Gonzales v. Haberer

GUADALUPE GONZ ALES, ET AL vs . E. J.
HABERER
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 22604. February 3, 1925.]
GUADALUPE GONZALES and LUIS GOMEZ , plaintiffs-appellants, vs . E.
J. HABERER , defendant-appellee.
Feria & La O for appellants.

Paredes, Buencamino & Yulo for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1.
REAL PROPERTY; CONTRACT TO SELL; INABILITY TO PLACE VENDOR IN
POSSESSION GROUND FOR RESCISSION. A contract for the sale of land which
provides that the purchaser "shall have the right to take possession of the aforesaid
land immediately after the execution of this document, together with all the
improvements now existing on the same land, such as palay plantations and others"
renders it incumbent upon the vendor to place the purchaser in possession and his
inability to do so constitutes a breach of the contract sufficient to justify its rescission.
2.
ID.; ID.; MISREPRESENTATIONS BY VENDOR'S AGENT. Where a sale of
land is effected on the strength of misrepresentations of the agent of the vendor, the
latter cannot accept the benefit of such representations and at the same time deny the
responsibility for them.
DECISION
OSTRAND , J :
p
This action is brought to recover the sum of P34,260 alleged to be due the
plaintiffs from the defendant upon a written agreement for the sale of a tract of land
situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija. The plaintiffs also ask for damages in the sum
of P10,000 for the alleged failure of the defendant to comply with his part of the
agreement.
The defendant in his answer admits that of the purchase price stated in the
agreement a balance of P31,000 remains unpaid, but by way of special defense, crosscomplaint and counter-claim alleges that at the time of entering into the contract the
plaintiffs through false representations lead him to believe that they were in possession
of the land and that the title to the greater portion thereof was not in dispute; that on
seeking to obtain possession he found that practically the entire area of the land was
occupied by adverse claimants and the title thereto disputed; that he consequently has
been unable to obtain possession of the land; and that the plaintiffs have made no
efforts to prosecute the proceedings for the registration of the land. He therefore asks
that the contract be rescinded; that the plaintiffs be ordered to return to him the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016
cdasiaonline.com
P30,000 already paid by him to them and to pay P25,000 as damages for breach of the
contract.
The court below dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, declared the contract
rescinded and void and gave the defendant judgment upon his counterclaim for the
sum of P30,000, with interest from the date upon which the judgment becomes nal.
The case is now before this court upon appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment.
The contract in question reads as follows:
"Know all men by these presents:
"That I, Guadalupe Gonzalez y Morales de Gomez, married with Luis
Gomez, of age, and resident of the municipality of Bautista, Province of
Pangasinan, Philippine Islands, do hereby state:
"1.
That I am the absolute and exclusive owner of a parcel of land
situated in the barrio of Partida, municipality of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, described
as follows:
"Bounded on the north by the land of Don Marcelino Santos; on the east, by
the land of Dona Cristina Gonzalez; on the south by the Binituan River; and on the
west, by the land of Dona Ramona Gonzalez; containing an area of 488 hectares
approximately.
"2.
That an application was filed for the registration of the above
described land in the registry of property of Nueva Ecija, which application is still
pending in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
"3.
That in consideration of the sum of P125 per hectare I do hereby
agree and bind myself to sell and transfer by way of real and absolute sale the
land above described to Mr. E. J. Haberer, binding myself to execute the deed of
sale immediately after the decree of the court adjudicating said land in my favor
is registered in the registry of property of the Province of Nueva Ecija. The
conditions of this obligation to sell are as follows:
"'1.
That Mr. E. J. Haberer has at this moment paid me the sum of
P30,000 on account of the price of the aforesaid land.
"'2.
That said Mr. E. J. Haberer agrees and binds himself to pay within
six months from the date of the execution of this document the unpaid balance of
the purchase price.
"'3.
That said Mr. E. J. Haberer shall have the right to take possession
of the aforesaid land immediately after the execution of this document together
with all the improvements now existing on the same land, such as palay
plantations and others.
"'4.
That said Mr. E. J. Haberer agrees and binds himself to pay the
expenses to be incurred from this date in the registration of the aforesaid land up
to the filing of the proper decree in the office of the register of deeds of the
Province of Nueva Ecija.
"'5.
That in the event that the court should hold that I am not the owner
of all or any part of the aforesaid land, I agree and bind myself to return without
interest all such amounts of money as I have received or may receive from Mr. E.
J. Haberer as the purchase price of said land, but, in the event that the court
should adjudicate a part of the aforesaid land to me, then I agree and bind myself
to sell said portion adjudicated to me, returning all the amounts received from Mr.
E. J. Haberer in excess of the price of said portion at the rate of P125 per hectare.
"'6.
That Mr. E. J. Haberer does hereby waive any interest or indemnity
upon the amount that I am to return to him and which I have received from Mr. E.
cdasiaonline.com
J. Haberer as the purchase price of the aforesaid land.'

"I, E. J. Haberer, married, of age, and resident of the municipality of
Talavera, Nueva Ecija, do hereby state that, having known the contents of this
document, I accept the same with all the stipulations and conditions thereof.
"I, Luis Gomez, married, of age, and resident of the municipality of Bautista,
Province of Pangasinan, do hereby grant my wife, Dna. Guadalupe Gonzalez y
Morales de Gomez, the due marital license to execute this document and make
effective the definite sale of the land as above stipulated, she being empowered
to execute the deed of sale and other necessary documents in order that the full
ownership over the aforesaid land may be transferred to Mr. E. J. Haberer, as
stipulated in this document.
"In testimony whereof , we hereunto set our hands at Manila, this 7th day of
July, 1920.
(Sgd.) "GUADALUPE G. DE GOMEZ
"E. J. HABERER
"LUIS GOMEZ
"Signed in the presence of the witnesses;
(Sgd.) "EMIGDIO DOMINGO
"L. G. ALVAREZ
"(Acknowledged before notary.)"
It is conceded by the plaintiffs that the defendant never obtained actual or

physical possession of the land, but it is argued that under the contract quoted the
plaintiffs were under no obligation to place him possession. This of the contract gave
the defendant the right to take possession of the land immediately upon the execution
of the contract and necessarily created the obligation on the part of the plaintiffs to
make good the right thus granted; it was one of the essential conditions of the
agreement and the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with this condition, without fault on
the part of the defendant, is in itself suf cient ground for the rescission, even in the
absence of any misrepresentation on their part. (Civil Code, art. 1124; Pabalan vs. Velez,
22 Phil., 29.)
It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the question whether the defendant was
induced to enter into the agreement through misrepresentations made by the plaintiff
Gomez. We may say, however, that the evidence leaves no doubt that some
misrepresentations were made and that but for such misrepresentations the defendant
would not have been likely to enter into the agreement in the form it appeared. As to the
contention that the plaintiff Gonzalez cannot be charged with the misrepresentations of
Gomez, it is suf cient to say that the latter in negotiating for the sale of the land acted
as the agent and representative of the other plaintiff, his wife; having accepted the
bene t of the land acted as the agent and representative of the other plaintiff, his wife;
having accepted the bene t of the representations of her agent she cannot, of course,
escape liability for them. (Haskell vs. Starbird, 152 Mass., 117; 23 A.S.R., 809.)
The contention of the appellants that the symbolic delivery effected by the
execution and delivery of the agreement was a suf cient delivery of the possession of
the land, is also without merit. The possession referred to in the contract is evidently
physical; if it were otherwise it would not have been necessary to mention it in the
contract. (See Cruzado vs. Bustos and Escaler, 34 Phil., 17.)
The judgment appealed from is in accordance with the law, is fully sustained by
cdasiaonline.com
the evidence, and is therefore af rmed, with the costs against the appellants. so
ordered.
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
cdasiaonline.com

Gonzales v. Haberer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales v. Haberer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales v. Haberer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUADALUPE GONZ ALES, ET AL vs . E. J.

Feria & La O for appellants.

J. Haberer as the purchase price of the aforesaid land.'

It is conceded by the plaintiffs that the defendant never obtained actual or

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

You might also like