16. javier vs. ca _case

8/13/2019 16. Javier vs. CA _case

1/8

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-48194 March 15, 1990

JOSE M. JAVIER and ESTRELLA F. JAVIER, petitioners,vs.O!RT OF A""EALS and LEONAR#O TIRO, respondents.

Eddie Tamondong for petitioners.

Lope Adriano and Emmanuel Pelaez, Jr. for private respondent.

REGALA#O, J.:

Petitioners pray for the reversal of the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 52296-R, dated arch 6, !9"#, 1the dispositive portion $hereof decrees%

&'(R()*R(, the +udent appealed fro is herey set aside and another one enteredorderin the defendants-appellees, +ointly and solidarily, to pay plaintiff-appellant the suof P"9,//#.!5 $ith leal interest thereon fro the filin of the coplaint, plus attorney0sfees in the aount of P#,111.11. Costs aainst defendants-appellees.$

As found y respondent court or disclosed y the records, %this case $as enerated ythe follo$in antecedent facts.

Private respondent is a holder of an ordinary tier license issued y the ureau of)orestry coverin 2,5/5 hectares in the to$n of edina, isais *riental. *n )eruary!5, !966 he e3ecuted a 4eed of Assinent4 4in favor of herein petitioners theaterial parts of $hich read as follo$s%

333 333 333

, 7(*NAR* A. 8R*, of leal ae, arried and a resident of edina, isais *riental,for and in consideration of the su of *N( 'NR( 8&(N8: 8'*;AN P(;*;(:, asolutely and forever unto ?*;( . ?A>(R and (;8R(77A ). ?A>(R,spouses, of leal ae and a resident


2/8

2. 8he alance of P!11,111.11 shall e paid P!1,111.11 every shipentof e3port los actually produced fro the forest concession of8ier$ealth Corporation.

8hat herey aree to sin and endorse the stoc@ certificate in favor of r. B rs. ?ose. ?avier, as soon as stoc@ certificates are issued.

333 333 333

At the tie the said deed of assinent $as e3ecuted, private respondent had apendin application, dated *ctoer 2!, !965, for an additional forest concessioncoverin an area of 2,111 hectares south$est of and ad+oinin the area of theconcession su+ect of the deed of assinent. 'ence, on )eruary 2#, !966, privaterespondent and petitioners entered into another 4Areeent4 5$ith the follo$instipulations%

333 333 333

!. 8hat 7(*NAR* 8R* herey arees and inds hiself to transfer, cede and convey$hatever rihts he ay acuire, asolutely and forever, to 8(R&(A78'C*RP*RA8*N, a corporation duly oraniDed and e3istin under the la$s of thePhilippines, over a forest concession $hich is no$ pendin application and approval asadditional area to his e3istin licensed area under *.8. 7icense No. /9!-!1/!66, situatedat edina, isais *riental

2. 8hat for and in consideration of the aforeentioned transfer of rihts over saidadditional area to 8(R&(A78' C*RP*RA8*N, (;8R(77A ). ?A>(R and ?*;(. ?A>(R, oth directors and stoc@holders of said corporation, do herey underta@e topay 7(*NAR* 8R*, as soon as said additional area is approved and transferred to8(R&(A78' C*RP*RA8*N the su of 8'R8: 8'*;AN P(;*;


3/8

Consolidation Areeent 'on April !1, !96" $ith other ordinary tier license holdersin isais *riental, naely, >icente 7. e 7ara, ?r., ;alustiano R. *ca and ;anaya7oin Copany. nder this consolidation areeent, they all areed to pool toetherand ere their respective forest concessions into a $or@in unit, as envisioned y theaforeentioned directives. 8his consolidation areeent $as approved y the irector

of )orestry on ay !1, !96".8

8he $or@in unit $as suseuently incorporated as theNorth indanao 8ier Corporation, $ith the petitioners and the other sinatories of theaforesaid )orest Consolidation Areeent as incorporators. 9

*n ?uly !6, !96#, for failure of petitioners to pay the alance due under the t$o deedsof assinent, private respondent filed an action aainst petitioners, ased on the saidcontracts, for the payent of the aount of P#/,!/#.!5 $ith interest at 6E per annufro April !1, !96" until full payent, plus P!2,111.11 for attorney0s fees and costs.

*n ;epteer 2/, !96#, petitioners filed their ans$er adittin the due e3ecution of thecontracts ut interposin the special defense of nullity thereof since private respondent

failed to coply $ith his contractual oliations and, further, that the conditions for theenforceaility of the oliations of the parties failed to aterialiDe. As a counterclai,petitioners souht the return of P55,5#6.11 $hich private respondent had received frothe pursuant to an alleed anaeent areeent, plus attorney0s fees and costs.

*n *ctoer ", !96#, private respondent filed his reply refutin the defense of nullity ofthe contracts in this $ise%

&hat $ere actually transferred and assined to the defendants $ere plaintiff0s rihts andinterest in a loin concession descried in the deed of assinent, attached to thecoplaint and ar@ed as Anne3 A, and areeent Anne3 ( that the 4shares of stoc@s4referred to in pararaph of the coplaint are ters used therein erely to desinate or

identify those rihts and interests in said loin concession. 8he defendants actuallyade use of or en+oyed not the 4shares of stoc@s4 ut the loin concession itself thatsince the proposed 8ier$ealth Corporation $as o$ned solely and entirely ydefendants, the personalities of the forer and the latter are one and the sae. esides,efore the loin concession of the plaintiff or the latter0s rihts and interests therein$ere assined or transferred to defendants, they never ecae the property or assets ofthe 8ier$ealth Corporation $hich is at ost only an association of persons coposedof the defendants. 10

and contendin that the counterclai of petitioners in the aount of P55,5#6./9 isactually only a part of the su of P69,66!.#5 paid y the latter to the forer in partialsatisfaction of the latter0s clai. 11

After trial, the lo$er court rendered +udent disissin private respondent0s coplaintand orderin hi to pay petitioners the su of P//,!6!.#5 $ith leal interest at si3percent per annu fro the date of the filin of the ans$er until coplete payent. 1$

As earlier stated, an appeal $as interposed y private respondent to the Court ofAppeals $hich reversed the decision of the court of a quo.


4/8

*n arch 2#, !9"#, petitioners filed a otion in respondent court for e3tension of tieto file a otion for reconsideration, for the reason that they needed to chane counsel.1%Respondent court, in its resolution dated arch /!, !9"#, ave petitioners fifteen

filed their otion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals.15

*n April 2!, !9"#,private respondent filed a consolidated opposition to said otion for reconsideration onthe round that the decision of respondent court had ecoe final on arch 2", !9"#,hence the otion for e3tension filed on arch 2#, !9"# $as filed out of tie and there$as no ore period to e3tend. 'o$ever, this $as not acted upon y the Court of

Appeals for the reason that on April 21, !9"#, prior to its receipt of said opposition, aresolution $as issued denyin petitioners0 otion for reconsideration, thus%

8he otion for reconsideration filed on April !!, !9"# y counsel for defendants-appellees is denied. 8hey did not file any rief in this case. As a atter of fact this case$as suitted for decision $ithout appellees0 rief. n their said otion, they erely triedto refute the rationale of the Court in decidin to reverse the appealed +udent. 1&

Petitioners then souht relief in this Court in the present petition for revie$ on certiorari.Private respondent filed his coent, reiteratin his stand that the decision of the Courtof Appeals under revie$ is already final and e3ecutory.

Petitioners countered in their reply that their petition for revie$ presents sustantive andfundaental uestions of la$ that fully erit +udicial deterination, instead of einsuppressed on technical and insustantial reasons. oreover, the aforesaid one

intervenin holidays.

*n ?uly 26, !9"#, $e resolved to ive due course to the petition.

8he one


5/8

null and void, the forer for total asence of consideration and the latter for non-fulfillent of the conditions stated therein.

Petitioners contend that the deed of assinent conveyed to the the shares of stoc@sof private respondent in 8ier$ealth Corporation, as stated in the deed itself. ;ince

said corporation never cae into e3istence, no share of stoc@s $as ever transferred tothe, hence the said deed is null and void for lac@ of cause or consideration.

&e do not aree. As found y the Court of Appeals, the true cause or consideration ofsaid deed $as the transfer of the forest concession of private respondent to petitionersfor P!21,111.11. 8his findin is supported y the follo$in considerations, viz%

!. oth parties, at the tie of the e3ecution of the deed of assinent @ne$ that the8ier$ealth Corporation stated therein $as non-e3istent. 18

2. n their suseuent areeent, private respondent conveyed to petitioners his

inchoate riht over a forest concession coverin an additional area for his e3istin forestconcession, $hich area he had applied for, and his application $as then pendin in theureau of )orestry for approval.

/. Petitioners, after the e3ecution of the deed of assinent, assued the operation ofthe loin concessions of private respondent. 19

F. 8he stateent of advances to respondent prepared y petitioners stated%4P55,!#6./9 advances to 7.A. 8iro e applied to succeedin shipents. ased on theareeent, $e pay P!1,111.11 every after


6/8

a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to la$, orals, oodcustos, pulic order or pulic policy inds the parties to their real areeent.

8he Court of Appeals, therefore, did not err in holdin petitioners liale under the saiddeed and in rulin that

. . . n vie$ of the analysis of the first and second assinent of errors, the defendants-appellees are liale to the plaintiff-appellant for the sale and transfer in their favor of thelatter0s forest concessions. nder the ters of the contract, the parties areed on aconsideration of P!21,111.11. P21,111.11 of $hich $as paid, upon the sinin of thecontract and the alance of P!11,111.11 to e paid at the rate of P!1,111.11 for everyshipent of e3port los actually produced fro the forest concessions of the appellantsold to the appellees. ;ince plaintiff-appellant0s forest concessions $ere consolidated orered $ith those of the other tier license holders y appellees0 voluntary act underthe )orest Consolidation Areeent


7/8

and the aount of P/1,111.11 is herey ordered to e deducted fro the su a$ardedy respondent court to private respondent. n all other respects, said decision ofrespondent court is affired.

;* *R(R(.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and armiento JJ., concur.

Foo(no()*

! Penned y ?ustice Crisolito Pascual, $ith ?ustices ;auel ). Reyes and Rafael C.Cliaco concurrin.

2 !ollo, 61.

/ "#id., F9-55.

F "#id., F9-55.

5 "#id., !6-!".

6 )older of *riinal (3hiits for Plaintiff, (3h. A.

" "d., (3h. , -! to -2.

# "d., (3h. -/.

9 )older of *riinal (3hiits for efendants, (3h. !#.

!1 !ollo, "/ Record on Appeal, CA-G.R. No. 52296-R, /5-/6.

!! "#id., id., id., /6-/".

!2 "#id., id., id., !1/-!!F.

!/ !ollo, CA-G.R. No. 52296-R, "/-"F.

!F "#id., id., "5.

!5 "#id., id., "6-#6.

!6 "#id., id., #".

!" 'eluth, ?r. vs. People of the Philippines, et al., !!2 ;CRA 5"/

!# !ollo, /F.


8/8

!9 "#id., 5F.

21 )older of *riinal (3hiits for efendants, (3h. 9.

2! )older of *riinal (3hiits for Plaintiff, (3h. .

22 >elasueD, et al. vs. 8eodoro, et al., !6 Phil. "5"

2F $p.cit., 2//-2/!.

25 Art. !/F5, Civil Code.

26 Concepcion vs. ;ta. Ana, #" Phil. "#"

2" !ollo, 5#-59.

2# Art. !!#!, Civil Code Araneta vs. Rural Proress Adinistration, 92 Phil. 9#

29 Gaite vs. )onacier, et al., 2 ;CRA #/1

/1 Pio arretto ;ons, nc. vs. Copania aritia,62 ;CRA !F"

16. javier vs. ca _case

Documents