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 …
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
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.
[1] 80 Phil., 602.
[2] 47 Off. Gaz., 656.
DISIDENTE
PABLO, M.:
Disiento.
La clausula de retracto es del tenor siguiente:
“Las condiciones de esta venta son tales que yo el vendedor,
mis herederos, sucesores y cesionarios, no podremos redimir esta propiedad
durante los primeros cuatro anos y si dentro de los otros seis anos siguientes
devolvieremos la expresada suma de cinco mil quinientos pesos (P5,500) y los
otros gastos que durante este periodo de diez anos desde el otorgamiento de esta
escritura se oeasionaran, los compradores, sus herederos, sucesores y
cesionarios nos otorgaran escritura de retroventa pero si trascurre dicho plazo
sin haber nosotros utilizado el derecho de redencion adquirira la presente el
caracter de absoluta e irrevocablemente consumada, pero en el entretanto solo
podran los compradores disponer de la finca conforme a las limitaciones
prescritas por la ley. Que del precio de compra corresponde a Herminia Pichay la
suma de cuatro mil pesos y al Sr. Alejandro Andres la suma de mil quinientos
pesos.”
De acuerdo con este convenio, los vendedores deben devolver a
cambio del terreno o de la finca cinco mil quinientos pesos (P5,500), moneda
filipina, y no cinco mil quinientos pesos en papel moneda japonesa. Cuando los
demandantes consignaron en la escribania del juzgado la cantidad de 5,500 de
esta clase de moneda, no habian cumplido el termino expreso del convenio. Por
tanto, los demandados no estafoan obligados a recibir la consignation; pues, el
articulo 1176 del Codigo Civil dice que “si el acreedor a quien se hiciere el of
recimiento de pago se negare sin razon a admitirlo, el deudor quedara libre de
responsabilidad mediante la consignacion de la cosa debida.” Y el parrafo
segundo del articulo siguiente dice que “La consignacion sera ineficaz si no se
ajusta estrictamente a las disposiciones que regulan el pago.” El pago, segun el
convenio, debe hacerse en moneda filipin|.
Tengase en cuenta que, al tiempo de la consignacion, no habia
ninguna orden legal que prohibiese el uso de la moneda filipina. La proclama de
10 de Enero de 1942 del General en jefe de las fuerzas japonesas es del tenor
siguiente :
“The currencies which shall be sanctioned by the authorities of
the Japanese Army to circulate in the Philippine Islands shall be the peso
military notes which are issued by the Imperial Japanese Government, and the
Philippine peso currency, which is already in circulation.“The circulation of the Yen Paper money (paper money issued by
the Japanese Imperial Government, Yen notes issued by the Bank of Japan, Yen
notes issued by the Bank of Chosen, Yen notes issued by the Bank of Taiwan, and
the military notes other than Peso military notes), piastre currency (notes
issued by the Bank of Indo-China), and all other currencies of foreign countries
shall be prohibited.“However, as for the U.S. dollar currency, the circulation
shall be approved at the rate of two pesos (P2) per one dollar ($1), for the
time being.“Not only the payer of the above-mentioned currencies, which
are prohibited to circulate as the means of payment of all transactions, but
also the receiver of such currencies shall be punished in accordance with the
provisions of the martial law.“As to the treatment of the possession in the market of the
above-mentioned currencies and the U.S. dollar currency which are prohibited to
circulate shall be regulated later on.“Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese
Forces.”
No solamente no se prohibio la circulacion legal de la moneda
filipina sino que se sanciono su uso. El primer parrafo de la proclama no da
lugar a duda alguna. Es clara. Si estaban en curso legal durante la ocupacion
japonesa la moneda filipina y la moneda japonesa expedida por el ejercito de
ocupacion, entonces los demandados tenian perf ectisimo derecho de obligar que
los demandantes paguen con moneda filipina legitima, de acuerdo con el convenio
de recompra, y no con la moneda japonesa. El hecho de que la moneda japonesa era
una de las monedas circulantes o de curso legal entonces, no es razon para que
se les obligue a los demandados a recibir la cantidad consignada, pues segun el
convenio, la recompra debe hacerse con moneda filipina. Los demandados tenian
derecho a exigir el cumplimiento del contrato que es ley entre las partes (Art.
1090, Codigo Civil), tanto mas cuanto que al tiempo del otorgamiento de la
escritura de venta ni siquiera paso por la imaginacion de los contratantes que
habia de circular alguna vez la moneda japonesa. Lo que se prohibio es la
circulacion de los billetes de emergencia del Banco Nacional Filipino expedidos
en Visaya y Mindanao segiin la proclama de 7 de Mayo de 1942 que dice asi:
“PROCLAMATION BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE IMPERIAL
JAPANESE FORCES CONCERNING PROHIBITION OF CIRCULATION OF PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK EMERGENCY NOTES.“Since January, 1942, the Phil-American Army ordered the
different branches or agencies of the Philippine National Bank in the Visayan
Provinces to issue Philippine National Bank Emergency Circulation Notes for the
purpose of using them in the purchase of military supplies and of creating
economic confusion and disturbance. For this reason, the circulation of said
emergency notes is declared illegal and their acceptance, absolutely prohibited.
Inasmuch as these emergency notes were issued for the use of the enemy and
considering the nature thereof and the purpose for which they were issued, it is
hereby proclaimed that these notes are enemy military notes and consequently,
they are declared as having no monetary value whatsoever.“Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese
Forces.”
El articulo 1170 del Codigo Civil claramente dispone que “el
pago de las deudas de dinero debera hacerse en la especie pactada, y,
no siendo posible entregar la especie, en la moneda de plata u oro que tenga
curso legal.” Como no habia prohibicion en el uso de la moneda pactada—moneda
filipina—los demandantes debieron haber pagado con dicha moneda y no con la
moneda japonesa. Bajo ningun concepto, pues, estaban obligados los demandados a
recibir el dinero consignado con que los demandantes querian recomprar la finca.
Obligar a los demandados hoy a otorgar escritura de retroventa por papel moneda
que no han querido recibir en 1944 y que ya no vale nada, es exigirles a
desprenderse por nada de lo que han comprado con P5,500 en legitima moneda
filipina. Estaria esta sentencia justificada si los demandados estuviesen
legalmen te obligados a recibir la consignacion en abril de 1944. No puedo
sancionar una injusticia.
CONCURRING
PADILLA, J.:
I concur in this dissent. In addition to the reasons given
therein, I incorporate herein those advanced by me in G.R. No. L-867, Del
Rosario et 111., vs. Sandico et al.,[1]
and G. R. No. L-2020, La Orden de Padres Benedictinos de Filipinas vs. The
Philippine Trust Company.[2]
[1] 85 Phil., 170.
[2] 85 Phil., 217.