82

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals No.L45510.May27,1986.*

BERNARDO B. LEGASPI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALSandLEONARDOB.SALCEDO,respondents.

Civil Law; Property; Sales; Tender of payment, concept of; Consignation, definition and nature of.Tenderofpaymentisthe manifestation made by the debtor to the creditor of his desire to complywithhisobligation,withtheofferofimmediateperformance.
_______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

83

VOL.142,MAY27,1986 Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

83

(Tolentino,CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.IV[1985]).Generally, it is an act preparatory to consignation as an attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation.(8Manresa325).Consignationistheactofdepositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditorcannotacceptorrefusestoacceptpaymentanditgenerally requires a prior tender of payment. (Limkako v. Teodoro, 74 Phil. 313).Ininstanceswherenodebtisdueandowing,consignationis notproper.(AsturiasSugarCentralv.PureCaneMolassesCo.,60 Phil.255) Same; Same; Same; Same; Right of repurchase; Valid tender of payment sufficient.Since the case at bar involves the exercise of

the right to repurchase, a showing that petitioner made a valid tender of payment is sufficient. It is enough that a sincere or genuine tender of payment and not a mock or deceptive one was made. The fact that he deposited the amount of the repurchase moneywiththeClerkofCourtwassimplyanadditionalsecurityfor thepetitioner.Itwasnotanessentialactthathadtobeperformed after tender of payment was refused by the private respondent althoughitmayservetoindicatetheveracityofthedesiretocomply withtheobligation. Same; Same; Same; Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Findings of fact of trial court; Erroneous for the appellate court to reverse the factual findings of the trial court that the valid tender of payment of the repurchase was seasonably made.Ontheissueofwhetherornotthetenderofpaymentinthe manner described by the petitioner resulted in the exercise of the righttorepurchase,werulethatitwaserroneousonthepartofthe respondentcourttoreversethefactualfindingofthetrialcourtthat avalidtenderofpaymentwasmadeseasonably.Therecordsdonot showthatthisfindingisgroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmises, orconjectures. Same; Same; Same; Consignation; Discrepancy regarding the time of the consignation, not substantial in case at bar.One reason emphasized by the respondent for reversing the factual findingsofthetrialcourtwasadiscrepancyregardingthetimethe consignationwasmade.Wasitmadeat10:00oclockinthemorning or3:00oclockintheafternoon?Thediscrepancyisnotsubstantial. Itisplausiblethateitherthepetitionerorthecourtemployeecould not correctly recall the exact time, about one year later, when an official transaction was performed on a given day. There is no discrepancy in the date that consignation was effected. Moreover, thereisanofficialreceiptevidencingthetransaction.
84

84

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Remedial Law; Evidence; Public Documents; Evidentiary nature of public documents.The evidentiary nature of public documents must be sustained in the absence of strong, complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity.(Martin,RulesofCourt,withNotesandComments,Vol.V, [1974], citing Robinson v. Villafuerte, 18 Phil. 171; Sy Tiangco v.

Pablo, 59 Phil. 119; De Jesus v. Grey, 59 Phil. 834; El Hogar Filipinov.Olviga,60Phil.17). Same; Same; Same; Same; Right of repurchase was seasonably exercised, a valid tender of payment having been clearly manifested.The records, therefore, show that the right of repurchase was seasonably exercised. The records clearly manifest that the petitioner was able to make a valid tender of payment on the 14th of October 1970 by offering personally the amount of P25,000.00 to the private respondent who refused to accept it claiming that the money was devalued. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the private respondent that he would be depositing the same amount with the proper court, (tsn., pp. 6 & 9, February 8, 1972hearing).Thetrialcourtcorrectlyruledthattherewasproper exercise of the right to repurchase within the fiveyear period not for the reason that the deposit of the repurchase money amounted toatenderofpaymentbutforwhattheevidencesubmittedbeforeit proved. Same; Same; Same; Damages; Award of moral, punitive, exemplary, and corrective damages, deleted for lack of proof; Devaluation; Mere refusal to accept the repurchase money due to devaluation of the peso, did not amount to bad faith.As regards theawardofmoral,punitive,exemplaryandcorrectivedamagesin the amount of P20,000.00 made by the trial court, the award is deletedforwantofsufficientprooftojustifyit.Themererefusalto accept the repurchase money on the ground that the value of the peso had devalued did not amount to bad faith which would warrantthepaymentofthesedamagesbytheprivaterespondent.

APPEALbycertiorarifromthedecisionoftheCourtof Appeals. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.: This is an appeal by way of certiorari from the decision of thethenCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.No.53947Randfrom
85

VOL.142,MAY27,1986 Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

85

the resolution denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration.

OnFebruary8,1971,theplaintiffnowpetitionerfileda complaint with the Court of First Instance of Cavite, docketed as Civil Case No. N1595 for reconveyance to enforcehisrighttorepurchasetwoparcelsofland,LotsNos. 3962and3963oftheImusEstatecoveredbyTCTNos.T 4388 and T4389, respectively, which he sold to the defendant,nowprivaterespondent,pursuanttoasalewith pacto de retroasevidencedbyaDeedofSalewiththeRight to Repurchase dated October 15, 1965 and marked as ExhibitA. The complaint alleged, among others, that Bernardo B. Legaspi is the registered owner of the aforementioned two parcelsoflandwhichhesoldtohissoninlaw,LeonardoB. Salcedo,onOctober15,1965forthesumofP25,000.00with therighttorepurchasethesamewithinfiveyearsfromthe executionofthedeedofsale;thatbeforetheexpirydateof the repurchase period which was on October 15, 1970, Legaspi offered and tendered to Salcedo the sum of P25,000.00 for the repurchase of the two parcels of land; thatthetenderofpaymentwasrefusedbySalcedowithout justifiableorlegalcause;thatSalcedorefusedtoconveythe properties to Legaspi as requested by the latter; that on October 15, 1970, Legaspi deposited in the Office of the ClerkofCourtofFirstInstanceofCaviteCitytheamountof P25,125.00 as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 2698797k markedasExhibitB;thatdespiteearnesteffortstowards a compromise after consignation of the repurchase money hadbeenmade,Salcedorefusedtoreconveytheproperties inquestion. In his answer with compulsory counterclaim, Salcedo alleged, among others, that he denies that Legaspi ever offered and tendered to him the sum of P25,000.00 or requested the execution of the corresponding deed of reconveyance;thatwhatactuallytranspiredonOctober15, 1970 was that Legaspi asked for an extension of one year withinwhichtorepurchasethetwoparcelsoflandbringing with him a document entitled Extension Period to RepurchasemarkedasExhibit1whichSalcedodeclined to sign; and that Salcedo also denies that earnest efforts towardsacompromisewerepursuedby
86

86

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

Legaspi for the latter merely proposed for an extension of one year of the right to repurchase. By way of special defense, Salcedo claimed that Legaspi was no longer entitledtorepurchasethepropertiesinquestionforfailure to exercise his right within the stipulated period in accordancewithArticle1250oftheCivilCodeunderwhich Salcedo maintained he was entitled to the payment of P42,250.00 instead of only P25,000.00. Article 1250 of the CivilCodeprovidesasfollows:
In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time oftheestablishmentoftheobligationshallbethebasisofpayment, unlessthereisanagreementtothecontrary.

The lower court, after trial, rendered a decision, the dispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisfortheplaintiffwhoretainsownership ofLotsNos.3962and3963oftheImusEstatecoveredbyTCTNos. T3488 and T3489, respectively, of the Registry of Deeds for the ProvinceofCavitebyautomaticoperationoflawwhenpaymentof the obligation has been effected by depositing the whole amount with the Clerk of Court in spite of the refusal to receive the same under the allegation that the plaintiff must be obliged to pay P17,250.00bywayofinterestordevaluationwhereinacaseofthis nature, sale with right to repurchase, interest has no place in its scheme; and the defendant is hereby ordered to deliver these two lotsimmediatelyuponreceiptofthisdecisiontotheplaintiffasthey shouldhavedoneonOctober15,1970whichinbadfaiththeyhave been avoiding using all kinds of tricks to frustrate the payment of thesaidobligationandforwhichtheyshouldbemadetoanswerfor damages as consequences of bad faith; the defendant to pay unto the plaintiff the sum of P10,500.00 yearly from October 15, 1970 until the delivery of these two lots to the plaintiff value of the produce of the said two lots which have been retained by the defendant, yearly, from October 15, 1970 when they should have madephysicaldeliveryofthesetwolotsbyreasonofthepaymentof thepriceofthesaidtwolotsappearinginthedeedofsalewithright to repurchase; defendant further to pay to the plaintiff by way of moral, punitive, exemplary, and corrective damages in the amount of P20,000.00; P2,000.00 for attorneys fees, plus the costs of this proceedings.Thecounterclaimisherebydismissed;andtheRegister ofDeeds,CaviteProvinceis
87

VOL.142,MAY27,1986 Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

87

hereby ordered to cancel the annotation of the sale with pacto de retro dated October 1, 1965 upon the ground that the repurchase thereinmentionedwaseffectedlegallyonOctober15,1970,inspite of defendants refusal to allow plaintiff to exercise his right to repurchasereservedtoplaintiffinthedocument.

Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsreversedthedecisionand dismissedthecomplaintholdingthat:
x x x [T]he appellee never made a valid tender of payment that amounted to a lawful exercise of the right to repurchase the property involved in the instant case. Neither was a valid consignationmadeseasonablyincourtoftheamountofP25,000.00 withwhichtomaketherepurchase.

Amotionforreconsiderationwasdenied.Hence,thisappeal bycertiorari. ThepetitionerassailsthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals first,onthegroundthattherespondentcourtdepartedfrom the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings contrary to the wellsettled rule that as to the matter of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court cannot substituteitsowndiscretionwiththatofthelowercourtfor the latter court is in a better position to gauge such credibilityofwitnesses;andsecondlyonthegroundthatthe respondent court committed a patent error in law and jurisprudence by virtue of its conclusion that no valid consignation was seasonably made of the amount of P25,000.00withwhichtomaketherepurchasedespitethe OfficialReceiptoftheClerkofCourtevidencingthedeposit ofsaidamountonthelastdayoftherepurchaseperiod,that is,onOctober15,1970. Theonlyissuecrucialtothepresentappealiswhetheror notthepetitionervalidlyexercisedhisrighttorepurchase the properties within the fiveyear period as stipulated in the sale with pacto de retro entered into between the petitioner as vendor a retro and private respondent as vendee a retro.Toresolvethisissue,wedeterminewhether it was correct for the respondent court to disturb the findingsoffactmadebythetrialcourtinitsconclusionthat therewastenderofpaymentwithintheredemptionperiod.
88

88

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

Tenderofpaymentisthemanifestationmadebythedebtor to the creditor of his desire to comply with his obligation, with the offer of immediate performance. (Tolentino, Civil CodeofthePhilippines,Vol.IV[1985]).Generally,itisan act preparatory to consignation as an attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation. (8 Manresa 325). Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses toacceptpaymentanditgenerallyrequiresapriortenderof payment.(Limkako v. Teodoro,74 Phil. 313). In instances wherenodebtisdueandowing,consignationisnotproper. (AsturiasSugarCentralv.PureCaneMolassesCo.,60Phil. 255)Wehaveearlyheldthat:
Consignationisnotrequiredtopreservetherightofrepurchaseas ameretenderofpaymentisenoughifmadeontimeasabasisfor an action to compel the vendee a retro to resell the property. (Villegasv.Capistrano,9Phil.416;Rosalesv.Reyes,etal.,25Phil. 495;Paez,etal.v.Magno,46O.G.p.5425).

Since the case at bar involves the exercise of the right to repurchase,ashowingthatpetitionermadeavalidtenderof paymentissufficient.Itisenoughthatasincereorgenuine tender of payment and not a mock or deceptive one was made. The fact that he deposited the amount of the repurchase money with the Clerk of Court was simply an additionalsecurityforthepetitioner.Itwasnotanessential act that had to be performed after tender of payment was refusedbytheprivaterespondentalthoughitmayserveto indicate the veracity of the desire to comply with the obligation. Ontheissueofwhetherornotthetenderofpaymentin the manner described by the petitioner resulted in the exercise of the right to repurchase, we rule that it was erroneousonthepartoftherespondentcourttoreversethe factual finding of the trial court that a valid tender of payment was made seasonably. The records do not show that this finding is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises,orconjectures. Onereasonemphasizedbytherespondentforreversing the factual findings of the trial court was a discrepancy

regardingthetimetheconsignationwasmade.Wasitmade at10:00
89

VOL.142,MAY27,1986 Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

89

oclockinthemorningor3:00oclockintheafternoon?The discrepancyisnotsubstantial.Itisplausiblethateitherthe petitioner or the court employee could not correctly recall the exact time, about one year later, when an official transaction was performed on a given day. There is no discrepancy in the date that consignation was effected. Moreover, there is an official receipt evidencing the transaction. Weapplythefollowing:
Sec. 20. Public and private writings.The following writings are public: (a) The written acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of the Philippines,orofaforeigncountry; xxxxxxxxx (Rule132,RulesofCourt.) xxxxxxxxx xxx[A]nyinstrumentauthorizedbyacompetentofficialwiththe solemnitiesrequiredbylawisapublicdocument.xxx[A]nofficial receiptprintedinaccordancewiththestandardformsrequiredby thegovernmentisapublicdocument.(U.S.v.Asensi,34Phil.750, 757,758,citingCacniov.Baens,5Phil.742;andU.S.v.VyGuico, 12Phil.209). The evidentiary nature of public documents must be sustained intheabsenceofstrong,completeandconclusiveproofofitsfalsity ornullity.(Martin,RulesofCourt,withNotesandComments,Vol. V,[1974],citingRobinsonv.Villafuerte,18Phil.171;SyTiangcov. Pablo, 59 Phil. 119; De Jesus v. Grey, 59 Phil. 834; El Hogar Filipinov.Olviga,60Phil.17). Thelawreposesaparticularconfidenceinpublicofficersthatit presumestheywilldischargetheirseveraltrustswithaccuracyand

fidelity; and, therefore, whatever acts they do in the discharge of theirpublicdutymaybegiveninevidenceandshallbetakentobe true under such a degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each case may appear to require. (Antillon v. Barcelona,37Phil.148,152).

The alleged correction in the official receipt was not made by the petitioner but by the cashier of the Court of First Instance
90

90

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

whoreceivedthemoney.Thewifeoftheprivaterespondent alsotestifiedthatonOctober12,1970orthreedaysbefore the expiry date, the petitioner and his son went to the respondentshousetorepurchasethelots.Therespondents lettertothepetitionerslawyeronNovember3,1970shows that the offer to repurchase the property was rejected because the petitioner could not pay an additional P17,250.00 on top of the repurchase price. Paragraph 6 of the respondents answer to the complaint states as an AffirmativeandSpecialDefense,thefollowing:
xxxxxxxxx 6. That if at all plaintiff would be entitled to repurchase the said properties, he should pay the defendant the sum of P42,250.00 in accordance with Art. 1250 of the New Civil Code and upon failure to do so, defendant is entitled to an order of this Honorable Court to have his ownership over the said properties consolidated and the said properties registered in his name in accordance with Art. 1607 of the NewCivilCode.

The records, therefore, show that the right of repurchase wasseasonablyexercised.Therecordsclearlymanifestthat the petitioner was able to make a valid tender of payment on the 14th of October 1970 by offering personally the amountofP25,000.00totheprivaterespondentwhorefused to accept it claiming that the money was devalued. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the private respondent that he would be depositing the same amount with the propercourt,(tsn.,pp.6&9,February8,1972hearing).The

trialcourtcorrectlyruledthattherewasproperexerciseof the right to repurchase within the fiveyear period not for the reason that the deposit of the repurchase money amountedtoatenderofpaymentbutforwhattheevidence submittedbeforeitproved.Theappellatecourterredwhen itdidnotapplythewellaccepteddoctrinethat:
Conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case. (Chase v. Buencamino,
91

VOL.142,MAY27,1986 Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

Sr.,130SCRA365)

91

As regards the award of moral, punitive, exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of P20,000.00 made by the trial court, the award is deleted for want of sufficient prooftojustifyit.Themererefusaltoaccepttherepurchase money on the ground that the value of the peso had devalueddidnotamounttobadfaithwhichwouldwarrant thepaymentofthesedamagesbytheprivaterespondent. WHEREFORE, the decision of the former Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofCavite,7thJudicial District, Branch III is REINSTATED but MODIFIED by thedeletionoftheawardofP20,000.00formoral,punitive, exemplaryandcorrectivedamages.Inallotherrespects,the trialcourtsdecisionisAFFIRMED.Nocosts. SOORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampayand Paras, JJ., concur. Decision reversed and set aside. Notes.Statement in Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase that vendors borrowed from the vendees the fundsusedinbuyingthelandfromtheoriginalownermade by the former indicates that real transaction is equitable

mortgage.(Bundalian vs. Court of Appeals,129SCRA645.) The deed of sale and deed of option to purchase the propertyatherareinrealityanequitablemortgage,asthey were signed on the same day. The subsequent sale of the propertytovendeearetrosbrotheranditsregistrationon same day indicates said sale not bona fide. (Capulong vs. Court of Appeals,130SCRA245.) o0o
92

Copyright 2013 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.