9/22/2016

G.R.No.L8026

TodayisThursday,September22,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L8026April20,1956
ISABELPADILLAYANGELES,representedbyherlegalguardian,
NATIVIDADANGELESVDA.DEPADILLA,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
LUCIANOC.DIZON,defendantappellee.
Carlos,Laurea,FernandoandPadillaforappellant.
DelosReyesandDelosReyesforappellee.
MONTEMAYOR,J.:
In the year 1948 Isabel Padilla y Angeles represented by her legal guardian Natividad Angeles Vda. de Padilla
fromLucianoC.DizonaparceloflandinSampaloc,Manila,saidtocontainanareaof233.90sq.m.,coveredby
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.12243forP18,000.Accordingtoplaintiff,uponaresurveyofthelanditwasfound
tocontainonly182.9sq.m.,andsosheaskedthevendoreithertoconsiderthesalevoidandforhimtoreturn
the purchase price of P18,000 and get back the land, or else refund to her about P4,000, the proportionate
reduction of the purchase price due to the difference in area. Failing to comply with her request or demand,
plaintiff brought the present action first, to have the defendant return the purchase price of P18,000 upon a
judicialdeclarationofthesaleasvoidbecauseofvendor'sfraudandmisrepresentationastotheareaofthelot
ortoorderdefendanttorefundtoplaintiffthesumofP4,000astheproportionatereductionofthepurchaseprice,
andthatundereitherreliefthedefendantbemadetopaylegalinterestfromtheexecutionofthedeedofsale.
Afterhearing,judgmentwasrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffandagainstthedefendantinthefollowingterms:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffandagainstthedefendantdeclaringthe
deedofsalerescindedorcancelledandthesaiddefendantisorderedtoreimbursethewholeamountof
P18,000,or,insteadrescidingorcancellingthedeedofsale,hereimbursetheplaintiffthesumofP4,000
onlywithinterestattherateof6percentperannumfromthedateofthefilingofthecomplaintuntilthefull
amountispaid.Intheeventthatherefusestodoeitherofthealternatives,theCourtorderstheexecution
ofthelatter.Withcostsagainstthedefendants.
Dissatisfiedwithdecision,defendantperfectedhisappealtotheCourtofAppeals,paidthedocketfeesaswellas
thecostofprintingoftherecordonappeal.Later,however,hechangedhismindandwithdrewhisappeal,the
Court of Appeals granting the withdrawal. Upon the return of the case to the trial court plaintiff asked for the
executionofthejudgment,particularlythesecondalternativeofthedispositivepartthereof,namely,therefundto
herofP4,000withlegalinterestfromthedateofthefilingofthecomplaint.Thedefendantontheotherhand,filed
amotiontocomplywiththejudgmentstatingthathehadchosenthefirstalternativedeclaringthedeedofsale
rescinded and cancelled and ordering him (defendant) to return the purchase price of P18,000. Over the
oppositionofplaintiff,thetrialcourtbyorderofJune5,1951,granteddefendant'smotionthus:
Inviewhereof,plaintiffsareherebyorderedtoreconveythepropertyinquestiontothedefendantforthe
considerationintheamountofP18,000,withintendaysfromthereceiptofcopyofthisorder.(p.41,R.A.).
Failing to secure a reconsideration of said order, plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari
against the trial Judge to review and set aside the order of June 5, 1951 as well as the order denying its
reconsideration.OnJuly21,1951,theCourtofAppealsinaresolutiondismissedthepetitionforcertiorariafter
finding that the respondent Judge had not committed any error or abused his discretion in issuing the order of
June5,1951.Afterhermotionforreconsiderationwasdenied,plaintiffappealedtheresolutionofdismissaltothe
SupremeCourtbutbyresolutionofthisTribunaltheappealwasdismissedforlackofmerit.Inviewoftheadverse
resolutionsoftheCourtofAppealsandtheSupremeCourtonherpetition,onSeptember6,1951,plaintifffileda
manifestationofwaiverofherrightsinthedecisionrenderedinherfavorbythetrialcourt,onthebasisofArticle
4,paragraph2oftheoldCivilCodewhichprovides:
Rights granted by law may be waived, provided such waiver be not contrary to public interest or public
order,orprejudicialtoathirdperson.
andasking"thatthestatusquoofthepartiesbeforethefilingoftheabovecasebemaintained."Plaintifflaterfiled
a motion stating that in accordance with the trial court's decision, only her rights were recognized and that in
acordancewithhermanifestationshewasinvokingtheprovisionsofArticle4,paragraph2oftheoldCivilCode
nowreembodiedinArticle6ofthenewCivilCode,andthatshewaswaiving"herrightsundersaiddecisionto
maintainthestatusquoofthepartiesbeforethefilingoftheaboveentitledcase."Thismotionwasdenied.Atfirst
thetrialcourtrefusedtoallowplaiontifftoappealfromthatorderofdenialonthegroundthatitsorderofJune5,
1951hadalreadybecomefinalbecauseoftherefusaloftheCourtofAppealsandtheSupremeCourttoentertain
herpetitionforcertiorari.Theappeal,however,wasfinallyallowedandtakentotheCourtofAppealswhichcourt
certifiedittousonthegroundthatonlyquestionsoflawwereinvolved.
The plaintiff contends that only she as plaintiff acquired a right under the decision which was in her favor and
against the defendant and that she has the right to waive said right whereby the parties would return to their
original status as if no complaint had ever been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. There are several
reasonswhywefindappellant'spositionuntenable.Theverylawsheinvokesprovidesthatrightsmaybewaived
unlesssuchwaiveriscontrarytolaw,publicorder,publicpolicy,moralsorgoodcustoms,orprejudicialtoathird
person with a right recognized by law. When, acting upon her complaint which was asked for two alternative
remedies the trial court rendered judgment giving the defendant the choice of complying wioth one of those
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1956/apr1956/gr_l8026_1956.html

1/2

9/22/2016

G.R.No.L8026

remedies and he chose to comply with the first, namely, to annul the deed of sale and for him to return the
purchasepriceofP18,000andtheplaintifftoreconveythelandtohim,hecertainlyacquiredarightreconizedby
law,andhewouldbeprejudicedbyasubsequentwaiveronthepartoftheplaintiffofherrightacquiredunderthe
decision.Fromanotherpointofview,thecomplaintfiledbytheplaintiffmayberegardedasanofferbyherthru
thecourt,tothedefendantforhimeithertoreturntheP18,000andgetbackthelandorrefundP4,000.Thisoffer
was approved by the court and was embodied in its decision. When the defendant expressed to the court his
willingness,readinessandabilitytocomplywiththesaiddecision,particularlythepartoralternativeorderedinit,
that may be considered as a formal acceptance of the offer made by the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff
cannotbackout,andwithdrewheroffer.Acceptanceofanoffergivestheoffereearighttocompeltheofferorto
complywiththeoffer.
Thereisstillanotheraspectofthecase.Whenafterhearing,thetrialcourtbyitsdecisiongrantedthatpartofthe
prayercontainedinthecomplainttohavethedeedofsaledeclarednullorrescindedonthegroundoffraudand
misrepresentationastotheareaoftheland,andwhenthatdecisionbecamefinal,thedeedofslewasforalllegal
purposes declared rescinded and there was nothing that the plaintiff could do about it, especially after the
defendant had acepted that judicial declaration of rescission and had offered to comply with his obligation to
returnthepurchaseprice.TheruleevenintheUnitedStateswouldappeartobesimilar.
SEC.447.ConditionsandAlternativeProvisions.
The party claiming the benefit of a judgment must comply with any terms and conditions which it may
imposeonhim.
Thepartywhoclaimsthebenefitofajudgmentrenderedinhisfavorcomplywithanttermsorconditions
which it may impose on him, and failure to do so will destroy the effect of the adjudication. Where the
judgmentisinthealterantive,grantingdefendantanoption to do a specified act or suffer judgment for a
designated sum, his election eliminates the alternative, and is binding on both parties. (49 C. J. S. 887.)
(Emphasissupplied.).
In view of the foregoing, the orders appealed from particularly that of June 5, 1951, are hereby affirmed, with
costs.
Paras,Bengzon,C.J.,Reyes,A.,Jugo,BautistaAngelo,Labrador,Reyes,J.B.L.andEndencia,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1956/apr1956/gr_l8026_1956.html

2/2