ALFONSO ARANETA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

On June 17, 1941, Alfonso Araneta and his wife Dolores
Bobadilla sold two parcels of land with the improvements thereon, located in the
City of Cebu, to Julian Sanson and his wife Marta Cui for P2,000, with right to
repurchase within one year, with the condition that pending repurchase, the
vendors as lessees could continue occupying the property by paying rent at the
rate of P20 a month (Exhibit A). The period of one year expired without the
vendors exercising their right of repurchase. Legally, the vendees became
absolute owners of the two parcels, but on June 24, 1946, Marta Cui Vda. de
Sanson (her husband Julian being already dead) as an act of charity or
generosity, resold the said two parcels to the vendors Alfonso and Dolores for
the same amount of P2,000, plus P1,000 as rents unpaid.

Afterwards, and after consulting some lawyers who were supposed
to have advised him that he was not under obligation to pay the P1,000 as back
rents, Alfonso Araneta sought to recover the said amount from Marta and upon her
refusal, he brought the corresponding action to collect from Marta in the Court
of First Instance of Cebu (civil case No. E-27). Judgment was rendered absolving
the defendant Marta Cui Vda. de Sanson and Alfonso is now appealing from that
decision.

Appellant’s contention is that under the provisions of
Executive Order No. 25, as amended by Executive Order No. 82 on debt moratorium,
his payment of P1,000 was prematurely made and that the said amount should be
returned to him by the defendant-appellee. This contention is clearly untenable.
We quote with approval a portion of Judge Felix Martinez’ decision appealed from
on this point of the moratorium law.

“Si el demandante debia por alquileres esa cantidad a la
demandada, bien hecho estaba que a requerimiento de esta, aquel la pagara. La
orden de moratoria no condonaba lo adeudado; posponia solamente la obligacion de
pagarlo por el periodo de su vigencia. La moratoria trataba de aliviar las
dificultades en que un deudor podria hallarse con ocasion de la guerra; pero si
de todos modos el aqui demandante, siendo deudor, estaba en situacion de pagar
su deuda, y de hecho la pago; no hay razon, ni se le debe permitir, que volviese
atras, ya que de todos modos tenia que hacerlo tarde o
temprano.”

The law of debt moratorium does not condone debts on the
payments of obligations. It merely suspends collection and payment. The right to
such suspension may be invoked by the debtor; but he may also waive or renounce
it. Plaintiff herein in voluntarily paying the P1,000 waived his right to
suspend or postpone. As was said by this Court in the case of Ma-ao Sugar
Central Co. vs. Barrios, 45 Off. Gaz., No. 6, p. 2444,^[1] the right granted by Executive Order No.
25, as amended by Executive Order No. 32, is a right granted by law to debtors
and such right may be waived because its waiver does not affect the public
interest or the rights of third parties.

But there is yet another reason against the contention of the
appellant. According to the deed of sale (Exhibit A) by virtue of which Alfonso
Araneta and his wife sold the two parcels to the appellee and her husband in
1941, and wherein it was agreed that the vendors were to continue occupying the
property as lessees by paying P20 monthly rent, said vendors may not exercise
the right of redemption if they were delinquent in the payment of any rent.
Consequently, the right of appellant Alfonso to redeem the property in question
was conditioned on his paying the back rent amounting to P1,000. In other words,
the appellee was under no obligation to resell the property to him unless and
until he first paid the P1,000 back rents. This, aside from the fact that as
already stated, the period for repurchase had long expired as far back as June,
1942, and that it was only out of consideration and charity that the appellee
reconveyed the property to appellant. We repeat that the contention of the
appellant in this case is absolutely untenable, not to say, savoring of the
ingratitude and lack of appreciation.

Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the
same is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,
Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.

---

[1] 79 Phil., 666.