[ G.R. No. L-1773. December 29, 1949 ] 85 Phil. 192
[ G.R. No. L-1773. December 29, 1949 ]
ALEJANDRO ANDRES AND HERMINIA PICHAY, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROSARIO MATA, FLORENCIO CASTRO, TOMAS CASTRO, JR., ELMER CASTRO, OLIVER CASTRO, CLARITA CASTRO, AND MAYVELIN CASTRO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
On September 22, 1938, by means of a deed of sale (Exhibit A), Tomas Castro conveyed lot No. 9318, with a house thereon, situated in the municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, for the sum of P5,500 to Alejandro Andres and Herminia Pichay, with a clause to the effect that the vendor reserved the right to redeem the property by paying back the sales price in not less than four years and not more than six years after the expiration of said period of four years. By April, 1944, Tomas had already died but in that month and year, his widow Rosario Mata offered the sum of P5,500 in Japanese military notes to the vendees for the repurchase of the property, but said vendees rejected the offer or tender of payment on the ground that the value of the money offered was very much less than that of the money which they had paid for the property in 1938. To force repurchase, Rosario brought an action (in her name and that of her children had by Tomas Castro against the vendees to compel them to reconvey the property to her and her children at the same time depositing and consigning in court the said sum of P5,500. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Rosario and her children, in the following terms:
“Por todas estas eonsideraciones, el Juzgado dicto sentencia a favor de los demandantes, ordenando a los demandados Alejandro Andres y Herminia Pichay a devolver el solar que se describe en la escritura de compraventa con pacto de retro (Exh. A) a los demandantes y que otorguen un documento de retroventa a favor de los demandantes, y una vez otorgada diclia escritura de retroventa dichos demandados podran recibir del Tesorero Provincial de Ilocos Norte la suma de P5,500 depositada por los demandantes en poder del Eseribano de este Juzgado bajo el recibo oficial No. J-0672621 y depositada a su vez por el Eseribano de este Juzgado bajo el recibo oficial No. 1-49410 en la Tesoreria Provincial de esta provincia; y al pago de las costas del presente juicio.”
Alejandro and Herminia appealed to the Court of Appeals which tribunal affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The defendants-appellants, now petitioners in this case by way of certiorari have asked this Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The main issue involved in this case is the legality of the tender of payment. Petitioners claim that the Japanese military notes in 1944 were not legal tender, and that because of their greatly depreciated value, to compel petitioners to accept said notes as the repurchase price, would be a great injustice to them.
The reason why this appeal by certiorari was given due course by this Court was that at that time, there had not yet been any ruling as regards the legality of payment during the Japanese military occupation of debts and obligations with the said Japanese war notes. However, on April 9, 1948, a decision of this Court in the case of Haw Pia vs. China Banking Corporation (45 Off. Gaz., No. 9 Supplement, p. 229 ),[1] was promulgated wherein it was ruled that payment of debts and obligations with the war notes issued by the Japanese occupation forces was valid.
There are other cases decided by this Court, based on the Haw Pia case holding that during the Japanese occupation the Japanese war notes were legal tender. (Notor vs. Martinez,[2] G. R. No. L-1892, promulgated August 16, 1949, and cases cited there.)
It is therefore clear that the respondents made a valid tender of the repurchase price of the property in question and consequently, the Court of Appeals committed no error in affirming the judgment of the lower court.
The petitioners also question the validity and regularity of the consignation in court made by respondents of the sum of P5,500. Suffice it to say on this point that after the rejection by the petitioners of the valid tender made by the respondents, the latter filed the corresponding complaint in court accompanying the filing of the suit with the consignation of the money in court and alleging and mentioning said consignation in the complaint. This was sufficient notice to the petitioners of the consignation so that if they wanted to receive that money from the court in return for a reconveyance of the property in question, they could have done so. Not only this, but the judgment of the lower court directed the herein petitioners, defendants in that case to execute the reconveyance of the lot after which, they could receive the money consigned in court.
It is also insinuated in the brief of the petitioners that assuming that the Japanese war notes were legal tender, in view of their depreciated value, the amount of P5,500 tendered by the respondents should be evaluated according to the Ballantyne Schedule after which the respondents should be ordered to pay to the petitioners the equivalent of said war notes in genuine Philippine currency. Had the respondents confined themselves to making the offer or tender of the amount of P5,500 without consigning the same in court, the result might have been that said respondents by said tender, retained or preserved their right to repurchase the property but that they might now be required to pay in genuine Philippine currency the equivalent of the amount then tendered. However, inasmuch as they consigned the money in court and gave the petitioners the right and the choice to receive said amount, said respondents had done all that was incumbent upon them to do and the petitioners have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences now that the Japanese war notes have not only continued to depreciate in value since April 1944, but have now become worthless.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed. Considering that at the time these certiorari proceedings were initiated there was as yet no ruling by this Court as to the validity of tender of payment with Japanese war notes during the occupation of debts and obligations, and presuming that the petitioners herein have filed this appeal in good faith, we make no pronouncement as to costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Bengzon, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.
TUASON, J.:
I concur in the result.