FORTUNATO HALILI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. MARIA LLORET AND RICARDO GONZALES LLORET AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE FRANCISCO GONZALES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The present case involves
the implementation of the judgment of this Court in G. R. No. L-6306,
promulgated May 26, 1954, ordering
defendant Ricardo Gonzales Lloret to pay plaintiff Fortunato Halili “the sum of
P100,000 which should be adjusted in accordance
with the Ballantyne scale of values.”

Execution of the
judgment was first sought by plaintiff on July 15, 1957.  Defendant opposed, al­leging that the
judgment was incomplete since it did not specify the date on which the Ballantyne scale should be applied.  The trial court stayed execution and
suggested that plaintiff have the matter clarified.  Accordingly he filed a motion for that
purpose before this Court, but it was denied on the ground that the judgment
had already become final.  The
proceedings continued below, where an order was issued on September 6, 1958, sustaining plaintiff’s
contention that the conversion into Philippine currency of the amount awarded
in the judgment should be according to the scale of values in June 1944.  Upon motion for reconsideration by defendant,
however, the order was modified on October
24, 1958, adopting the scale as of August 1944.  Under the previous order the amount stated in
the judgment is equivalent to P6,666.33; under the
amendatory one it is equivalent
to P4,000.00.

Both parties appealed. 
Plaintiff insists on June 1944 as
the material conversion period; defendant says it should be January
1945, when the converted value was only P833.33.

The 1954 decision of this Court reveals the fol­lowing pertinent
facts:  The sum of P100,000
awarded therein represents a partial payment or deposit made by plaintiff to
defendant Gonzales Lloret on six parcels of land
owned by the intestate estate of which the latter was administrator, which were
the subject of negotiations for their sale wherein plaintiff, as prospective
vendee, was represented by Attorney Teofilo Sauco.  The check for
said amount was delivered to Gonzales Lloret in June
1944 and deposited by him to his bank account forthwith.  The negotiations, however, fell through
before the contract of sale could be perfected, and suit for recovery was
commenced after the war, culminating in the judgment now sought to be
implemented. 

We believe that the issue was resolved correctly by the court a
quo in its amendatory order of October
24, 1958.  Our decision in
the main case is clear enough when it said:

“According to the evidence, when the transaction was called
off because of the failure of Sauco to appear on the
date set for his last conference with Lloret, the
latter attempted to return the said amount to Sauco
on August 2, 1944, who declined to accept it on the pretext that he had another
buyer who was willing to purchase the lands for the sum of P500,000 and that if that sale were carried out Lloret could just deduct that amount from the purchase
price.  That offer to return, in our
opinion, cannot have the effect of relieving Lloret
from liability.  His duty was to consign
it in court as required by law.  His
failure to do so makes him answerable therefor to the plaintiff which he is now
in duty bound to pay subject to adjustment under the Ballantyne
Scale of Values.”

The duty to make the consignation in court arose when the offer
to return the money was not accepted – which was in August 1944; and it was
defendant’s failure to perform that duty that made him “answerable to
plain­tiff,” the precise extent of his liability to be sub­ject to
adjustment under the Ballantyne Scale of values.  In other words it was the liability as of
that time – August 1944 – that should be adjusted.  In June 1944 no liability had yet attached
and so the conversion rate as of that month cannot be applied.  On the other hand, it would have been unjust
and inequitable for defendant to wait (as he now says he could have done) until
January 1945 before making the consignation of the money in court, knowing as
he did that the Japanese war currency was fast depreciating in value and
considering that, after all, defendant may be presumed to have used and
benefited from that money in August 1944, when it was worth considerably more
than in January 1945.

The order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to
costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Bengzon,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., on leave.