THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 237291, February 01, 2021
MARITO* AND MARIA FE SERNA, Petitioners, v. TITO AND ILUMINADA DELA CRUZ, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favour of the plaintiffs by ordering the defendants to do the following:Considering the judicial admission of petitioners that there was a verbal contract of sale between the parties in 1995 and the fact that respondents have already paid a substantial portion of the purchase price, the RTC determined that the contract entered into by the parties was a contract of sale and not a contract to sell. Thus, ownership of the subject properties immediately passed to respondents despite the balance of P47,621.00 yet to be paid. Further, the RTC noted that respondents were already in possession of the subject properties and likewise collected the produce therein.16
1. To accept the final payment of FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY ONE (47,621) PESOS and execute at the same time the Deed of Absolute Sale over the purchased lots over Original Certificates of Titles Nos. E-6103 and E-6101.
2. To pay the plaintiffs the following amounts:SO ORDERED.15chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
- Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos as moral damages;
- Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages[;]
- Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos as attorney's fees and cost of litigation.
WHEREFORE, finding the instant appeal to be wanting in merit, it is hereby DENIED.In so ruling, the CA determined that the genuineness and due execution of the Agreement, a private document, could no longer be challenged for two reasons: (a) petitioners' judicial admissions, i.e., petitioners' admission in their Answer as to the execution of the Agreement; and (b) the testimonies of respondent Tito and witness Cordero who testified as to the execution of the Agreement in their presence. Furthermore, the appellate court held that the contract between the parties was not subject to the Statute of Frauds because it was partially executed. Finally, the CA sustained the award for damages, attorney's fees and costs of litigation in favor of respondents in view of petitioners' bad faith.20
Accordingly, the Decision dated 04 April 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 95, of Puerto Prinsesa City, in Civil Case No. 3612 is AFFIRMED in toto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Petitioners' ArgumentsI.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RULING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS DESPITE THE RESPONDENTS' FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THEIR CAUSE OF ACTION THROUGH THE PURPORTED "AGREEMENT" DATED NOVEMBER 9, 1998.II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RULING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS DESPITE THE UNENFORCEABILITY OF THE "AGREEMENT" PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 1356, AND 1358, IN RELATION TO 1403 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE.23chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The genuineness and due execution of the Agreement has been established by respondents. |
6. On November 9, 1998, the defendants affixed their signatures in the handwritten agreement and acknowledgement of the amount they have received from the plaintiffs in partial payment of the purchase price of the parcels of land. The text of the said acknowledgment entitled "Agreement" is as follows:Meanwhile petitioners, in their Answer, stated:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Know all men by this presents:
We, Mr. Felix Marito Serna and Maria Fe Jabagat Serna of Aramaywan, Quezon, Palawan, owner of Lot No. 7132 containing an area of (32,227) square meters with OCT No. E-6101 and lot no. 7133 containing an area of (41,040) square meters with OCT no. E-6103, has received partial payment of Two hundred fifty two thousand and three hundred seventy nine pesos and twenty seven centavos from Mr. Tito [A.] dela Cruz and Mrs. Iluminada Dela Cruz Buyers of the said lot which is located or situated at Apduhan, Aramaywan, Quezon, Palawan. The bal. Of the buyer is (P47,621.00) only. Done this 9th day of November 1998
A witness Nelson Cordero likewise affixed his signature on the agreement. A copy of the said agreement is attached as Annex D.36 (Italics in the original, underscoring supplied)
It is well settled that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.38 Judicial admissions are legally binding on the parties making them.39 Jurisprudence, however, provides the admitting party some leeway to vary or override such admissions, provided the matter was identified as an issue and the admitting party presents contrary evidence during trial.40 In this case, petitioners failed to controvert such judicial admission. The appellate court noted that three (3) witnesses testified as to the execution of the Agreement: petitioners41 and the witness to the Agreement, Cordero. According to Cordero, the Agreement was executed at petitioners' house in the presence of both parties.42 It was executed at approximately 7:00 in the morning on November 9, 1998 and he was present during that time because he was tasked by respondents to clean the subject properties.43
- Defendants ADMIT paragraph 6 of the complaint. Indeed to show that defendants were true to their intention to sell their properties, they still give (sic) last chance to plaintiffs to complete payment until December of 1998 through (sic) the contract was actually agreed in 1995. However, despite the lapse of December 1998 plaintiffs failed to pay the balance[.]37 (Underscoring supplied)
Section 20. Proof of private document. - Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:Considering that Section 20 (a) was observed, petitioners can no longer dispute the due execution of the Agreement. As pointed out in the assailed Decision, petitioners not only admitted to signing the Agreement but their counter-arguments banked on the failure of respondents to comply with their obligation by fully settling the balance on the agreed upon dates.44 It being established that the transaction of the parties was a contract of sale, it is worth noting that under the Civil Code, a buyer may pay for the price even after the agreed upon time, as long as no demand for rescission has been made by the seller.45 From the records, it appears that petitioners never rescinded the sale either judicially or by notarial act. Thus, respondents had the right to pay the balance even past the agreed upon dates.
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
Statute of Frauds does not apply in this case. |
The Statute of Frauds is applicable only to contracts which are executory and not to those which have been consummated either totally or partially. If a contract has been totally or partially performed, the exclusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad faith, for it would enable the defendant to keep the benefits already derived by him from the transaction in litigation, and at the same time, evade the obligations, responsibilities or liabilities assumed or contracted by him thereby.54 (Emphasis supplied)Likewise, Article 1405 of the Civil Code is explicit: "Contracts infringing the Statute of Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of Article 1403, are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefits under them." In this case, the verbal contract of sale was ratified when petitioners received on separate occasions, sums of money totalling P252,379.27 out of the total purchase price of P300,000.00. These payments were not only acknowledged by petitioners in the Agreement itself, but admitted in their respective testimonies.
The award of damages and attorney's fees is proper. |
Thus, questions on whether or not there was a preponderance of evidence to justify the award of damages or whether or not there was a causal connection between the given set of facts and the damage suffered by the private complainant or whether or not the act from which civil liability might arise exists are questions of fact.All told, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the uniform conclusion of the lower courts that petitioners acted in bad faith, which thus, warrants the award of damages and attorney's fees. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty due to some motive or interest or ill will that partakes the nature of fraud.60 When bad faith is established, the award of moral damages and attorney's fees are proper. Despite the existence of a valid contract of sale, petitioners refused to accept the balance from respondents even if a substantial portion of the purchase price has already been paid. Further, the appellate court held that petitioners' refusal to accept the balance was impelled by the desire to sell the subject properties to another buyer for a larger sum of money.61 Finally, assuming arguendo that respondents failed to pay the balance on the agreed upon dates, the proper course of action was for petitioners to avail of legal remedies to rescind their contract. Instead, petitioners unilaterally terminated their contract by refusing to accept the balance of the purchase price.
Essentially, the petitioner is questioning the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of the respondent as the same is supposedly not fully supported by evidence. However, in the final analysis, the question of whether the said award is fully supported by evidence is a factual question as it would necessitate whether the evidence adduced in support of the same has any probative value. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.59 (Emphases supplied)
Endnotes:
* Also referred to as Felix Morito Serna in some parts of the rollo.
1Rollo, pp. 12-37.
2 Id. at 39-49; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3 Id. at 52-54.
4 Id. at 70-81; penned by Presiding Judge Bienvenido C. Blancaflor.
5 Id. at 81.
6 Id. at 40.
7 Id. at 116-120.
8 Id. at 132.
9 Id. at 117.
10 Id. at 118.
11 Id. at 135-137.
12 Id. at 136.
13 Id. at 135.
14 Id. at 70-81.
15 Id. at 81.
16 Id. at 77-78.
17 Id. at 79-80.
18 Id. at 39-49.
19 Id. at 48.
20 Id. at 44-48.
21 Id. at 52-53.
22 Id. at 106-112.
23 Id. at 20.
24 Id. at 21-24.
25 Id. at 24-26.
26 Id. at 26.
27 Id. at 26-28.
28 Id. at 29-30.
29 Id. at 242-251.
30 Id. at 244-245.
31 Id. at 246-248.
32 Id. at 249.
33 Id. at 19-20.
34 See Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167 (2016).
35People v. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 371 (2017).
36Rollo, p. 117.
37 Id. at 135.
38 RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, Sec. 4:
SECTION 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
39Land Bank of the Philippines v. Navarro, G.R. No. 196264, June 6, 2019.
40Asean Pacific Planners v. City of Urdaneta, 587 Phil. 663 (2008).
41Rollo, pp. 45-46, citing TSN, July 22, 2011, pp. 3-4 and TSN, January 26, 2007, pp. 26-28.
42 Id. at 75.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 45-46.
45 CIVIL CODE, Article 1592:
Article 1592. In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may 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 a notarial act. After the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.
46 CIVIL CODE, Article 1403:
Article 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
x x x
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:
x x x
(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein[.]
47Heirs of Alido v. Campano, G.R. No. 226065, July 29, 2019.
48Orduña v. Fuentebella, 636 Phil. 151, 163 (2010).
49 CIVIL CODE, Article 1358.
Article 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein are governed by articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405[.] x x x
50 CIVIL CODE, Article 1356.
Article 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised.
51Aglibot v. Santia, 700 Phil. 404, 415 (2012).
52Orduña v. Fuentebella, supra note 48.
53 483 Phil. 735 (2004).
54 Id. at 754.
55Rollo, pp. 28-30.
56 Id. at 29.
57Spouses Lam v. Kodak Phils., Ltd., 776 Phil. 88, 114-115 (2016).
58 681 Phil. 39 (2012).
59 Id. at 49-50.
60Spouses Estrada v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., 813 Phil. 950, 969 (2017).
61Rollo, p. 47.
62 See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
63 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 1.cralawredlibrary