People of the Philippines v. Velozo

G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013J. Leonardo-De Castro (1st Division)

Facts: On April 6, 2002, appellant was charged with two (2) counts of rape under two (2) informations. After trial, the RTC rendered the March 6, 2007 Decision finding appellant guilty of the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the appropriate penalty and was ordered to pay, among others, exemplary damages.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on March 21, 2007. The Court of Appeals found no merit in the appeal and, thus, affirmed the findings of the trial court but modified the award of damages by deleting exemplary damages due to the lack of any aggravating circumstance to justify its award

Appellant filed his notice of appeal before this Court on April 7, 2009.

Issue: Whether the deletion of exemplary damages is proper.

Held: We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals regarding its deletion of exemplary damages. This Court has said inPeople v. Alfredo:Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis for the grant of exemplary damages -- taking into account simply the attendance of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime, courts have lost sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are awarded. Catubig is enlightening on this point, thus

Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant -- associated with such circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud -- that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in the future.

Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award. x x x Recently, inPeople of the Philippines v. Cristino Caada,People of the Philippines v. Pepito NeverioandThe People of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr., the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse.

It must be noted that, in the said cases, the Court used as basis Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the award of exemplary damages. Indeed, to borrow Justice Carpio Morales' words in her separate opinion inPeople of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par, "[t]he application of Article 2230 of the Civil Codestrictissimi jurisin such cases, as in the present one, defeats the underlying public policy behind the award of exemplary damages -- to set a public example or correction for the public good." (Citation and emphases omitted.)Licomcen, Inc. v. AbainzaG.R. No. 199781, February 18, 2013J. Carpio (2nd Division)

Facts: Respondent filed an action for sum of money and damages against Liberty Commercial Center, Inc. (Liberty). He alleged that in 1997 and 1998, he was hired by Liberty to do various projects in their commercial centers, mainly at the LCC Central Mall, Naga City, for the supply, fabrication, and installation of air-conditioning ductworks. Respondent completed the project, which included some changes and revisions of the original plan at the behest of Liberty. However, despite several demands by respondent, Liberty failed to pay the remaining balance due on the project in the sum of P1,777,202.80.

Liberty countered that the collection suit was not filed against the real party-in-interest. Thus, respondent amended his complaint to include petitioner as defendant.

The trial court found that petitioners claim that it has fully paid respondent the total cost of the project in the sum of P6,700,000 pertains only to the cost of the original plan of the project. However, the additional costs of P1,777,202.80 incurred for labor, materials, and equipment on the revised plan were not paid by petitioner.

On 7 November 2005, the trial court rendered its Decision in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant LICOMCEN, Inc. ordering the latter to pay the plaintiff the sum of Php1,777,202.80 as its principal obligation with interest at 12% per annum until the amount is fully paid, the sum of Php50,000.00 as attorneys fess [sic] and Php20,000.00 as litigation and incidental expenses.

Petitioner appealed the trial courts Decision to the Court of Appeals, invoking Article 1724 of the Civil Code which provides:

Art. 1724. The contractor who undertakes to build a structure or any other work for a stipulated price, in conformity with plans and specifications agreed upon with the landowner, can neither withdraw from the contract nor demand an increase in the price on account of the higher cost of labor or materials, save when there has been a change in the plans and specifications, provided:

(1) Such change has been authorized by the proprietor in writing; and

(2) The additional price to be paid to the contractor has been determined in writing by both parties.

The Court of Appeals stated that petitioner never raised Article 1724 of the Civil Code as a defense in the trial court. Citing Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Courtand the case ofBank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner cannot be allowed to change its theory on appeal since the adverse party would then be deprived of the opportunity to present further evidence on the new theory. Besides, the Court of Appeals held that Article 1724 of the Civil Code is not even applicable to the case because the Contract of Agreement was never signed by the parties considering that there were substantial changes to the original plan as the work progressed. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts Decision, finding petitioner liable to respondent for the additional costs in labor and materials due to the revisions in the original project.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution dated 6 December 2011. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether petitioner is liable for the additional costs incurred for labor, materials, and equipment on the revised project.

Held: Article 1724 of the Civil Code is not even applicable to this case.1wphi1It is evident from the records that the original contract agreement,submitted by respondent as evidence, which stated a total contract price of P5,300,000, was never signed by the parties considering that there were substantial changes in the plan imposed by petitioner in the course of the work on the project.Petitioner admitted paying P6,700,000 to respondent which was allegedly the agreed cost of the project. However, petitioner did not submit any written contract signed by both parties which would substantiate its claim that the agreed cost of the project was only P6,700,000. Clearly, petitioner cannot invoke Article 1724 of the Civil Code to avoid paying its obligation considering that the alleged original contract was never even signed by both parties because of the various changes imposed by petitioner on the original plan. The fact that petitioner paid P1,400,000more than the amount stated in the unsigned contract agreement clearly indicates that there were indeed additional costs during the course of the work on the project. It is just unfortunate that petitioner is now invoking Article 1724 of the Civil Cide to avoid further payment of the additional costs incurred on the project.

What was established in the trial court was that petitioner ordered the changes in the original plan which entailed additional costs in labor and materials. The work done by respondent was closely monitored and supervised by petitioners engineering consultant and all the paperworks relating to the project were approved by petitioner through its representatives. We find no justifiable reason to deviate from the findings and ruling of the trial court, which were also upheld by the Court of Appeals. Thus, petitioner should be held liable for the additional costs incurred for labor, materials, and equipment on the revised project.

Allied Banking Corp. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands

G.R. No. 188363, February 27, 2013J. Villarama, Jr. (1st Division)

Facts: On October 10, 2002, a check in the amount ofP1,000,000.00 payable to "Mateo Mgt. Group International" (MMGI) was presented for deposit and accepted at petitioner's Kawit Branch. The check, post-dated"Oct. 9, 2003",was drawn against the account of Marciano Silva, Jr. (Silva) with respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Bel-Air Branch. Upon receipt, petitioner sent the check for clearing to respondent through the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC).

The check was cleared by respondent and petitioner credited the account of MMGI withP1,000,000.00. On October 22, 2002, MMGIs account was closed and all the funds therein were withdrawn. A month later, Silva discovered the debit ofP1,000,000.00 from his account. In response to Silvas complaint, respondent credited his account with the aforesaid sum.

On March 21, 2003, respondent returned a photocopy of the check to petitioner for the reason: "Postdated." Petitioner, however, refused to accept and sent back to respondent a photocopy of the check. Thereafter, the check, or more accurately, the Charge Slip, was tossed several times from petitioner to respondent, and back to petitioner, until on May 6, 2003, respondent requested the PCHC to take custody of the check. Acting on the request, PCHC directed the respondent to deliver the original check and informed it of PCHCs authority under Clearing House Operating Memo (CHOM) No. 279 dated 06 September 1996 to split 50/50 the amount of the check subject of a "Ping-Pong" controversy which shall be implemented thru the issuance of Debit Adjustment Tickets against the outward demands of the banks involved. PCHC likewise encouraged respondent to submit the controversy for resolution thru the PCHC Arbitration Mechanism.

However, it was petitioner who filed a complaintbefore the Arbitration Committee, asserting that respondent should solely bear the entire face value of the check due to its negligence in failing to return the check to petitioner within the 24-hour reglementary period as provided in Section 20.1of the Clearing House Rules and Regulations(CHRR) 2000. Petitioner prayed that respondent be ordered to reimburse the sum ofP500,000.00 with 12% interest per annum, and to pay attorneys fees and other arbitration expenses.

In its Answer with Counterclaims,respondent charged petitioner with gross negligence for accepting the post-dated check in the first place. It contended that petitioners admitted negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the loss.

On December 8, 2004, the Arbitration Committee rendered its Decisionin favor of petitioner and against the respondent. First, it ruled that the situation of the parties does not involve a "Ping-Pong" controversy since the subject check was neither returned within the reglementary time or through the PCHC return window, nor coursed through the clearing facilities of the PCHC.

As to respondents direct presentation of a photocopy of the subject check, it was declared to be without legal basis because Section 21.1of the CHRR 2000 does not apply to post-dated checks. The Arbitration Committee further noted that respondent not only failed to return the check within the 24-hour reglementary period, it also failed to institute any formal complaint within the contemplation of Section 20.3and it appears that respondent was already contented with the 50-50 split initially implemented by the PCHC. Finding both parties negligent in the performance of their duties, the Committee applied the doctrine of "Last Clear Chance" and ruled that the loss should be shouldered by respondent alone.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsiderationbut it was denied by the PCHC Board of Directors under Board Resolution No. 10-2005dated April 22, 2005. The Board pointed out that what actually transpired was a "ping-pong" "not of a check but of a Charge Slip (CS) enclosed in a carrier envelope that went back and forth through the clearing system in apparent reaction by [petitioner] to the wrongful return via the PCHC clearing system." Respondents conduct was held as a "gross and unmistakably deliberate violation" of Section 20.2,in relation to Section 20.1(e) of the CHRR 2000.

On May 13, 2005, respondent filed a petition for reviewin the RTC claiming that PCHC erred in constricting the return of a post-dated check to Section 20.1, overlooking the fact that Section 20.3 is also applicable which provision necessarily contemplates defects that are referred to in Section 20.1 as both sections are subsumed under the general provision (Section 20) on the return of regular items. Respondent also argued that assuming it to be liable, the PCHC erred in holding it solely responsible and should bear entirely the consequent loss considering that while respondent may have the "last" opportunity in proximity, it was petitioner which had the longest, fairest and clearest chance to discover the mistake and avoid the happening of the loss. Lastly, respondent assailed the award of attorneys fees, arguing that PCHCs perception of "malice" against it and misuse of the clearing machinery is clearly baseless and unfounded.

In its Decision dated December 13, 2005, the RTC affirmed with modification the Arbitration Committees decision by deleting the award of attorneys fees. The RTC found no merit in respondents stance that through inadvertence it failed to discover that the check was post-dated and that confirmation within 24 hours is often "elusive if not outright impossible" because a drawee bank receives hundreds if not thousands of checks in an ordinary clearing day.

With the denial of its motion for partial reconsideration, respondent elevated the case to the CA by filing a petition for review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

By Decision dated March 19, 2009, the CA set aside the RTC judgment and ruled for a 60-40 sharing of the loss as it found petitioner guilty of contributory negligence in accepting what is clearly a post-dated check. The CA found that petitioners failure to notice the irregularity on the face of the check was a breach of its duty to the public and a telling sign of its lack of due diligence in handling checks coursed through it. While the CA conceded that the drawee bank has a bigger responsibility in the clearing of checks, it declared that the presenting bank cannot take lightly its obligation to make sure that only valid checks are introduced into the clearing system. According to the CA, considerations of public policy and substantial justice will be served by allocating the damage on a 60-40 ratio.

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA, petitioner is now before the Court seeking a partial reversal of the CAs decision and affirmance of the December 13, 2005 Decision of the RTC.

Petitioner argues that the CA should have sustained PCHCs finding that despite the antecedent negligence of petitioner in accepting the postdated check for deposit, respondent, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences had it not negligently cleared the check in question. It pointed out that in applying the doctrine of last clear chance, the PCHC cited the case ofPhilippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appealswhich ruled that assuming the banks depositor, private respondent, was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, thus providing the latter with the opportunity to defraud the company, it cannot be denied that petitioner bank had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure.

Petitioner underscores respondents failure to observe clearing house rules and its own standard operating procedure which, the PCHC said constitute further negligence so much so that respondent should be solely liable for the loss. Specifically, respondent failed to return the subject check within the 24-hour reglementary period under Section 20.1 and to institute any formal complaint within the contemplation of Section 20.3 of the CHRR 2000. The PCHC likewise faulted respondent for not making follow-up calls or taking any other action after it initially attempted, without success, to contact by telephone the drawer of the check, and clearing the check despite such lack of confirmation from its depositor in violation of its own standard procedure for checks involving large amounts.

Issue: Whether the doctrine of last clear chance applies in this case; and whether the 60-40 apportionment of loss ordered by the CA was justified.

Held: The doctrine of last clear chance, stated broadly, is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiffs negligence. The doctrine necessarily assumes negligence on the part of the defendant and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and does not apply except upon that assumption.Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. Moreover, in situations where the doctrine has been applied, it was defendants failure to exercise such ordinary care, having the last clear chance to avoid loss or injury, which was the proximate cause of the occurrence of such loss or injury.

In this case, the evidence clearly shows that the proximate cause of the unwarranted encashment of the subject check was the negligence of respondent who cleared a post-dated check sent to it thru the PCHC clearing facility without observing its own verification procedure. As correctly found by the PCHC and upheld by the RTC, if only respondent exercised ordinary care in the clearing process, it could have easily noticed the glaring defect upon seeing the date written on the face of the check "Oct. 9, 2003". Respondent could have then promptly returned the check and with the check thus dishonored, petitioner would have not credited the amount thereof to the payees account. Thus, notwithstanding the antecedent negligence of the petitioner in accepting the post-dated check for deposit, it can seek reimbursement from respondent the amount credited to the payees account covering the check.

What petitioner omitted to mention is that in the cited case ofPhilippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals,while the Court found petitioner bank as the culpable party under the doctrine of last clear chance since it had, thru its teller, the last opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client simply by faithfully observing its own validation procedure, it nevertheless ruled that the plaintiff depositor (private respondent) must share in the loss on account of itscontributory negligence.Thus:The foregoing notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs.This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private respondent under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code,to wit:

"x x x. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care,the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded."

In view of this, we believe that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied byallocating the damage on a 60-40 ratio.Thus, 40% of the damage awarded by the respondent appellate court, except the award ofP25,000.00 attorneys fees, shall be borne by private respondent RMC; only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the petitioners. The award of attorneys fees shall be borne exclusively by the petitioners.(Italics in the original; emphasis supplied)

In another earlier case,the Court refused to hold petitioner bank solely liable for the loss notwithstanding the finding that the proximate cause of the loss was due to its negligence. Since the employees of private respondent bank were likewise found negligent, its claim for damages is subject to mitigation by the courts. Thus:Both banks were negligent in the selection and supervision of their employees resulting in the encashment of the forged checks by an impostor. Both banks were not able to overcome the presumption of negligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. It was the gross negligence of the employees of both banks which resulted in the fraud and the subsequent loss.While it is true that petitioner BPIs negligence may have been the proximate cause of the loss, respondent CBCs negligence contributed equally to the success of the impostor in encashing the proceeds of the forged checks.Under these circumstances, we apply Article 2179 of the Civil Code to the effect that while respondent CBC may recover its losses, such losses are subject to mitigation by the courts. x x x

Considering the comparative negligence of the two (2) banks, we rule that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied by allocating the loss ofP2,413,215.16 and the costs of the arbitration proceedings in the amount ofP7,250.00 and the costs of litigation on a 60-40 ratio. Conformably with this ruling, no interests and attorneys fees can be awarded to either of the parties.(Emphasis supplied)

Apportionment of damages between parties who are both negligent was followed in subsequent cases involving banking transactions notwithstanding the courts finding that one of them had the last clear opportunity to avoid the occurrence of the loss.

InBank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club,the Court ruled that petitioner cannot evade responsibility for the loss by attributing negligence on the part of respondent because, even if we concur that the latter was indeed negligent in pre-signing blank checks, the former had the last clear chance to avoid the loss. To reiterate, petitioners own operations manager admitted that they could have called up the client for verification or confirmation before honoring the dubious checks. Verily, petitioner had the final opportunity to avert the injury that befell the respondent. x x x Petitioners negligence has been undoubtedly established and, thus, pursuant to Art. 1170 of the NCC, it must suffer the consequence of said negligence.

In the interest of fairness, however, we believe it is proper to consider respondents own negligence to mitigate petitioners liability.Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides:x x x x

Explaining this provision inLambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, the Court held:

"The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. xxx xxx xxx"

x x x x

Following established jurisprudential precedents, we believe the allocation of sixty percent (60%) of the actual damages involved in this case (represented by the amount of the checks with legal interest) to petitioner is proper under the premises.Respondent should, in light of its contributory negligence, bear forty percent (40%) of its own loss.(Emphasis supplied)

InPhilippine National Bank v. F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc.,the Court made a similar disposition, thus:Given the foregoing, we find no reversible error in the findings of the appellate court that PNB was negligent in the handling of FFCCIs combo account, specifically, with respect to PNBs failure to detect the forgeries in the subject applications for managers check which could have prevented the loss. x x x PNB failed to meet the high standard of diligence required by the circumstances to prevent the fraud. InPhilippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of AppealsandThe Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals,where the banks negligence is the proximate cause of the loss and the depositor is guilty of contributory negligence, we allocated the damages between the bank and the depositor on a 60-40 ratio. We apply the same ruling in this case considering that, as shown above, PNBs negligence is the proximate cause of the loss while the issue as to FFCCIs contributory negligence has been settled with finality in G.R. No. 173278. Thus, the appellate court properly adjudged PNB to bear the greater part of the loss consistent with these rulings.

"Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection."Admittedly, petitioners acceptance of the subject check for deposit despite the one year postdate written on its face was a clear violation of established banking regulations and practices. In such instances, payment should be refused by the drawee bank and returned through the PCHC within the 24-hour reglementary period. As aptly observed by the CA, petitioners failure to comply with this basic policy regarding post-dated checks was "a telling sign of its lack of due diligence in handling checks coursed through it."

It bears stressing that "the diligence required of banks is more than that of a Romanpaterfamiliasor a good father of a family. The highest degree of diligence is expected,"considering the nature of the banking business that is imbued with public interest. While it is true that respondent's liability for its negligent clearing of the check is greater, petitioner cannot take lightly its own violation of the long-standing rule against encashment of post-dated checks and the injurious consequences of allowing such checks into the clearing system.

Petitioner repeatedly harps on respondent's transgression of clearing house rules when the latter resorted to direct presentment way beyond the reglementary period but glosses over its own negligent act that clearly fell short of the conduct expected of it as a collecting bank. Petitioner must bear the consequences of its omission to exercise extraordinary diligence in scrutinizing checks presented by its depositors.People of the Philippines v. Angeles

G.R. No. 175876, February 20, 2013J. Bersamin (1st Division)

Facts: Appellant was charged with two (2) counts of statutory rape and was accordingly convicted for such after the trial of the case. He was, thus, sentenced to suffer the appropriate penalty and to pay, without stating the character of the monetary award therein, the offended party the sums ofP100,000.00,P50,000.00 for each case.

The appeal of appellant was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, hence, the RTC judgment was affirmed with modificationgranting in each case moral damages in the amount ofP50,000.00 and exemplary damages in the sum ofP25,000.00.

Thus, this present appeal.

Issue: Whether the award of damages is proper.

Held: We rectify the amounts of the civil liability of Teodoro.1wphi1The RTC had granted to AAA only the amount ofP50,000.00 for each case, or a total ofP100,000.00 for both cases, without stating the character of the award, but the CA modified the award by granting in each case moral damages ofP50,000.00 and exemplary damages ofP25,000.00.

Both lower courts thereby erred. There is no longer any debate that the victim in statutory rape is entitled to a civil indemnity ofP50,000.00, moral damages ofP50,000.00, and exemplary damages ofP30,000.00. The award of civil indemnity ofP50,000.00 is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.Similarly, the award of moral damages ofP50,000.00 is mandatory, and made without need of allegation and proof other than that of the fact of rape,for it is logically assumed that the victim suffered moral injuries from her ordeal. In addition, exemplary damages ofP30,000.00 are justified under Article 2229 of theCivil Codeto set an example for the public good and to serve as deterrent to those who abuse the young.Spouses Ramos v. Obispo

G.R. No. 193804, February 27, 2013J. Villarama (1st Division)

Facts: Sometime in August 1996, petitioners executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) in favor of respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC)-Fairview Branch, over their property covered by a transfer certificate of title of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. The notarized REM secured credit accommodations extended to Obispo in the amount ofP1,159,096.00. On even date, the REM was registered and annotated on the aforesaid title.

On September 17, 1999, FEBTC received a letter from petitioners informing that Obispo, to whom they entrusted their property to be used as collateral for aP250,000.00 loan in their behalf, had instead secured a loan forP1,159,096.00, and had failed to return their title despite full payment by petitioners ofP250,000.00. Petitioners likewise demanded that FEBTC furnish them with documents and papers pertinent to the mortgage failing which they will be constrained to refer the matter to their lawyer for the filing of appropriate legal action against Obispo and FEBTC.

There being no action taken by FEBTC, petitioners filed on October 12, 1999 a complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage with damages against FEBTC and Obispo. Petitioners alleged that they signed the blank REM form given by Obispo who facilitated the loan with FEBTC, and that they subsequently received the loan proceeds ofP250,000.00 which they paid in full through Obispo. With their loan fully settled, they demanded the release of their title but Obispo refused to talk or see them, as he is now hiding from them. Upon verification with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, petitioners said they were surprised to learn that their property was in fact mortgaged forP1,159,096.00. Petitioners thus prayed that the REM be declared void and cancelled.

FEBTC posited that petitioners agreed to execute the REM over their property as partial security for the loans obtained by Obispo with a total principal balance ofP2,500,000.00. Since the obligation secured by the REM remains unpaid, FEBTC contended that it should not be compelled to release the mortgage on the subject property. Under its cross-claim, FEBTC prayed that in the event of judgment rendered in favor of petitioners, Obispo should be made liable to answer for all the claims that may be adjudged against it plus all damages it suffered.

On motion of petitioners, Obispo was declared in default After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs declaring, among others, the real estate mortgage in favor of defendant Far East Bank & Trust Company null and void.

FEBTC appealed to the CA which reversed the trial courts decision and dismissed the complaint, holding that petitioners were third-party mortgagors under Article 2085 of the Civil Code and that they failed to present any evidence to prove their allegations.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether the mortgage contract was an accomodation mortgage.

Held: The validity of an accommodation mortgage is allowed under Article 2085 of the Civil Code which provides that "[t]hird persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property." An accommodation mortgagor, ordinarily, is not himself a recipient of the loan, otherwise that would be contrary to his designation as such.

In this case, petitioners denied having executed an accommodation mortgage and claimed to have executed the REM to secure only theirP250,000.00 loan and not theP1,159,096.00 personal indebtedness of Obispo. They claimed it was Obispo who filled up the REM form contrary to their instructions and faulted FEBTC for being negligent in not ascertaining the authority of Obispo and failing to furnish petitioners with copies of mortgage documents. Obispo initially gave themP100,000.00 and the balance was given a few months later. After supposedly completing payment of the amount ofP250,000.00 to Obispo, petitioners discovered that the REM secured a bigger amount. Because of the alleged fraud committed upon them by Obispo who made them sign the REM form in blank, petitioners sought to have the REM annulled and their title over the mortgaged property released by FEBTC. In other words, since their consent to the REM was vitiated, judicial declaration of its nullity is in order. The RTC granted relief to petitioners while the CA found the subject REM as a valid third-party or accommodation mortgage due to petitioners failure to substantiate their allegations with the requisite quantum of evidence.

It bears stressing that an accommodation mortgagor, ordinarily, is not himself a recipient of the loan, otherwise that would be contrary to his designation as such. We have held that it is not always necessary that the accommodation mortgagor be apprised beforehand of the entire amount of the loan nor should it first be determined before the execution of the Special Power of Attorney in favor of the debtor.This is especially true when the words used by the parties indicate that the mortgage serves as a continuing security for credit obtained as well as future loan availments.

Here, petitionersas ownerssigned the REM as mortgagors and there is no evidence adduced that suggests fraud or irregularity in its execution. Petitioners are not contracting parties whom the law considers ignorant or disadvantaged but former overseas workers with sufficient education as to be well-aware of the consequences of their personal decisions, consistent with the legal presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Hence, it can be reasonably inferred from the facts on record that it was more probable that petitioners allowed Obispo to use their property as additional collateral so as to avail of his existing credit line with FEBTC instead of petitioners directly applying for a separate loan.

There being valid consent on the part of petitioners as accommodation mortgagors, no reversible error was committed by the CA in reversing the trial courts decision which declared the REM as void and awarded damages to petitioners.

A preponderance of the evidence is essential to establish the invalidity of a mortgage, and it has been said that clear and convincing proof is necessary to show fraud, duress, or undue influence.Any relevant and material evidence otherwise competent is admissible on the issue of the validity of a mortgage.23 Petitioners utterly failed to present relevant evidence to support their factual claims and offered no explanation whatsoever. Such omission is fatal to their cause.Diego v. Diego

G.R. No. 179965, February 20, 2013J. Del Castillo (2nd Division)

Facts: In 1993, petitioner Nicolas P. Diego and his brother Rodolfo, respondent herein, entered into an oral contract to sell covering Nicolass share, fixed at P500,000.00, as co-owner of the familys Diego Building situated in Dagupan City. Rodolfo made a downpayment of P250,000.00. It was agreed that the deed of sale shall be executed upon payment of the remaining balance of P250,000.00. However, Rodolfo failed to pay the remaining balance.

Meanwhile, the building was leased out to third parties, but Nicolass share in the rents were not remitted to him by herein respondent Eduardo, another brother of Nicolas and designated administrator of the Diego Building. Instead, Eduardo gave Nicolass monthly share in the rents to Rodolfo. Despite demands and protestations by Nicolas, Rodolfo and Eduardo failed to render an accounting and remit his share in the rents and fruits of the building, and Eduardo continued to hand them over to Rodolfo.

Thus, on May 17, 1999, Nicolas filed a Complaint against Rodolfo and Eduardo. Nicolas prayed, among others, that Eduardo and Rodolfo be ordered to deliver to Nicolas his share in the rents; and that Eduardo and Rodolfo be held solidarily liable for attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

Rodolfo and Eduardo filed their Answer with Counterclaim for damages and attorneys fees. They argued that Nicolas had no more claim in the rents in the Diego Building since he had already sold his share to Rodolfo. Rodolfo admitted having remitted only P250,000.00 to Nicolas. He asserted that he would pay the balance of the purchase price to Nicolas only after the latter shall have executed a deed of absolute sale.

After trial on the merits, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of merit and ordered Nicolas to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of Rodolfo upon payment by the latter of the P250,000.00 balance of the agreed purchase price. It ruled that as early as 1993, Nicolas was no longer entitled to the fruits of his aliquot share in the Diego Building because he had "ceased to be a co-owner" thereof. The trial court held that when Nicolas received the P250,000.00 downpayment, a "contract of sale" was perfected. Consequently, Nicolas is obligated to convey such share to Rodolfo, without right of rescission. Finally, the trial court held that the P250,000.00 balance from Rodolfo will only be due and demandable when Nicolas executes an absolute deed of sale.

Nicolas appealed to the CA which sustained the trial courts Decision in toto. The CA held that since there was a perfected contract of sale between Nicolas and Rodolfo, the latter may compel the former to execute the proper sale document.

The CA then proceeded to rule that since no period was stipulated within which Rodolfo shall deliver the balance of the purchase price, it was incumbent upon Nicolas to have filed a civil case to fix the same. But because he failed to do so, Rodolfo cannot be considered to be in delay or default.

Finally, the CA made another interesting pronouncement, that by virtue of the agreement Nicolas entered into with Rodolfo, he had already transferred his ownership over the subject property and as a consequence, Rodolfo is legally entitled to collect the fruits thereof in the form of rentals. Nicolas remaining right is to demand payment of the balance of the purchase price, provided that he first executes a deed of absolute sale in favor of Rodolfo.

Nicolas moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this Petition.

Nicolas argues that there was no perfected contract of sale even though Rodolfo had partially paid the price; that in the absence of the third element in a sale contract the price there could be no perfected sale; that failing to pay the required price in full, Nicolas had the right to rescind the agreement as an unpaid seller.

Nicolas likewise takes exception to the CA finding that Rodolfo was not in default or delay in the payment of the agreed balance for his (Nicolass) failure to file a case to fix the period within which payment of the balance should be made. He believes that Rodolfos failure to pay within a reasonable time was a substantial and material breach of the agreement which gave him the right to unilaterally and extrajudicially rescind the agreement and be discharged of his obligations as seller; and that his repeated written demands upon Rodolfo to pay the balance granted him such rights.

Finally, Nicolas bewails the CAs failure to award damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses for what he believes is a case of unjust enrichment at his expense.

Held: It is settled jurisprudence, to the point of being elementary, that an agreement which stipulates that the seller shall execute a deed of sale only upon or after full payment of the purchase price is a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. In Reyes v. Tuparan, this Court declared in categorical terms that "[w]here the vendor promises to execute a deed of absolute sale upon the completion by the vendee of the payment of the price, the contract is only a contract to sell. The aforecited stipulation shows that the vendors reserved title to the subject property until full payment of the purchase price."

In this case, it is not disputed as in tact both parties agreed that the deed of sale shall only be executed upon payment of the remaining balance of the purchase price. Thus, pursuant to the above stated jurisprudence, we similarly declare that the transaction entered into by the parties is a contract to sell.

The remedy of rescission is not available in contracts to sell. As explained in Spouses Santos v. Court of Appeals:In view of our finding in the present case that the agreement between the parties is a contract to sell, it follows that the appellate court erred when it decreed that a judicial rescission of said agreement was necessary. This is because there was no rescission to speak of in the first place. As we earlier pointed out, in a contract to sell, title remains with the vendor and does not pass on to the vendee until the purchase price is paid in full. Thus, in a contract to sell, the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition. Failure to pay the price agreed upon is not a mere breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. This is entirely different from the situation in a contract of sale, where non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition. The effects in law are not identical. In a contract of sale, the vendor has lost ownership of the thing sold and cannot recover it, unless the contract of sale is rescinded and set aside. In a contract to sell, however, the vendor remains the owner for as long as the vendee has not complied fully with the condition of paying the purchase price. If the vendor should eject the vendee for failure to meet the condition precedent, he is enforcing the contract and not rescinding it. When the petitioners in the instant case repossessed the disputed house and lot for failure of private respondents to pay the purchase price in full, they were merely enforcing the contract and not rescinding it. As petitioners correctly point out, the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that petitioners should have judicially rescinded the contract pursuant to Articles 1592 and 1191 of the Civil Code. Article 1592 speaks of non-payment of the purchase price as a resolutory condition. It does not apply to a contract to sell. As to Article 1191, it is subordinated to the provisions of Article 1592 when applied to sales of immovable property. Neither provision is applicable in the present case.

Similarly, we held in Chua v. Court of Appeals that "Article 1592 of the Civil Code permits the buyer to pay, even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by notarial act. However, Article 1592 does not apply to a contract to sell where the seller reserves the ownership until full payment of the price," as in this case.

Applying the above jurisprudence, we hold that when Rodolfo failed to fully pay the purchase price, the contract to sell was deemed terminated or cancelled. As we have held in Chua v. Court of Appeals, "[s]ince the agreement x x x is a mere contract to sell, the full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition. The non-fulfillment of the condition prevents the obligation to sell from arising and ownership is retained by the seller without further remedies by the buyer." Similarly, we held in Reyes v. Tuparan that "petitioners obligation to sell the subject properties becomes demandable only upon the happening of the positive suspensive condition, which is the respondents full payment of the purchase price. Without respondents full payment, there can be no breach of contract to speak of because petitioner has no obligation yet to turn over the title. Respondents failure to pay in full the purchase price in full is not the breach of contract contemplated under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code but rather just an event that prevents the petitioner from being bound to convey title to respondent." Otherwise stated, Rodolfo has no right to compel Nicolas to transfer ownership to him because he failed to pay in full the purchase price. Correlatively, Nicolas has no obligation to transfer his ownership over his share in the Diego Building to Rodolfo.

Thus, it was erroneous for the CA to rule that Nicolas should have filed a case to fix the period for Rodolfos payment of the balance of the purchase price. It was not Nicolass obligation to compel Rodolfo to pay the balance; it was Rodolfos duty to remit it.

Although attorneys fees are not allowed in the absence of stipulation, the court can award the same when the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest or where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable claim." In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that petitioner was constrained to file the instant case to protect his interest because of respondents unreasonable and unjustified refusal to render an accounting and to remit to the petitioner his rightful share in rents and fruits in the Diego Building. Thus, we deem it proper to award to petitioner attorneys fees in the amount of P50,000.00, as well as litigation expenses in the amount of P20,000.00 and the sum of P1,000.00 for each court appearance by his lawyer or lawyers, as prayed for.Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. Spouses Fajardo

G.R. No. 201167, February 27, 2013J. Perlas-Bernabe (2nd Division)

Facts: On January 24, 1995, respondent-spouses Eugenio and Angelina Fajardo (Sps. Fajardo) entered into a Contract to Sell with petitioner-corporation Gotesco Properties, Inc. (GPI) for the purchase of a 100-square meter lot.

Sps. Fajardo undertook to pay the purchase price of P126,000.00 within a 10-year period, including interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum. GPI, on the other hand, agreed to execute a final deed of sale (deed) in favor of Sps. Fajardo upon full payment of the stipulated consideration. However, despite its full payment of the purchase price on January 17, 2000 and subsequent demands, GPI failed to execute the deed and to deliver the title and physical possession of the subject lot. Thus, on May 3, 2006, Sps. Fajardo filed before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board-Expanded National Capital Region Field Office a complaint for specific performance or rescission of contract with damages against GPI and the members of its Board of Directors.

Sps. Fajardo alleged that GPI failed to provide boundary marks for each lot and that the mother title including the subject lot had no technical description and was even levied upon by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) without their knowledge. They thus prayed that GPI be ordered to execute the deed, to deliver the corresponding certificate of title and the physical possession of the subject lot within a reasonable period; or in the alternative, to cancel and/or rescind the contract and refund the total payments made plus legal interest.

Petitioners claimed that the failure to deliver the title to Sps. Fajardo was beyond their control because while GPI's petition for inscription of technical description was favorably granted by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, the same was reversed by the CA; this caused the delay in the subdivision of the property into individual lots with individual titles. Given the foregoing incidents, petitioners thus argued that Article 1191 of the Civil Code (Code) the provision on which Sps. Fajardo anchor their right of rescission remained inapplicable since they were actually willing to comply with their obligation but were only prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond their control. Separately, petitioners pointed out that BSP's adverse claim/levy which was annotated long after the execution of the contract had already been settled.

The HLURB-ENCRFO ruled in favor of Sps. Fajardo, holding that GPIs obligation to execute the corresponding deed and to deliver the transfer certificate of title and possession of the subject lot arose and thus became due and demandable at the time Sps. Fajardo had fully paid the purchase price for the subject lot. Consequently, GPIs failure to meet the said obligation constituted a substantial breach of the contract which perforce warranted its rescission. Petitioners were likewise held jointly and solidarily liable for the payment of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and the costs of suit.

On appeal, the HLURB Board of Commissioners affirmed the HLURB ruling. On further appeal, such was affirmed by the OP. Finally, on petition for review, the CA also affirmed such.

Petitioners insist that Sps. Fajardo have no right to rescind the contract considering that GPI's inability to comply therewith was due to reasons beyond its control and thus, should not be held liable to refund the payments they had received. Further, since the individual petitioners never participated in the acts complained of nor found to have acted in bad faith, they should not be held liable to pay damages and attorney's fees.

Held: It is settled that in a contract to sell, the seller's obligation to deliver the corresponding certificates of title is simultaneous and reciprocal to the buyer's full payment of the purchase price.20 In this relation, Section 25 of PD 957, to wit:Sec. 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the present case, Sps. Fajardo claim that GPI breached the contract due to its failure to execute the deed of sale and to deliver the title and possession over the subject lot, notwithstanding the full payment of the purchase price made by Sps. Fajardo on January 17, 2000 as well as the latters demand for GPI to comply with the aforementioned obligations. For its part, petitioners proffer that GPI could not have committed any breach of contract considering that its purported non-compliance was largely impelled by circumstances beyond its control. Hence, absent any substantial breach, Sps. Fajardo had no right to rescind the contract.

A perusal of the records shows that GPI acquired the subject property on March 10, 1992 through a Deed of Partition and Exchange executed between it and Andres Pacheco, the former registered owner of the property. GPI was issued TCT No. 244220 on March 16, 1992 but the same did not bear any technical description. However, no plausible explanation was advanced by the petitioners as to why the petition for inscription was filed only after almost eight (8) years from the acquisition of the subject property.

Neither did petitioners sufficiently explain why GPI took no positive action to cause the immediate filing of a new petition for inscription within a reasonable time from notice of the July 15, 2003 CA Decision which dismissed GPIs earlier petition based on technical defects, this notwithstanding Sps. Fajardo's full payment of the purchase price and prior demand for delivery of title. GPI filed the petition before the RTC-Caloocan only on November 23, 2006, following receipt of the letter dated February 10, 2006 and the filing of the complaint on May 3, 2006, alternatively seeking refund of payments. While the court a quo decided the latter petition for inscription in its favor, there is no showing that the same had attained finality or that the approved technical description had in fact been annotated on TCT No. 244220, or even that the subdivision plan had already been approved.

Moreover, despite petitioners allegation that the claim of BSP had been settled, there appears to be no cancellation of the annotations in GPIs favor. Clearly, the long delay in the performance of GPI's obligation from date of demand on September 16, 2002 was unreasonable and unjustified. It cannot therefore be denied that GPI substantially breached its contract to sell with Sps. Fajardo which thereby accords the latter the right to rescind the same pursuant to Article 1191 of the Code, viz:

ART. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.

The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.

The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.

This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.

At this juncture, it is noteworthy to point out that rescission does not merely terminate the contract and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but abrogates the contract from its inception and restores the parties to their original positions as if no contract has been made. Consequently, mutual restitution, which entails the return of the benefits that each party may have received as a result of the contract, is thus required. To be sure, it has been settled that the effects of rescission as provided for in Article 1385 of the Code are equally applicable to cases under Article 1191, to wit:

x x x x

Mutual restitution is required in cases involving rescission under Article 1191.1wphi1 This means bringing the parties back to their original status prior to the inception of the contract. Article 1385 of the Civil Code provides, thus:

ART. 1385. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obligated to restore.Neither shall rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith.

In this case, indemnity for damages may be demanded from the person causing the loss.

This Court has consistently ruled that this provision applies to rescission under Article 1191:

Since Article 1385 of the Civil Code expressly and clearly states that "rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest," the Court finds no justification to sustain petitioners position that said Article 1385 does not apply to rescission under Article 1191. x x x (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)

In this light, it cannot be denied that only GPI benefited from the contract, having received full payment of the contract price plus interests as early as January 17, 2000, while Sps. Fajardo remained prejudiced by the persisting non-delivery of the subject lot despite full payment. As a necessary consequence, considering the propriety of the rescission as earlier discussed, Sps. Fajardo must be able to recover the price of the property pegged at its prevailing market value consistent with the Courts pronouncement in Solid Homes, viz:

Indeed, there would be unjust enrichment if respondents Solid Homes, Inc. & Purita Soliven are made to pay only the purchase price plus interest. It is definite that the value of the subject property already escalated after almost two decades from the time the petitioner paid for it. Equity and justice dictate that the injured party should be paid the market value of the lot, otherwise, respondents Solid Homes, Inc. & Purita Soliven would enrich themselves at the expense of herein lot owners when they sell the same lot at the present market value. Surely, such a situation should not be countenanced for to do so would be contrary to reason and therefore, unconscionable. Over time, courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is inconvenient or contrary to reason is not allowed in law. (Emphasis supplied.)

This Court finds that there is proper legal basis to accord moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, including costs of suit. Verily, GPIs unjustified failure to comply with its obligations caused Sps. Fajardo serious anxiety, mental anguish and sleepless nights, thereby justifying the award of moral damages. In the same vein, the payment of exemplary damages remains in order so as to prevent similarly minded subdivision developers to commit the same transgression. And finally, considering that Sps. Fajardo were constrained to engage the services of counsel to file this suit, the award of attorneys fees must be likewise sustained.

However, the Court finds no basis to hold individual petitioners solidarily liable with petitioner GPI for the payment of damages in favor of Sps. Fajardo since it was not shown that they acted maliciously or dealt with the latter in bad faith. Settled 1s the rule that in the absence of malice and bad faith, as in this case, officers of the corporation cannot be made personally liable for liabilities of the corporation which, by legal fiction, has a personality separate and distinct from its officers, stockholders, and membersGoyanko, Jr. v. United Coconut Planters Bank

G.R. No. 179096, February 06, 2013J. Brion (2nd Division)

Facts: In 1995, the late Joseph Goyanko, Sr. invested Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) with Philippine Asia Lending Investors, Inc. family, represented by the petitioner, and his illegitimate family presented conflicting claims to PALII for the release of the investment. Pending the investigation of the conflicting claims, PALII deposited the proceeds of the investment with UCPB on October 29, 1996 under the name "Phil Asia: ITF (In Trust For) The Heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr.". On September 27, 1997, the deposit under the Account was P1,509,318.76.

On December 11, 1997, UCPB allowed PALII to withdraw One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) from the Account, leaving a balance of only P9,318.76. When UCPB refused the demand to restore the amount withdrawn plus legal interest from December 11, 1997, the petitioner filed a complaint before the RTC. In its answer to the complaint, UCPB admitted, among others, the opening of the ACCOUNT under the name "ITF (In Trust For) The Heirs of Joseph Goyanko, Sr.," and the withdrawal on December 11, 1997.

The RTC dismissed the petitioners complaint and awarded UCPB attorneys fees, litigation expenses and the costs of the suit. The RTC did not consider the words "ITF HEIRS" sufficient to charge UCPB with knowledge of any trust relation between PALII and Goyankos heirs. It concluded that UCPB merely performed its duty as a depository bank in allowing PALII to withdraw from the ACCOUNT, as the contract of deposit was officially only between PALII, in its own capacity, and UCPB. The petitioner appealed his case to the CA.

Before the CA, the petitioner maintained that by opening the ACCOUNT, PALII established a trust by which it was the "trustee" and the HEIRS are the "trustors-beneficiaries;" thus, UCPB should be liable for allowing the withdrawal.

The CA partially granted the petitioners appeal. It affirmed the August 27, 2003 decision of the RTC, but deleted the award of attorneys fees and litigation expenses. The CA held that no express trust was created between the HEIRS and PALII. For a trust to be established, the law requires, among others, a competent trustor and trustee and a clear intention to create a trust, which were absent in this case. Quoting the RTC with approval, the CA noted that the contract of deposit was only between PALII in its own capacity and UCPB, and the words "ITF HEIRS" were insufficient to establish the existence of a trust. The CA concluded that as no trust existed, expressly or impliedly, UCPB is not liable for the amount withdrawn.

The petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this appeal.

The petitioner argues in his petition that: first, an express trust was created. In so doing, the petitioner emphasizes that from the established definition of a trust, PALII is clearly the trustor as it created the trust; UCPB is the trustee as it is the party in whom confidence is reposed as regards the property for the benefit of another; and the HEIRS are the beneficiaries as they are the persons for whose benefit the trust is created. Also, quoting Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, the petitioner argues that the naming of the cestui que trust is not necessary as it suffices that they are adequately certain or identifiable.

Second, UCPB was negligent and in bad faith in allowing the withdrawal and in failing to inquire into the nature of the ACCOUNT. Finally, the CA erred in affirming the RTCs dismissal of his case for lack of cause of action. The petitioner insists that since an express trust clearly exists, UCPB, the trustee, should not have allowed the withdrawal.

UCPB posits, in defense, that the ACCOUNT involves an ordinary deposit contract between PALII and UCPB only, which created a debtor-creditor relationship obligating UCPB to return the proceeds to the account holder-PALII. Thus, it was not negligent in handling the ACCOUNT when it allowed the withdrawal. The mere designation of the ACCOUNT as "ITF" is insufficient to establish the existence of an express trust or charge it with knowledge of the relation between PALII and the HEIRS.

UCPB also argues that contrary to the petitioners assertion, the records failed to show that PALII and UCPB executed a trust agreement, and PALIIs letters made it clear that PALII, on its own, intended to turn-over the proceeds of the ACCOUNT to its rightful owners.

Issue: Whether there existed, as between the parties, a trust agreement.

Held: A trust, either express or implied, is the fiduciary relationship "x x x between one person having an equitable ownership of property and another person owning the legal title to such property, the equitable ownership of the former entitling him to the performance of certain duties and the exercise of certain powers by the latter." Express or direct trusts are created by the direct and positive acts of the trustor or of the parties. No written words are required to create an express trust. This is clear from Article 1444 of the Civil Code, but, the creation of an express trust must be firmly shown; it cannot be assumed from loose and vague declarations or circumstances capable of other interpretations.

In Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. CA, we laid down the requirements before an express trust will be recognized:

Basically, these elements include a competent trustor and trustee, an ascertainable trust res, and sufficiently certain beneficiaries. xxx each of the above elements is required to be established, and, if any one of them is missing, it is fatal to the trusts (sic). Furthermore, there must be a present and complete disposition of the trust property, notwithstanding that the enjoyment in the beneficiary will take place in the future. It is essential, too, that the purpose be an active one to prevent trust from being executed into a legal estate or interest, and one that is not in contravention of some prohibition of statute or rule of public policy. There must also be some power of administration other than a mere duty to perform a contract although the contract is for a thirdparty beneficiary. A declaration of terms is essential, and these must be stated with reasonable certainty in order that the trustee may administer, and that the court, if called upon so to do, may enforce, the trust. [emphasis ours]

Under these standards, we hold that no express trust was created. First, while an ascertainable trust res and sufficiently certain beneficiaries may exist, a competent trustor and trustee do not. Second, UCPB, as trustee of the ACCOUNT, was never under any equitable duty to deal with or given any power of administration over it. On the contrary, it was PALII that undertook the duty to hold the title to the ACCOUNT for the benefit of the HEIRS. Third, PALII, as the trustor, did not have the right to the beneficial enjoyment of the ACCOUNT. Finally, the terms by which UCPB is to administer the ACCOUNT was not shown with reasonable certainty. While we agree with the petitioner that a trusts beneficiaries need not be particularly identified for a trust to exist, the intention to create an express trust must first be firmly established, along with the other elements laid above; absent these, no express trust exists.

Contrary to the petitioners contention, PALIIs letters and UCPBs records established UCPBs participation as a mere depositary of the proceeds of the investment. In the March 28, 1996 letter, PALII manifested its intention to pursue an active role in and up to the turnover of those proceeds to their rightful owners, while in the November 15, 1996 letter, PALII begged the petitioner to trust it with the safekeeping of the investment proceeds and documents. Had it been PALIIs intention to create a trust in favor of the HEIRS, it would have relinquished any right or claim over the proceeds in UCPBs favor as the trustee. As matters stand, PALII never did.

UCPBs records and the testimony of UCPBs witness likewise lead us to the same conclusion. While the words "ITF HEIRS" may have created the impression that a trust account was created, a closer scrutiny reveals that it is an ordinary savings account. We give credence to UCPBs explanation that the word "ITF" was merely used to distinguish the ACCOUNT from PALIIs other accounts with UCPB. A trust can be created without using the word "trust" or "trustee," but the mere use of these words does not automatically reveal an intention to create a trust. If at all, these words showed a trustee-beneficiary relationship between PALII and the HEIRS.

Contrary to the petitioners position, UCPB did not become a trustee by the mere opening of the ACCOUNT. While this may seem to be the case, by reason of the fiduciary nature of the banks relationship with its depositors, this fiduciary relationship does not "convert the contract between the bank and its depositors from a simple loan to a trust agreement, whether express or implied." It simply means that the bank is obliged to observe "high standards of integrity and performance" in complying with its obligations under the contract of simple loan. Per Article 1980 of the Civil Code, a creditor-debtor relationship exists between the bank and its depositor. The savings deposit agreement is between the bank and the depositor; by receiving the deposit, the bank impliedly agrees to pay upon demand and only upon the depositors order.

Since the records and the petitioners own admission showed that the ACCOUNT was opened by PALII, UCPBs receipt of the deposit signified that it agreed to pay PALII upon its demand and only upon its order. Thus, when UCPB allowed PALII to withdraw from the ACCOUNT, it was merely performing its contractual obligation under their savings deposit agreement. No negligence or bad faith can be imputed to UCPB for this action. As far as UCPB was concerned, PALII is the account holder and not the HEIRS. As we held in Falton Iron Works Co. v. China Banking Corporation. the banks duty is to its creditor-depositor and not to third persons. Third persons, like the HEIRS here, who may have a right to the money deposited, cannot hold the bank responsible unless there is a court order or garnishment. The petitioners recourse is to go before a court of competent jurisdiction to prove his valid right over the money deposited.

Figuracion v. Figuracion-Gerilla

G.R. No. 151334, February 13, 2013J. Reyes (1st Division)

Facts: The parties are the heirs of Leandro Figuracion who died intestate in May 1958. Petitioner Carolina is the surviving spouse. The other petitioners Elena Figuracion-Ancheta, Hilaria A. Figuracion, Felipa Figuracion-Manuel, Quintin Figuracion, and Mary Figuracion-Ginez; and respondent Emilia were Carolina and Leandros children.

Subject of the dispute are two parcels of land both situated in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, which were acquired by Leandro during his lifetime. Leandro executed a Deed of Quitclaim over the real properties in favor of his six (6) children on August 23, 1955. Their shares, however, were not delineated with particularity because spouses Leandro and Carolina reserved the lots and its fruits for their expenses.

Also involved in the controversy is another lot originally owned by Eulalio Adviento. Eulalio begot Agripina Adviento with his first wife Marcela Estioko, whom Eulalio survived. When he remarried, Eulalio had another daughter, herein petitioner Carolina, with his second wife, Faustina Escabesa.

On November 28, 1961, Agripina executed a Deed of Quitclaim over the eastern half of the lot in favor of her niece, herein respondent Emilia.

Soon thereafter or on December 11, 1962, petitioner Carolina executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication adjudicating unto herself the entire Lot No. 707 as the sole and exclusive heir of her deceased parents, Eulalio and Faustina. On the same date, Carolina also executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot No. 707 in favor of petitioners Hilaria and Felipa, who in turn immediately caused the cancellation of OCT No. 15867 and the issuance of TCT No. 42244 in their names.

In 1971, Emilia and her family went to the United States and returned to the Philippines only in 1981. Upon her return and relying on the Deed of Quitclaim, she built a house on the eastern half of Lot No. 707.

The legal debacle of the Figuracions started in 1994 when Hilaria and her agents threatened to demolish the house of Emilia who, in retaliation, was prompted to seek the partition of the lots. The matter was initially brought before the Katarungang Pambarangay, but no amicable settlement was reached by the parties. On May 23, 1994, respondent Emilia instituted the herein Complaint for, among others, the reconveyance of the eastern half portion of Lot No. 707, quieting of title and damages.

On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the RTC rendered its Decision dismissing the complaint for partition, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages while declaring the affidavit of self-adjudication, deed of sale and the transfer certificate of title involving Lot 707 null and void.

Anent Lot No. 707, the RTC held that petitioner Carolina transferred only her one-half () share to Felipa and Hilaria and any conveyance of the other half pertaining to Agripina was void. While the RTC nullified the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT No. 42244, it refused to adjudicate the ownership of the lots eastern half portion in favor of respondent Emilia since a settlement of the estate of Eulalio is yet to be undertaken.

Respondent Emilia appealed to the CA, which, in its Decision dated December 11, 2001, ruled that the RTC erred in refusing to partition Lot No. 707. The CA explained that there is no necessity for placing Lot No. 707 under judicial administration since Carolina had long sold her pro indiviso share to Felipa and Hilaria. Thus, when Carolina sold the entire Lot No. 707 on December 11, 1962 as her own, the sale affected only her share and not that belonging to her co-owner, Agripina. The proper action in such case is not the nullification of the sale, or for the recovery of possession of the property owned in common from the third person, but for a division or partition of the entire lot. Such partition should result in segregating the portion belonging to the seller and its delivery to the buyer.

Respondent Emilia appealed the CAs decision to the Court. The Court denied the appeal, concurring with the CAs ruling that a partition of Lot Nos. 2299 and 705 would be inappropriate considering that: (1) the ownership of Lot No. 705 is still in dispute; and (2) there are still unresolved issues as to the expenses chargeable to the estate of Leandro.

Thus, this present appeal.

Held: The first stage in an action for partition is the settlement of the issue of ownership. Such an action will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest in the subject property. In fact, the parties filing the action are required by the Rules of Court to set forth in their complaint the nature and the extent of their title to the property. It would be premature to effect a partition until and unless the question of ownership is first definitely resolved.

Here, the respondent traces her ownership over the eastern half of Lot No. 707 from the Deed of Quitclaim executed by Agripina, who in turn, was the co-owner thereof being one of the legitimate heirs of Eulalio. It is well to recall that the petitioners failed to categorically dispute the existence of the Deed of Quitclaim. Instead, they averred that it has been rendered ineffective by TCT No. 42244 in the name of Felipa and Hilariathis contention is, of course, flawed.

Mere issuance of a certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under coownership with persons not named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee, or that other parties may have acquired interest over the property subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. Stated differently, placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. The certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. In this case, co-ownership of Lot No. 707 was precisely what respondent Emilia was able to successfully establish, as correctly found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.

The status of Agripina and Carolina as the legitimate heirs of Eulalio is an undisputed fact. As such heirs, they became co-owners of Lot No. 707 upon the death of Eulalio on July 20, 1930. Since Faustina was predeceased by Eulalio, she likewise became a co-owner of the lot upon Eulalios death. Faustinas share, however, passed on to her daughter Carolina when the former died on October 18, 1949. The Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by Carolina did not prejudice the share of Agripina because it is not legally possible for one to adjudicate unto himself an entire property he was not the sole owner of. A co-owner cannot alienate the shares of her other co-owners nemo dat qui non habet.

Hence, Lot No. 707 was a co-owned property of Agripina and Carolina. As co-owners, each of them had full ownership of her part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. Each of them also had the right to alienate the lot but only in so far as the extent of her portion was affected.

Thus, when Carolina sold the entire Lot No. 707 on December 11, 1962 to Hilaria and Felipa without the consent of her co-owner Agripina, the disposition affected only Carolinas pro indiviso share, and the vendees, Hilaria and Felipa, acquired only what corresponds to Carolinas share. A co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share; hence, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void and only the rights of the co-owner/seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.

Accordingly, the deed of sale executed by Carolina in favor of Hilaria and Felipa was a valid conveyance but only insofar as the share of Carolina in the co-ownership is concerned. As Carolinas successors-in-interest to the property, Hilaria and Felipa could not acquire any superior right in the property than what Carolina is entitled to or could transfer or alienate after partition.

In a contract of sale of co-owned property, what the vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner, and the vendee merely steps into the shoes of the vendor as co-owner. Hilaria and Felipa did not acquire the undivided portion pertaining to Agripina, which has already been effectively bequeathed to respondent Emilia as early as November 28, 1961 thru the Deed of Quitclaim. In turn, being the successor-in-interest of Agripinas share in Lot No. 707, respondent Emilia took the formers place in the co-ownership and as such co-owner, has the right to compel partition at any time.

Spouses Dela Cruz v. Planters Products, Inc.

G.R. No. 158649, February 18, 2013J. Bersamin (1st Division)

Facts: Spouses Quirino V. Dela Cruz and Gloria Dela Cruz, petitioners herein, operated the Barangay Agricultural Supply, an agricultural supply store in Aliaga, Nueva Ecija engaged in the distribution and sale of fertilizers and agricultural chemical products, among others. At the time material to the case, Quirino, a lawyer, was the Municipal Mayor of Aliaga, Nueva Ecija.

On March 23, 1978, Gloria applied for and was granted by respondent Planters Products, Inc. (PPI) a regular credit line of P200,000.00 for a 60- day term, with trust receipts as collaterals. On August 28, 1978, Gloria signed in the presence of the PPI distribution officer/assistant sales representative two documents labelled "Trust Receipt/Special Credit Scheme," indicating the invoice number, quantity, value, and names of the agricultural inputs she received "upon the trust" of PPI. Gloria thereby subscribed to specific undertakings.

The products were released to Gloria under the supervision of Cristina G. Llanera of PPI.

The 60-day credit term lapsed without Gloria paying her obligation under the Trust Receipt/SCS. Hence, PPI wrote collection letters to her which received no response from her. A follow-up letter culminated in the final demand letter of May 30, 1980 from Atty. R. M. Rivera, PPI Collection Officer, stating that the total accountability of Gloria as of April 25, 1980 was P156,755.00 "plus interest, service charges, and penalty charges," all of which she should pay by June 18, 1980. PPI warned that should she fail to do so, PPI would file the "necessary civil and criminal cases" against her "based on the Trust Receipts."

Thus, on November 17, 1981, PPI brought against Quirino and Gloria a complaint for the recovery of a sum of money with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. PPI alleged that Gloria had violated the "fiduciary undertaking in the Trust Receipt agreement covering product withdrawals under the Special Credit Scheme which were subsequently charged to defendant dealers regular credit line; therefore, she is guilty of fraudulently misapplying or converting to her own use the items delivered to her as contained in the invoices." It charged that Gloria did not return the goods indicated in the invoices and did not remit the proceeds of sales.

PPI prayed for judgment holding the petitioners liable for the principal amount of P161,203.60 as of October 25, 1981, "inclusive of interest and service charges"; additional "daily interest of P80.60 from October 26, 1981 until fully paid"; and 20% of the total amount due as attorneys fees. As of July 9, 1985, the statement of account showed a grand total liability of P240,355.10.

In her answer, the petitioners alleged that Gloria was only a marketing outlet of PPI under its SCS Program, not a dealer primarily obligated to PPI for the products delivered to her; that she had not collected from the farmers participating in the SCS Program because of the October 27-28, 1979 typhoon Kading that had destroyed the participating farmers crops; and that she had paid P50,000.00 to PPI despite the failure of the farmers to pay.

The trial court rendered its judgment ordering the petitioners "to pay the plaintiff the amount of P240,335.10 plus 16% interest per annum commencing from July 9, 1985 until fully paid and the sum of P20,000.00 as attorneys fees and cost of litigation."

The RTC found that based on the terms and conditions of the SCS Program, a creditor-debtor relationship was created between Gloria and PPI; that her liability was predicated on Section 4 of the Trust Receipts Law (Presidential Decree No. 115) and on the ruling in Robles v. Court of Appeals to the effect that the failure of the entrustee (Gloria) to turn over to the entruster (plaintiff) the proceeds of the sale of goods covered by the delivery trust receipts or to return the goods constituted estafa punishable under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code; and that the petitioners could not use as a defense the occurrence of typhoon Kading because there was no privity of contract between the participating farmers and PPI.

The petitioners appealed to the CA, who affirmed the judgment of the RTC.

The CA held the petitioners liable to PPI "for the value of the fertilizers and agricultural chemical products covered by the trust receipts" because a creditor-debtor relationship existed between the parties when, pursuant to the credit line of P200,000.00 and the SCS Program, the petitioners "withdrew several fertilizers and agricultural chemical products on credit;" that the petitioners then came under obligation to pay the equivalent value of the withdrawn goods, "or to return the undelivered and/or unused products within the specified period.

In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners mainly contended that the farmers as participants in the SCS, not Gloria, were liable because the inputs had been delivered to them; that such was the tenor of the demand letters they had sent to the farmers; that PPI would not have made a second delivery if it had not been satisfied that they (petitioners) had delivered the products to the farmers, who, however, had not paid their "loan" because of typhoon Kading destroying their crops; that in the aftermath of the typhoon, PPI representatives led by one Noel David had inspected the Municipality of Aliaga, and had forged an agreement with the petitioners whereby they bound themselves to help PPI "in collecting from the farmers in the succeeding palay crop their indebtedness;" and that PPI had subsequently made them the "principal debtor" notwithstanding that they had not incurred any account with PPI because all the transactions had been "on a cash on delivery basis or cash withdrawal basis."

On June 9, 2003, the CA denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, the petitioners are now before the Court via their petition for review on certiorari.

Held: If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. In determining their intention, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.

A close look at the Trust Receipt/SCS indicates that the farmer-participants were mentioned therein only with respect to the duties and responsibilities that Gloria personally assumed to undertake in holding goods "in trust for PPI." Under the notion of relativity of contracts embodied in Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs. Hence, the farmer-participants, not being themselves parties to the contractual documents signed by Gloria, were not to be thereby liable.

At this juncture, the Court clarifies that the contract, its label notwithstanding, was not a trust receipt transaction in legal contemplation or within the purview of the Trust Receipts Law (Presidential Decree No. 115) such that its breach would render Gloria criminally liable for estafa. Under Section 4 of the Trust Receipts Law, the sale of goods by a person in the business of selling goods for profit who, at the outset of the transaction, has, as against the buyer, general property rights in such goods, or who sells the goods to the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price, does not constitute a trust receipt transaction and is outside the purview and coverage of the law, to wit:

Section. 4. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction. A trust receipt transaction, within the meaning of this Decree, is any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as the entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latters execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a "trust receipt" wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially equivalent to any of the following:

1. In the case of goods or documents, (a) to sell the goods or procure their sale; or (b) to manufacture or process the goods with the purpose of ultimate sale: Provided, That, in the case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before its ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its title over the goods whether in its original or processed form until the entrustee has complied fully with his obligation under the trust receipt; or (c) to load, unload, ship or tranship or otherwise deal with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to their sale; or

2. In case of instruments x x x.

The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling goods, documents or instruments for profit who, at the outset of the transaction, has, as against the buyer, general property rights in such goods, documents or instruments, or who sells the same to the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as security for the payment of the purchase price, does not constitute a trust receipt transaction and is outside the purview and coverage of this Decree. (Bold emphasis supplied.)

In Land Bank v. Perez, the Court has elucidated on the coverage of Section 4, supra, to wit:

There are two obligations in a trust receipt transaction. The first is covered by