GUADALUPE GONZALEZ AND LUIS GOMEZ, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. E. J. HABERER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This
action is brought to recover the sum of P34,260 alleged to be due the
plaintiffs from the defendant upon a written agreement for the sale of
a tract of land situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija. The plaintiffs
also ask for damages in the sum of P10,000 for the alleged failure of
the defendant to comply with his part of the agreement.

The
defendant in his answer admits that of the purchase price stated in the
agreement a balance of P31,000 remains unpaid, but by way of special
defense, cross-complaint and counter-claim alleges that at the time of
entering into the contract the plaintiffs through false representations
lead him to believe that they were in possession of the land and that
the title to the greater portion thereof was not in dispute; that on
seeking to obtain possession he found that practically the entire area
of the land was occupied by adverse claimants and the title thereto
disputed; that he consequently has been unable to obtain possession of
the land; and that the plaintiffs have made no efforts to prosecute the
proceedings for the registration of the land. He therefore asks that
the contract be rescinded; that the plaintiffs be ordered to return to
him the P30,000 already paid by him to them; and to pay P25,000 as
damages for breach of the contract.

The court below
dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, declared the contract rescinded
and void and gave the defendant judgment upon his counterclaim for the
sum of P30,000, with interest from the date upon which the judgment
becomes final. The case is now before this court upon appeal by the
plaintiffs from that judgment.

The contract in question reads as follows:

“Know all men by these presents:

“That
I, Guadalupe Gonzalez y Morales de Gomez, married with Luis Gomez, of
age, and resident of the municipality of Bautista, Province of
Pangasinan, Philippine Islands, do hereby state:

“1. That I
am the absolute and exclusive owner of a parcel of land situated in the
barrio of Partida, municipality of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, described as
follows:

“Bounded on the north by the land of Don
Marcelino Santos; on the east, by the land of Dona Cristina Gonzalez;
on the south by the Binituan River; and on the west, by the land of
Doña Ramona Gonzalez; containing an area of 488 hectares approximately.

“2. That an application was filed for the registration of the above
described land in the registry of property of Nueva Ecija, which
application is still pending in the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija.

“3. That in consideration of the sum of P125 per
hectare I do hereby agree and bind myself to sell and transfer by way
of real and absolute sale the land above described to Mr. E. J.
Haberer, binding myself to execute the deed of sale immediately after
the decree of the court adjudicating said land in my favor is
registered in the registry of property of the Province of Nueva Ecija.
The conditions of this obligation to sell are as follows:

” ‘1. That Mr. E. J. Haberer has at this moment paid me the sum of P30,000 on account of the price of the aforesaid land.

” ‘2. That said Mr. E. J. Haberer agrees and binds himself to pay
within six months from the date of the execution of this document the
unpaid balance of the purchase price.

” ‘3. That said
Mr. E. J. Haberer shall have the right to take possession of the
aforesaid land immediately after the execution of this document
together with all the improvements now existing on the same land, such
as palay plantations and others.

” ‘4. That said Mr. E.
J. Haberer agrees and binds himself to pay the expenses to be incurred
from this date in the registration of the aforesaid land up to the
filing of the proper decree in the office of the register of deeds of
the Province of Nueva Ecija.

” ‘5. That in the event
that the court should hold that I am not the owner of all or any part
of the aforesaid land, I agree and bind myself to return without
interest all such amounts of money as I have received or may receive
from Mr. E. J. Haberer as the purchase price of said land, but, in the
event that the court should adjudicate a part of the aforesaid land to
me, then I agree and bind myself to sell said portion adjudicated to
me, returning all the amounts received from Mr. E. J. Haberer in excess
of the price of said portion at the rate of P125 per hectare.

” ‘6. That Mr. E. J. Haberer does hereby waive any interest or
indemnity upon the amount that I am to return to him and which I have
received from Mr. E. J. Haberer as the purchase price of the aforesaid
land.’

“I, E. J. Haberer, married, of
age, and resident of the municipality of Talavera, Nueva Ecija, do
hereby state that, having known the contents of this document, I accept
the same with all the stipulations and conditions thereof.

“I,
Luis Gomez, married, of age, and resident of the municipality of
Bautista, Province of Pangasinan, do hereby grant my wife, Doña
Guadalupe Gonzalez y Morales de Gomez, the due marital license to
execute this document and make effective the definite sale of the land
as above stipulated, she being empowered to execute the deed of sale
and other necessary documents in order that the full ownership over the
aforesaid land may be transferred to Mr. E. J. Haberer, as stipulated
in this document.

“In testimony whereof, we hereunto set our hands at Manila, this 7th day of July, 1920.

(Sgd.)				“GUADALUPE G. DE GOMEZ
				“E. J. HABERER
				“LUIS GOMEZ
“Signed in the presence of the witnesses:
(Sgd.)		“EMIGDIO DOMINGO
		“L. G. ALVAREZ

“(Acknowledged before notary.)”

It is conceded by the plaintiffs that the defendant never obtained
actual or physical possession of the land, but it is argued that under
the contract quoted the plaintiffs were under no obligation to place
him in possession. This contention cannot be sustained. Cause 3 of
paragraph 3 of the contract gave the defendant the right to take
possession of the land immediately upon the execution of the contract
and necessarily created the obligation on the part of the plaintiffs to
make good the right thus granted; it was one of the essential
conditions of the agreement and the failure of the plaintiffs to comply
with this condition, without fault on the part of the defendant, is in
itself sufficient ground for the rescission, even in the absence of any
misrepresentation on their part. (Civil Code, art. 1124; Pabalan vs. Velez, 22 Phil., 29.)

It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the question whether the
defendant was induced to enter into the agreement through
misrepresentations made by the plaintiff Gomez. We may say, however,
that the evidence leaves no doubt that some misrepresentations were
made and that but for such misrepresentations the defendant would not
have been likely to enter into the agreement in the form it appeared.
As to the contention that the plaintiff Gonzalez cannot be charged with
the misrepresentations of Gomez, it is sufficient to say that the
latter in negotiating for the sale of the land acted as the agent and
representative of the other plaintiff, his wife; having accepted the
benefit of the representations of her agent she cannot, of course,
escape liability for them. (Haskell vs. Starbird, 152 Mass., 117; 23 A. S. R., 809.)

The
contention of the appellants that the symbolic delivery effected by the
execution and delivery of the agreement was a sufficient delivery of
the possession of the land, is also without merit. The possession
referred to in the contract is evidently physical; if it were otherwise
it would not have been necessary to mention it in the contract. (See Cruzado vs. Bustos and Escaler, 34 Phil., 17.)

The judgment appealed from is in accordance with the law, is fully
sustained by the evidence, and is therefore affirmed, with the costs
against the appellants. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.