB COERT 7RR7D IN NOT D7CBARIN@ TH7 D77D O8 SAB7 O8 TH7
TANAL &RO&7RTL 17NH. OD32 AS NEBB AND VOID OR IN NOT ANNEBBIN@ TH7
SA;7' AND IN 8AIBIN@ TO @RANT R7ASONA(B7 DA;A@7S IN 8AVOR O8 TH7
&BAINTI88.?
"D$
As to the first ae%ation' the Court observes that petitioner is essentiay raisin% a factua
issue as it invites us to e<amine an! wei%h anew the facts re%ar!in% the %enuineness of the
earrin%s bartere! in e<chan%e for the Tanay property. This' of course' we cannot !o without
un!uy transcen!in% the imits of our review power in petitions of this nature which are confine!
merey to pure questions of aw. 6e accor!' as a %enera rue' concusiveness to a ower court3s
fin!in%s of fact uness it is shown' inter aia' that4 1#2 the concusion is a fin!in% %roun!e! on
specuations' surmises or con9ectures= 1/2 the inference is manifesty mista:en' absur! an!
impossibe= 1)2 when there is a %rave abuse of !iscretion= 1-2 when the 9u!%ment is base! on a
misapprehension of facts= 102 when the fin!in%s of fact are confictin%= an! 1G2 when the Court of
Appeas' in ma:in% its fin!in%s' went beyon! the issues of the case an! the same is contrary to
the a!mission of both parties.
"C$
6e fin! nothin%' however' that warrants the appication of any of
these e<ceptions.
Consequenty' this Court upho!s the appeate court3s fin!in%s of fact especiay because
these concur with those of the tria court which' upon a thorou%h scrutiny of the recor!s' are firmy
%roun!e! on evi!ence presente! at the tria.
"#*$
To reiterate' this Court3s 9uris!iction is ony imite!
to reviewin% errors of aw in the absence of any showin% that the fin!in%s compaine! of are
totay !evoi! of support in the recor! or that they are %arin%y erroneous as to constitute serious
abuse of !iscretion.
"##$
Nonetheess' this Court has to cosey !eve into petitioner3s ae%ation that the ower court3s
!ecision of ;arch A' #CDC is a 5rea!y+ma!e? one because it was han!e! !own a !ay after the ast
!ate of the tria of the case.
"#/$
&etitioner' in this re%ar!' fin!s it incre!ibe that >u!%e >.
Ausberto >aramio was abe to write a #/+pa%e sin%e+space! !ecision' type it an! reease it on
;arch A' #CDC' ess than a !ay after the ast hearin% on ;arch G' #CDC. He stresse! that >u!%e
>aramio repace! >u!%e Sava!or !e @u,man an! hear! ony his rebutta testimony.
This ae%ation is obviousy no more than a !esperate effort on the part of petitioner to
!ispara%e the ower court3s fin!in%s of fact in or!er to convince this Court to review the same. It
is noteworthy that Atty. (earmino carifie! that >u!%e >aramio ha! issue! the first or!er in the
case as eary as ;arch C' #CDA or two years before the ren!ition of the !ecision. In fact' Atty.
(earmino terminate! presentation of evi!ence on October #)' #CDA' whie Dr. Cru, finishe! hers
on 8ebruary -' #CDC' or more than a month prior to the ren!ition of the 9u!%ment. The ;arch G'
#CDC hearin% was con!ucte! soey for the presentation of petitionerPs rebutta testimony.
"#)$
In
other wor!s' >u!%e >aramio ha! ampe time to stu!y the case an! write the !ecision because
the rebutta evi!ence wou! ony serve to confirm or verify the facts area!y presente! by the
parties.
The Court fin!s nothin% anomaous in the sai! situation. No proof has been a!!uce! that
>u!%e >aramio was motivate! by a maicious or sinister intent in !isposin% of the case with
!ispatch. Neither is there proof that someone ese wrote the !ecision for him. The imme!iate
ren!ition of the !ecision was no more than >u!%e >aramio3s compiance with his !uty as a 9u!%e
to 5!ispose of the court3s business prompty an! !eci!e cases within the require! perio!s.?
"#-$
The
two+year perio! within which >u!%e >aramio han!e! the case provi!e! him with a the time to
stu!y it an! even write !own its facts as soon as these were presente! to court. In fact' this
Court !oes not see anythin% wron% in the practice of writin% a !ecision !ays before the sche!ue!
promu%ation of 9u!%ment an! eavin% the !ispositive portion for typin% at a time cose to the !ate
of promu%ation' provi!e! that no maice or any wron%fu con!uct atten!s its a!option.
"#0$
The
practice serves the !ua purposes of safe%uar!in% the confi!entiaity of !raft !ecisions an!
ren!erin% !ecisions with promptness. Neither can >u!%e >aramio be ma!e a!ministrativey
answerabe for the imme!iate ren!ition of the !ecision. The acts of a 9u!%e which pertain to his
9u!icia functions are not sub9ect to !iscipinary power uness they are committe! with frau!'
!ishonesty' corruption or ba! faith.
"#G$
Hence' in the absence of sufficient proof to the contrary'
>u!%e >aramio is presume! to have performe! his 9ob in accor!ance with aw an! shou!
instea! be commen!e! for his cose attention to !uty.
Havin% !ispose! of petitioner3s first contention' we now come to the core issue of this
petition which is whether the Court of Appeas erre! in upho!in% the vai!ity of the contract of
barter or sae un!er the circumstances of this case.
The Civi Co!e provi!es that contracts are perfecte! by mere consent. 8rom this moment'
the parties are boun! not ony to the fufiment of what has been e<pressy stipuate! but aso to
a the consequences which' accor!in% to their nature' may be in :eepin% with %oo! faith' usa%e
an! aw.
"#A$
A contract of sae is perfecte! at the moment there is a meetin% of the min!s upon the
thin% which is the ob9ect of the contract an! upon the price.
"#D$
(ein% consensua' a contract of
sae has the force of aw between the contractin% parties an! they are e<pecte! to abi!e in %oo!
faith by their respective contractua commitments. Artice #)0D of the Civi Co!e which requires
the embo!iment of certain contracts in a pubic instrument' is ony for convenience'
"#C$
an!
re%istration of the instrument ony a!versey affects thir! parties.
"/*$
8orma requirements are'
therefore' for the benefit of thir! parties. Non+compiance therewith !oes not a!versey affect the
vai!ity of the contract nor the contractua ri%hts an! obi%ations of the parties thereun!er.
It is evi!ent from the facts of the case that there was a meetin% of the min!s between
petitioner an! Dr. Cru,. As such' they are boun! by the contract uness there are reasons or
circumstances that warrant its nuification. Hence' the probem that shou! be a!!resse! in this
case is whether or not un!er the facts !uy estabishe! herein' the contract can be voi!e! in
accor!ance with aw so as to compe the parties to restore to each other the thin%s that have
been the sub9ect of the contract with their fruits' an! the price with interest.
"/#$
Contracts that are voi!abe or annuabe' even thou%h there may have been no !ama%e to
the contractin% parties are4 1#2 those where one of the parties is incapabe of %ivin% consent to a
contract= an! 1/2 those where the consent is vitiate! by mista:e' vioence' intimi!ation' un!ue
infuence or frau!.
"//$
Accor!in%y' petitioner now stresses before this Court that he entere! into
the contract in the beief that the pair of emera!+cut !iamon! earrin%s was %enuine. On the
prete<t that those pieces of 9ewery turne! out to be counterfeit' however' petitioner subsequenty
sou%ht the nuification of sai! contract on the %roun! that it was' in fact' 5tainte! with
frau!?
"/)$
such that his consent was vitiate!.
There is frau! when' throu%h the insi!ious wor!s or machinations of one of the contractin%
parties' the other is in!uce! to enter into a contract which' without them' he wou! not have
a%ree! to.
"/-$
The recor!s' however' are bare of any evi!ence manifestin% that private
respon!ents empoye! such insi!ious wor!s or machinations to entice petitioner into enterin% the
contract of barter. Neither is there any evi!ence showin% that Dr. Cru, in!uce! petitioner to se
his Tanay property or that she ca9oe! him to ta:e the earrin%s in e<chan%e for sai! property. On
the contrary' Dr. Cru, !i! not initiay acce!e to petitioner3s proposa to buy the sai! 9ewery.
Rather' it appears that it was petitioner' throu%h his a%ents' who e! Dr. Cru, to beieve that the
Tanay property was worth e<chan%in% for her 9ewery as he represente! that its vaue
was &-**'***.** or more than !oube that of the 9ewery which was vaue! ony at &#G*'***.**.
If in!ee! petitioner3s property was truy worth that much' it was certainy contrary to the nature of
a businessman+ban:er i:e him to have parte! with his rea estate for haf its price. In short' it
was in fact petitioner who resorte! to machinations to convince Dr. Cru, to e<chan%e her 9ewery
for the Tanay property.
;oreover' petitioner !i! not ceary ae%e mista:e as a %roun! for nuification of the contract
of sae. 7ven assumin% that he !i!' petitioner cannot successfuy invo:e the same. To invai!ate
a contract' mista:e must 5refer to the substance of the thin% that is the ob9ect of the contract' or to
those con!itions which have principay move! one or both parties to enter into the
contract.?
"/0$
An e<ampe of mista:e as to the ob9ect of the contract is the substitution of a specific
thin% contempate! by the parties with another.
"/G$
In his ae%ations in the compaint' petitioner
insinuate! that an inferior one or one that ha! ony Russian !iamon!s was substitute! for the
9ewery he wante! to e<chan%e with his #*+hectare an!. He' however' faie! to prove the fact
that prior to the !eivery of the 9ewery to him' private respon!ents en!eavore! to ma:e such
substitution.
Bi:ewise' the facts as proven !o not support the ae%ation that petitioner himsef cou! be
e<cuse! for the 5mista:e.? On account of his wor: as a ban:er+9eweer' it can be ri%htfuy
assume! that he was an e<pert on matters re%ar!in% %ems. He ha! the inteectua capacity an!
the business acumen as a ban:er to ta:e precautionary measures to avert such a mista:e'
consi!erin% the vaue of both the 9ewery an! his an!. The fact that he ha! seen the 9ewery
before October /-' #CD- shou! not have precu!e! him from havin% its %enuineness teste! in the
presence of Dr. Cru,. Ha! he !one so' he cou! have avoi!e! the present situation that he
himsef brou%ht about. In!ee!' the fin%er of suspicion of switchin% the %enuine 9ewery for a fa:e
inevitaby points to him. Such a mista:e cause! by manifest ne%i%ence cannot invai!ate a
9uri!ica act.
"/A$
As the Civi Co!e provi!es' 51t2here is no mista:e if the party ae%in% it :new the
!oubt' contin%ency or ris: affectin% the ob9ect of the contract.?
"/D$
8urthermore' petitioner was affor!e! the reasonabe opportunity require! in Artice #0D- of
the Civi Co!e within which to e<amine the 9ewery as he in fact accepte! them when as:e! by Dr.
Cru, if he was satisfie! with the same.
"/C$
(y ta:in% the 9ewery outsi!e the ban:' petitioner
e<ecute! an act which was more consistent with his e<ercise of ownership over it. This %ains
cre!ence when it is borne in min! that he himsef ha! earier !eivere! the Tanay property to Dr.
Cru, by affi<in% his si%nature to the contract of sae. That after two hours he ater caime! that
the 9ewery was not the one he inten!e! in e<chan%e for his Tanay property' cou! not sever the
9uri!ica tie that now boun! him an! Dr. Cru,. The nature an! vaue of the thin% he ha! ta:en
precu!e its return after that supervenin% perio! within which anythin% cou! have happene!' not
e<cu!in% the ateration of the 9ewery or its bein% switche! with an inferior :in!.
(oth the tria an! appeate courts' therefore' correcty rue! that there were no e%a bases
for the nuification of the contract of sae. Ownership over the parce of an! an! the pair of
emera!+cut !iamon! earrin%s ha! been transferre! to Dr. Cru, an! petitioner' respectivey' upon
the actua an! constructive !eivery thereof.
")*$
Sai! contract of sae bein% absoute in nature' tite
passe! to the ven!ee upon !eivery of the thin% so! since there was no stipuation in the contract
that tite to the property so! has been reserve! in the seer unti fu payment of the price or that
the ven!or has the ri%ht to uniateray resove the contract the moment the buyer fais to pay
within a fi<e! perio!.
")#$
Such stipuations are not manifest in the contract of sae.
6hie it is true that the amount of &-*'***.** formin% part of the consi!eration was sti
payabe to petitioner' its nonpayment by Dr. Cru, is not a sufficient cause to invai!ate the
contract or bar the transfer of ownership an! possession of the thin%s e<chan%e! consi!erin% the
fact that their contract is sient as to when it becomes !ue an! !eman!abe.
")/$
Neither may such faiure to pay the baance of the purchase price resut in the payment of
interest thereon. Artice #0DC of the Civi Co!e prescribes the payment of interest by the ven!ee
5for the perio! between the !eivery of the thin% an! the payment of the price? in the foowin%
cases4
51#2 Shou! it have been so stipuate!=
1/2 Shou! the thin% so! an! !eivere! pro!uce fruits or income=
1)2 Shou! he be in !efaut' from the time of 9u!icia or e<tra9u!icia !eman! for the
payment of the price.?
Not one of these cases obtains here. This case shou!' of course' be !istin%uishe! from De la
Cruz v. Legaspi'
"))$
where the court he! that faiure to pay the consi!eration after the notari,ation
of the contract as previousy promise! resute! in the ven!ee3s iabiity for payment of interest. In
the case at bar' there is no stipuation for the payment of interest in the contract of sae nor proof
that the Tanay property pro!uce! fruits or income. Neither !i! petitioner !eman! payment of the
price as in fact he fie! an action to nuify the contract of sae.
A to!' petitioner appears to have eevate! this case to this Court for the principa reason of
miti%atin% the amount of !ama%es awar!e! to both private respon!ents which petitioner
consi!ers as 5e<orbitant.? He conten!s that private respon!ents !o not !eserve at a the awar!
of !ama%es. In fact' he pea!s for the tota !eetion of the awar! as re%ar!s private respon!ent
(earmino whom he consi!ers a mere 5nomina party? because 5no specific caim for !ama%es
a%ainst him? was ae%e! in the compaint. 6hen he fie! the case' a that petitioner wante! was
that Atty. (earmino shou! return to him the owner3s !upicate copy of TCT No. )/*A/0' the !ee!
of sae e<ecute! by 8r. Antonio >acobe' the !ee! of re!emption an! the chec: aote! for
e<penses. &etitioner ae%es further that Atty. (earmino shou! not have !eivere! a those
!ocuments to Dr. Cru, because as the 5awyer for both the seer an! the buyer in the sae
contract' he shou! have protecte! the ri%hts of both parties.? ;oreover' petitioner asserts that
there was no firm basis for !ama%es e<cept for Atty. (earmino3s uncorroborate! testimony.
")-$
;ora an! e<empary !ama%es may be awar!e! without proof of pecuniary oss. In
awar!in% such !ama%es' the court sha ta:e into account the circumstances obtainin% in the
case an! assess !ama%es accor!in% to its !iscretion.
")0$
To warrant the awar! of !ama%es' it
must be shown that the person to whom these are awar!e! has sustaine! in9ury. He must
i:ewise estabish sufficient !ata upon which the court can propery base its estimate of the
amount of !ama%es.
")G$
Statements of facts shou! estabish such !ata rather than mere
concusions or opinions of witnesses.
")A$
Thus4
5< < <. 8or mora !ama%es to be awar!e!' it is essentia that the caimant must have
satisfactoriy prove! !urin% the tria the e<istence of the factua basis of the !ama%es
an! its causa connection with the a!verse party3s acts. If the court has no proof or
evi!ence upon which the caim for mora !ama%es cou! be base!' such in!emnity
cou! not be outri%hty awar!e!. The same ho!s true with respect to the awar! of
e<empary !ama%es where it must be shown that the party acte! in a wanton'
oppressive or maevoent manner.?
")D$
In this re%ar!' the ower court appeare! to have awar!e! !ama%es on a %roun! anao%ous
to maicious prosecution un!er Artice //#C1D2 of the Civi Co!e
")C$
as shown by 1#2 petitioner3s
5wanton ba! faith? in boatin% the vaue of the Tanay property which he e<chan%e! for 5a %enuine
pair of emera!+cut !iamon! worth &/**'***.**=? an! 1/2 his fiin% of a 5maicious an! unfoun!e!
case? a%ainst private respon!ents who were 5we :nown' respecte! an! he! in hi%h esteem in
San &abo City where everybo!y practicay :nows everybo!y? an! whose %oo! names in the
5twii%ht of their ives? were soie! by petitioner3s comin% to court with 5uncean han!s'? thereby
affectin% their earnin% capacity in the e<ercise of their respective professions an! besmirchin%
their reputation.
8or its part' the Court of Appeas affirme! the awar! of !ama%es to private respon!ents for
these reasons4
5The maice with which 8ue fie! this case is apparent. Havin% ta:en possession of the
%enuine 9ewery of Dra. Cru,' 8ue now wishes to return a fa:e 9ewery to Dra. Cru, an!'
more than that' %et bac: the rea property' which his ban: owns. 8ue has obtaine! a
%enuine 9ewery which he cou! se anytime' anywhere an! to anybo!y' without the
same bein% trace! to the ori%ina owner for practicay nothin%. This is pain an! simpe'
un9ust enrichment.?
"-*$
6hie' as a rue' mora !ama%es cannot be recovere! from a person who has fie! a
compaint a%ainst another in %oo! faith because it is not soun! poicy to pace a penaty on the
ri%ht to iti%ate'
"-#$
the same' however' cannot appy in the case at bar. The factua fin!in%s of the
courts a quo to the effect that petitioner fie! this case because he was the victim of frau!= that
he cou! not have been such a victim because he shou! have e<amine! the 9ewery in question
before acceptin% !eivery thereof' consi!erin% his e<posure to the ban:in% an! 9ewery
businesses= an! that he fie! the action for the nuification of the contract of sae with uncean
han!s' a !eserve fu faith an! cre!it to support the concusion that petitioner was motivate!
more by i wi than a sincere attempt to protect his ri%hts in commencin% suit a%ainst
respon!ents.
As pointe! out earier' a coser scrutiny of the chain of events imme!iatey prior to an! on
October /-' #CD- itsef wou! ampy !emonstrate that petitioner was not simpy ne%i%ent in faiin%
to e<ercise !ue !ii%ence to assure himsef that what he was ta:in% in e<chan%e for his property
were %enuine !iamon!s. He ha! rather pace! himsef in a situation from which it prepon!eranty
appears that his seemin% i%norance was actuay 9ust a ruse. In!ee!' he ha! unnecessariy
!ra%%e! respon!ents to face the travais of iti%ation in specuatin% at the possibe favorabe
outcome of his compaint when he shou! have reai,e! that his suppose! pre!icament was his
own ma:in%. 6e' therefore' see here no sembance of an honest an! sincere beief on his part
that he was swin!e! by respon!ents which wou! entite him to re!ress in court. It must be
note! that before petitioner was abe to convince Dr. Cru, to e<chan%e her 9ewery for the Tanay
property' petitioner too: pains to thorou%hy e<amine sai! 9ewery' even %oin% to the e<tent of
s:etchin% their appearance. 6hy at the precise moment when he was about to ta:e physica
possession thereof he faie! to e<ert e<tra efforts to chec: their %enuineness !espite the ar%e
consi!eration invove! has never been e<paine! at a by petitioner. His acts thus faie! to
accor! with what an or!inary pru!ent man wou! have !one in the same situation. (ein% an
e<perience! ban:er an! a businessman himsef who !eiberatey s:irte! a e%a impe!iment in
the sae of the Tanay property an! to minimi,e the capita %ains ta< for its e<chan%e' it was
actuay %ross rec:essness for him to have merey con!ucte! a cursory e<amination of the
9ewery when every opportunity for !oin% so was not !enie! him. Apparenty' he carrie! on his
person a tester which he ater use! to prove the ae%e! fa:ery but which he !i! not use at the
time when it was most nee!e!. 8urthermore' it too: him two more hours of une<paine! !eay
before he compaine! that the 9ewery he receive! were counterfeit. Hence' we state! earier that
anythin% cou! have happene! !urin% a the time that petitioner was in compete possession an!
contro of the 9ewery' incu!in% the possibiity of substitutin% them with fa:e ones' a%ainst which
respon!ents wou! have a %reat !ea of !ifficuty !efen!in% themseves. The truth is that
petitioner even faie! to successfuy prove !urin% tria that the 9ewery he receive! from Dr. Cru,
were not %enuine. A!! to that the fact that he ha! been shrew! enou%h to boat the Tanay
property3s price ony a few !ays after he purchase! it at a much ower vaue. Thus' it is our
consi!ere! view that if this sew of circumstances were connecte!' i:e pieces of fabric sewn into
a quit' they wou! sufficienty !emonstrate that his acts were not merey ne%i%ent but rather
stu!ie! an! !eiberate.
6e !o not have here' therefore' a situation where petitioner3s compaint was simpy foun!
ater to be base! on an erroneous %roun! which' un!er sette! 9urispru!ence' wou! not have
been a reason for awar!in% mora an! e<empary !ama%es.
"-/$
Instea!' the cause of action of the
instant case appears to have been contrive! by petitioner himsef. In other wor!s' he was pace!
in a situation where he cou! not honesty evauate whether his cause of action has a sembance
of merit' such that it wou! require the e<pertise of the courts to put it to a test. His insistent
pursuit of such case then coupe! with circumstances showin% that he himsef was %uity in
brin%in% about the suppose! wron%!oin% on which he anchore! his cause of action wou! ren!er
him answerabe for a !ama%es the !efen!ant may suffer because of it. This is precisey what
too: pace in the petition at bar an! we fin! no co%ent reason to !isturb the fin!in%s of the courts
beow that respon!ents in this case suffere! consi!erabe !ama%es !ue to petitioner3s
unwarrante! action.
'HEREFORE' the !ecision of the Court of Appeas !ate! October /*' #CC/ is hereby
A88IR;7D in toto. Dr. Cru,' however' is or!ere! to pay petitioner the baance of the purchase
price of &-*'***.** within ten 1#*2 !ays from the finaity of this !ecision. Costs a%ainst petitioner.
SO OR%ERE%.
Narvasa, CJ. C!air"an#, $apunan an! %urisi"a, JJ., concur.
"#$
&enne! by >u!%e >. Ausberto D. >aramio' >r.
"/$
Note that the parties seeme! to have inten!e! a barter athou%h what they eventuay e<ecute!
was a !ee! of absoute sae. See in this connection Artice #-GD of the Civi Co!e which provi!es
that4 5If the consi!eration of the contract consists party in money' an! party in another thin%' the
transaction sha be characteri,e! by the manifest intention of the parties. If such intention !oes
not ceary appear' it sha be consi!ere! a barter if the vaue of the thin% %iven as a part of the
consi!eration e<cee!s the amount of the money or its equivaent= otherwise' it is a sae?
")$
&ollo' p. )0.
"-$
'bi(., p. )G.
"0$
'(.' p. )A.
"G$
'(.' pp. )C+-*.
"A$
&enne! by Associate >ustice ;anue C. Herrera an! concurre! in by Associate >ustices >usto
&. Torres' >r. an! An%eina S. @utierre,.
"D$
&etition' p. 0' &ollo' p. ##.
"C$
'bi(.' p. )' citin% @arcia v. Court of Appeas' )) SCRA G// 1#CA*2 an! Roque v. (uan' /#
SCRA G-/ 1#CGA2.
"#*$
San!ova v. Court of Appeas' /G* SCRA /D) 1#CCG2.
"##$
(.A. 8inance Corporation v. Court of Appeas' //C SCRA 0GG 1#CC-2.
"#/$
&etition' pp. G+A= &ollo' pp. #/+#).
"#)$
Atty. (earmino3s Comment' pp. /+)= &ollo' pp. G)+G-.
"#-$
Rue ).*0' Co!e of >u!icia Con!uct.
"#0$
CastaQos v. 7scaQo' >r.' /0# SCRA #A- 1#CC02.
"#G$
;anavi v. @acott' >r.' )#) &hi. A)D' citin% Abiera v. ;ace!a' /)) SCRA 0/* 1#CC-2.
"#A$
Art. #)#0' Civi Co!e.
"#D$
Art. #-A0' Civi Co!e= Romero v. Court of Appeas' /0* SCRA //) 1#CC02.
"#C$
Aspi v. Court of Appeas' /)G SCRA C- 1#CC-2.
"/*$
Oe%ario v. Court of Appeas' /)D SCRA CG 1#CC-2.
"/#$
Art. #)CD' Civi Co!e= Ines v. Court of Appeas' )#A &hi. )A).
"//$
Art. #)C*' Civi Co!e.
"/)$
Appeant3s (rief in the Court of Appeas' p. 0= CA &ollo' p. )/.
"/-$
Art. #))D' Civi Co!e.
"/0$
Art. #))#' Civi Co!e.
"/G$
TOB7NTINO' IV CIVIB COD7 O8 TH7 &HIBI&&IN7S' -AD 1#CC#2 citin% (orre y Soer'
Nui!a!' p. //#.
"/A$
'bi(.' p. -DA.
"/D$
Art. #)))' Civi Co!e.
"/C$
Art. #0D0' Civi Co!e.
")*$
Art. #-AA' Civi Co!e.
")#$
A!efa &roperties' Inc. v. Court of Appeas' /-* SCRA 0G0 1#CC02.
")/$
Ocampo v. Court of Appeas' /)) SCRA 00# 1#CC-2 citin% 8ioi ;ar:etin% Corporation v.
Interme!iate Appeate Court' #GC SCRA /C) 1#CDC2.
"))$
CD &hi. -).
")-$
&etition' pp. #A+#D' &ollo' pp. /)+/-.
")0$
Art. //#G' Civi Co!e.
")G$
/0A C.>.S. A*' citin% Stan!ar! Acc. Ins. Co. v. E.S.' #*/ Ct.C. AA*' G0 S.Ct. #-*C' )/0 E.S.
DA*' DC B.7!. #CDC.
")A$
'bi(.' at p. A/' citin% ;cCrac:en v. Stewart' //) &./! CG)' #A* Han. #/C.
")D$
&hiippine Airines' Inc. v. NBRC' /0C SCRA -0C 1#CCG2.
")C$
Note that this is not e<acty a case of maicious prosecution. Artice //#C' however' in
enumeratin% the specific instances when mora !ama%es may be recovere! refers to 5anao%ous
cases? or that which resembe or correspon! to those enumerate!. The circumstances in this
case cosey resembe that of maicious prosecution.
"-*$
Roo' p. -C.
"-#$
&hiippine Nationa (an: v. Court of Appeas' #0C SCRA -)) 1#CDD2= Ba%man v. Interme!iate
Appeate Court' #GG SCRA A)- 1#CDD2.
"-/$
In R I ( Surety an! Insurance v. Interme!iate Appeate Court' #/C SCRA A)G 1#CD-2' the
Court sai!4 ) ) ) t!e "ere *act t!at an action is later *oun( to be base( on an erroneous groun(
(oes not per se "ake its initiator guilty o* ba( *ait! an( liable *or (a"ages ) ) ). +oun(
principles o* ,ustice an( public policy (e"an( t!at persons s!all !ave *ree resort to courts o* la-
*or re(ress o* -rongs an( vin(ication o* t!eir rig!ts -it!out *ear o* later on stan(ing trial *or
(a"ages s!oul( t!eir actions lose groun(.