[ G. R. No. L-599. October 26, 1948 ] 81 Phil. 787
[ G. R. No. L-599. October 26, 1948 ]
AMALIA RODRIGUEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS. PIO E. VALENCIA, AND EMILIA H. RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
PERFECTO, J.:
On August 18, 1945, plaintiff sued defendants for the rescission of a contract of sale relating to lot No. 2151 of the Cebu Cadastre. On November in a second amended complaint was filed wherein plaintiff alleged that in October, 1944, plaintiff sold to defendants lot No. 2151 of the plan of the burnt zone of the city of Cebu at the price of P200,000.00 in Japanese war notes and P5,000.00 in Philippine currency, defendants assuming the obligation of redeeming the property on their own account from a mortgage in favor of the Cebu Mutual Aid Association; that defendants only paid 2,000 Japanese pesos on October 18, 1944, P4,000 Japanese pesos on November 4, 1944, 20,000 Japanese pesos on March 29, 1945, and finally, 20,000 Japanese pesos on March 30, 1945, notwithstanding plaintiff’s refusal to accept the last two payments, as the Americans had already arrived in Cebu and no one would accept Japanese war notes; that plaintiff happened to learn that P15,000.00 had been consigned with the court in favor of the Cebu Mutual Aid Association, notwithstanding the fact that the mortgage debt and interest were much less than said amount; that the sum of 5,000 Filipino pesos was not mentioned in any document for fear of the Japanese; that defendants have received from the American army a monthly rent of P99.12 since June; that defendants, notwithstanding repeated entreaties of plaintiff, failed to pay her the amount of 5,000 Filipino pesos, and that the Japanese notes have depreciated and in March, 1945, they had no value at all and they were declared illegal by the President of the Philippines. As a remedy plaintiff prayed for the rescission of the contract of sale and for costs. Defendants answered, alleging that Pio E. Valencia was not a party to the transaction alleged in the complaint; that On November 1, 1944, plaintiff received from defendant Emilia H. Rodriguez the sum of P30,000.00 as first payment of the total of 200,000 pesos in Japanese military notes as the price agreed upon for the land in question, and out of said amount plaintiff deposited with the clerk of court an amount sufficient to pay her obligation with the Cebu Mutual Aid Association and thereby secured from the court an order releasing lot No. 2151 from the mortgage in favor of Cebu Mutual Aid Association; that once the property was free and unencumbered and upon receipt from defendant Emilia H. Rodriguez of the balance of the agreed price of P200,000.00, plaintiff executed in favor of said defendant on November 18, 1945, a deed of sale which was registered with the register of deeds for the city of Cebu and transfer certificate of title No. 1963 was issued in favor of said defendant that receipt Exhibit 1 signed by plaintiff and deed of sale Exhibit 2, exhibited by plaintiff, both of which are attached to the answer, contain all and the only terms, agreements and conditions between the parties and that defendants had not at any time consented verbally or in writing to pay any additional amount to plaintiff. On March 13, 1946, the lower court rendered decision wherein, instead of ordering the rescission of the sale, it ordered defendant Emilia H. Rodriguez to pay plaintiff P5,000.00 and another amount of P133.33, and plaintiff to pay defendant the sum of P533.33. Defendant Emilia H. Rodriguez appealed. The whole controversy in this case hinges on the truth or falsity of plaintiff’s allegation that appellant agreed to pay her the amount of 5,000 Filipino pesos in addition to the 200,000 Japanese military notes as agreed in the deed of sale of November 18, 1944, where “the sum of two hundred thousand pesos only (P200,000.00) in legal tender” is stated as consideration. The question as to the truth or falsity of plaintiff’s allegation depends in turn upon plaintiff’s credibility, she alone having testified about the alleged additional amount not mentioned in any document. Plaintiff testified that she is 66, single, resident of Cebu (1), and that she sold to Emilia Rodriguez a lot located at Plaridel street, City of Cebu, at the agreed price of P200,000.00. (7). “P. Cual era el convenio de ustedes sobre el precio? R. P200,000.00 “Abogado Alonso. En que forma se ha convenido aquel contrato, por escrito o de palabra? “R. Por escrito. “P. Y cual era el eonvenio de ustedes por la venta de aquel terreno, que precio? R. P200,000.00 Japones mas P5,000.00 Americanos.” (7). Immediately her attorney asked her whether she was paid the price, suggesting, at the same time, that the agreement was 200,000 Japanese pesos “mas P5,000.00 moneda Filipina,” and she answered that the 200,000 Japanese pesos was paid. (8-9). As plaintiff continued to fail to mention the “P5,000.00 moneda Filipina,” her attorney made another reminder by asking her about “5,000 Filipinos,” reiterating it by saying “5,000 pesos Filipinos convenidos,” and asking her if it was mentioned in some document. The agreement was verbal, “por temor a los Japoneses. Habia prohibicion, no podiamos hablar nada.” But answering a question of the court, plaintiff alleged as reason for not asking any document the following: “Por mucha confianza, Señor Juez.” (10). The agreement was entered into when plaintiff was living in her house in Tinago, corner of Martires and Lopez Jaena streets, before it was burned on September 13. (11). But she made the first agreement on November 1, 1944, and she was living with defendants in Dr. Valencia’s house. Defendants “me recogieron en el tncendio de Lopez Jaena.” (12). Defendant Emilia H. Rodriguez paid her the money. Dr. Pio E. Valencia has knowledge of the sale but he took no part in the transaction. (At this juncture plaintiff’s counsel moved for the dismissal of the complaint against Dr. Pio E. Valencia and the Court granted the motion.) (13). Plaintiff remembers that 20,000 pesos were paid to her on March 28 and another 20,000 en March 29, because they were Wednesday and Thursday of the Holy Week. She learned of the arrival of the Americans in Cebu because she saw them, but “they did not tell me anything, and she did not know anything, I was living in the interior, I did not know anything but in the afternoon.” She learned about the entrance of the Americans on the 27th. They arrived in the morning and she saw the Americans in the afternoon. Notwithstanding the fact that the Americans had already arrived and she saw them on the 27th, plaintiff accepted payments on the 28th and 29th, because Emilia told her that the Japanese money was still good and that the Filipino Bank answered for it. (14). What plaintiff sold was only a parcel of land of 472 square meters. She does not know its value before the war, because then nothing has been offered for it. “When my house was burned, they took me and brought me to Mandawe.” (15). She is a close friend of Emilia Rodriguez. She received several payments of 10,000 and 20,000, She did not count the number of payments “I started to get money from Emilia since October 18, 1943.” (16). “I started to obtain money from Emilia on October 18, 1943 in small amounts, for food expenses.” Prior to September 12, 1944, Emilia Rodriguez has been making payments to her, as she asked her for food expenses. She had the agreement with Emilia Rodriguez about the purchase and sale of the land in question, “I believe in 43; I do not remember anymore; in 43, because in September of 44 was when it (my house) was burned.” Reminded of the first payment of 30,000 Japanese military notes made on November 1, 1944, plaintiff answered: “I did not receive 30,000 pesos; 15,000 pesos, to pay Aboitiz.” (17). Reminded by the Court that in the receipt she signed the amount of 30,000 appears, she answered: “I signed 15,000 pesos. Maybe they were the ones who put that 30,000.” She admits having written in her own handwriting the receipt for 30,000 pesos in Japanese money Exhibit I-A dated November 1, 1944. Exhibit I-A stated as follows:
“Yo Amalia Rodriguez mayor de edad y vecina de Cebu Cebu viendo mi tereno en la calle de Plaridel a Da Emilia H. Rodriguez la caatidad de 200,000.00 dos cientos mil pesos Papel de Banco japones por lo cual juro de haber recibido dicha cantidad como primer pago 30,000.00 treinta mil pesos. “Y por verdad firmo la presente en Mandaue l.o de Novlembre de 1944.
“(Firmado) AMALIA RODRIGUEZ
“(Firmado) FILOMENO ROSAL Testigo (Firmado) NATIVIDAD LOCAGBO Testigo”
Asked by the Court to explain why, while the receipt shows that she received 30,000.00 as part payment of the agreed price of 200,000.00, she stated that she received 15,000.00 only. Plaintiff answered: “Yes, sir, 15,000.00 is what I only received to be paid to Marcelo Flores; he is the one who brought that amount to Aboitiz to pay my debt.” Plaintiff admits having written in her own handwriting Exhibit 1-A, but she insisted that “I do not know who put 30,000.00; it was 15,000.00 only.” (18). The Court insisted that she explained, and plaintiff said: “At that moment I must have been with unsound mind.” Asked again why she was able to write and sign the receipt, she finally said that she was agreeable with the 30,000 appearing in Exhibit 1-A. But same amount was not the first payment. Ten thousand pesos was the first payment made by Emilia in Mandawe on October 18, 1943. “I asked her because she was the owner of the house and she told me that I was eating gratuitously, then I asked Emilia money for expenses.” That was on October 18, 1943. (19). Asked by the Court to explain how the first payment was made to her in October, 1943 when the deed of sale was signed by plaintiff on November 18, 1944, plaintiff insisted “on October 18, I have the receipt, but I do not know where it is now in view of many transfers. I have a memorandum.” Asked for further explanation, plaintiff said that she does not remember, although she remembers that it was on October 18, when she started to ask money from Emilia. Then she asked information from the Court as to when the fire in Lopez Jaena took place as a result of the first bombs dropped by the Americans. The Court advised her that it was in 1944, and the parties agreed that the first bombs were dropped on September 12, 1944, and after this information, plaintiff said that in said month she has been in Mandawe with defendant and in October she asked money from Emilia. For the previous payments no receipts have been issued. (20). Plaintiff does not remember that bombing of Cebu started on September 12, 1944, and continued up to March 27, 1945. All her transactions with defendant took place in Mandawe and then no one expected to live beyond 24 hours. Plaintiff was not able to ask from Emilia any receipt for the 5,000.00 pesos, Philippine currency, “for fear of the Japanese.” Plaintiff has been in Mandawe for evacuation in September and October, 1944, and answered the following question of the court thus:
“The Court: The truth is that there, outside of the City of Cebu, Japanese money was not accepted? “Answer: Yes, sir.” (21).
When she made the contract, plaintiff believed that the Japanese money was good. (22). She asked 5,000.00 pesos, Philippine money, because it had better price than the Japanese money, which she accepted because defendant told her that there was no objection in adding 5,000.00 pesos. (23). Plaintiff said: “No hemos avenido nada, sino que le pedi nada mas esos P5,000 como añadidura.” Asked where and when the agreement about the P5,000.00 was entered into between her and Emilia, plaintiff answered. “The first agreement was in my house, before the fire, when they came to talk about the purchase; after that, the second, was in Mandawe.” When plaintiff agreed with Emilia about the sale, it was before September, 1944, and plaintiff was still living in her house which has not yet been burned. (23). Then Emilia came to the house to propose the purchase. Plaintiff did not yet agree. She agreed when the house was already burned and when plaintiff was already living with Emilia in Mandawe. Plaintiff decided then to sell the land because there was no more house in the land. (24). Several strong reasons militate against plaintiff’s credibility. 1. Plaintiff admitted categorically that there was no agreement (“No hemos avenido,” she said), but she made only her request for the additional 5,000.00 Philippine pesos. At the beginning of her testimony she mentioned P200,000.00 only as the agreed price. 2. Plaintiff testified that some one else had placed the amount of 30,000.00 Pesos in receipt Exhibit 1-A, notwithstanding the fact that the figure and the words appear to be in the same handwriting of the receipt. 3. Plaintiff testified that she was not in her sound mind when she wrote receipt Exhibit 1-A. 4. Plaintiff gave two different reasons, one in each instance for not stating in any document the alleged additional 5,000.00 Philippine pesos. 5. Notwithstanding that she herself wrote in her own handwriting receipt Exhibit 1-A and she stated therein that she swears having received 30,000.00 pesos as first payment, she testified that she received only 15,000.00 pesos, and had to admit her conformity to the 30,000.00 pesos only after she could not explain her contradiction. 6. Plaintiff testified that she received the first payment from Emilia on October 18, 1943, in the amount of P10,000.00, while Exhibit 1-A shows that the first payment was in fact made on November 1, 1944, in the amount of P30,000.00, although she also testified having received then only P15,000.00. 7. Plaintiff testified that the agreement about the additional 5,000 was entered into twice, first, when she was still living in her house in Lopez Jaena before the same was burned, and the second, in Mandawe when she was living with defendant, while in another part of her testimony, plaintiff declared that when defendant went to her house before the same was burned, plaintiff had not yet agreed to sell her land. 8. Plaintiff testified that she has been receiving payments from Emilia before the fire that turned her house in Lopez Jaena on September 13, 1944, while testifying also that the agreement of sale was only covenanted at Mandawe in October, 1944. 9. Considering that the hearing of this case in which plaintiff testified took, place in November, 1945, plaintiff’s inability to determine whether it was in 1943 or in 1944 when she agreed with the defendant about the sale of her land is a thing that makes her testimony unreliable. 10. The fact that plaintiff does not remember the year when her house was burned and needed the help of the Court and of the attorneys of both parties to testify that the American bombings that caused the burning of her house started only on September 12, 1944, is an evidence of the fickleness of plaintiff’s memory. 11. If there was such an agreement to pay her 5,000 Filipino pesos as an additional consideration, her alleged fear of the Japanese is not enough reason why plaintiff could not have obtained some kind of note from defendant Emilia H. Rodriguez that could be easily hidden and which Emilia could have issued considering that, according to plaintiff herself, they were close friends. 12. If said 5,000 Filipino pesos were the main consideration of the sale as plaintiff asks us to believe, no explanation whatsoever has been given why in the deed of sale or in any other document it could have not been stated that the 5,000 pesos should be paid when the war is over, a stipulation resorted to by all those who wanted to have payments in Filipino pesos. 13. Regarding the 5,000 Filipino pesos in question, plaintiff needed the help of leading questions propounded to her by her counsel, to remind her that they were Filipino pesos or Philippine money, as before said help was given she mentioned them as 5,000 American pesos, that is dollars, a thing that cannot be attributed to a mere tongue-slip, considering that plaintiff appears to talk good Spanish and to be intelligent. That plaintiff might have mistaken Filipino money with American money may only show that she did not learn her lesson at heart. 14. The glaring contradictions between the allegations of her complaint and plaintiff’s testimony, such as those regarding the payments made to her by defendant Emilia H. Rodriguez and the inclusion of Dr. Pio E. Valencia as party defendant as one of those who bought the parcel of land in question. Although the complaint was drafted not by plaintiff but by her attorney, no one would suppose that the latter would have alleged in the complaint facts other than those given to him by plaintiff herself. The agreement in question regarding the payment of additional 5,000 Filipino pesos is an affirmative averment the onus probandi on which falls on plaintiff’s shoulders. The duty of showing to our satisfaction that such an agreement actually took place, notwithstanding plaintiff’s own commitments in receipt Exhibit 1-A dated November 1, 1944, and in the deed of sale Exhibit 2 which she executed on November 18, 1944, devolves upon her. As we have shown, plaintiff’s uncorroborated testimony, even with the help of leading questions from her own attorney and of information given to her by the lower court, is unsatisfactory and unconvincing, and rather leaves the impression that plaintiff had intended to have unskilfully woven a yarn coming from her imagination. Even from the point of view of equity, plaintiff’s claim appears to be untenable. Under the circumstances, plaintiff cannot claim that the price paid to her as agreed upon in Exhibits 1-A and 2 was unfair. With a small part of said price, plaintiff was able to pay a debt of about P15,000.00, to guarantee which she had mortgaged the parcel of land in question plus the building erected thereon. Even in the lower court’s assumption that the parcel of land may command a price of P11,133.34 in Philippine currency, plaintiff would appear as having profited from the transaction as, without it, she would have to pay now to the Cebu Mutual Building and Loan Association about P15,000.00, with the result that applying to it the price that, according to the lower court, the land may command, plaintiff will still be indebted in the amount of about P3,000.00. The appealed decision is reversed in so far as it orders appellant Emilia H. Rodriguez to pay plaintiff the sum of P5,000.00, with costs of this appeal in favor of said appellant. Moran, C. J., Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, and Tuason, JJ., concur.