Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 120724-25 May 21, 1998
FERNANDO T. MATE, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABE COURT OF APPEAS a!" #NOCENC#O TAN, respondents.

MART#NE$, J.:
In this petition for revie, petitioner assails the Decision
1
of the Court of !ppeals dated
!u"ust #$, %$$& in C!'(.R. CV No. #)##*'#+, hich affir,ed ith ,odification the
decision of the trial court, the dispositive portion of hich reads, to it-
./ERE0ORE, this Court finds the Deed of Sale ith Ri"ht of
Repurchase e1ecuted October +, %$)+ valid and bindin" beteen
plaintiff and defendant 2as vendor and vendee'a'retro respectivel345
that as the period to redee, has e1pired, onership thereof as
consolidated b3 operation of la, and the Re"ister of Deeds is
hereb3 ordered to RE(IS6ER this decision consolidatin" the
defendant7s onership over the properties covered b3 6ransfer
Certificate of 6itle No. 6'$8'9%, coverin" :ot )5 Ori"inal Certificate of
6itle No. N';%% coverin" :ot *;98, all of the 6acloban Cadastre, and
issuin" to defendant Inocencio 6an his titles after cancellation of the
titles presentl3 re"istered in plaintiff 0ernando 6. Mate7s na,e and
that of his ife.
6he plaintiff 0ernando Mate is further ordered to pa3 defendant the
su, of ONE /<NDRED 0OR6= 6/O<S!ND 2P%&8,888.884
PESOS, for and as attorne37s fees.
.ith costs a"ainst the plaintiff 0ernando Mate.
SO ORDERED.
2
6he facts of this case, as su,,ari>ed in the petition, are reproduced hereunder-
On October +, %$)+ ?osefina R. Re3 2hereafter referred to as @?osie@
for short4 and private respondent ent to the residence of petitioner
at 6acloban Cit3. ?osie ho is a cousin of petitioner7s ife solicited his
help to stave off her and her fa,il37s prosecution b3 private
respondent for violation of A.P. ## on account of the rubber checBs
that she, her ,other, sister and brother issued to private respondent
a,ountin" to P&,&;*8+9.88. She reCuested petitioner to cede to
private respondent his three 2;4 lots in 6acloban Cit3 in order to
placate hi,. On hearin" ?osie7s proposal he i,,ediatel3 reDected it
as he oed private respondent nothin" and he as under no
obli"ation to conve3 to hi, his properties. 0urther,ore, his lots ere
not for sale. ?osie e1plained to hi, that he as in no dan"er of losin"
his properties as he ill ,erel3 e1ecute a si,ulated docu,ent
transferrin" the, to private respondent but the3 ill be redee,ed b3
her ith her on funds. !fter a lon" discussion, he a"reed to e1ecute
a fictitious deed of sale ith ri"ht to repurchase coverin" his three 2;4
lots ,entioned above subDect to the folloin" conditions-
%. 6he a,ount to be stated in the docu,ent is P%,&88,888.88 ith
interest thereon at *E a ,onth5
#. 6he properties ill be repurchased ithin si1 2+4 ,onths or on or
before !pril &, %$)95
;. !lthou"h it ould appear in the docu,ent that petitioner is the
vendor, it is ?osie ho ill provide the ,one3 for the rede,ption of
the properties ith her on funds5
&. 6itles to the properties ill be delivered to private respondent but
the sale ill not be re"istered in the Re"ister of Deeds and annotated
on the titles.
6o assure petitioner that ?osie ill redee, the aforesaid properties,
she issued to hi, to 2#4 API checBs both postdated Dece,ber %*,
%$)+. One checB as for P%,&88,888.88 supposedl3 for the sellin"
price and the other as for P&#8,888.88 correspondin" to the
interests for + ,onths. I,,ediatel3 thereafter petitioner prepared the
Deed of Sale ith Ri"ht to Repurchase 2E1h. !4 and after it has been
1
si"ned and notari>ed, it as "iven to private respondent to"ether
ith the titles of the properties and the latter did not re"ister the
transaction in the Re"ister of Deeds as a"reed upon.
On ?anuar3 %&, %$)9, petitioner deposited the checB for
P%,&88,888.88 2E1h. A4 in his account at the <nited Coconut Planters
AanB and the other checB for P&#8,888.88 2E1h. D4 in his account at
ME6ROA!NF preparator3 to the rede,ption of his properties.
/oever, both of the, ere dishonored b3 the draee banB for
havin" been dran a"ainst a closed account. Reali>in" that he as
sindled, he sent ?osie a tele"ra, about her checBs and hen she
failed to respond, he ent to Manila to looB for her but she could not
be found. So he returned to 6acloban Cit3 and filed Cri,inal Cases
Nos. );%8 and );%# a"ainst her for violation of A.P. ## but the cases
ere later archived as the accused 2?osie4 could not be found as she
ent into hidin". 6o protect his interest, he filed Civil Case No. 9;$+
of the Re"ional 6rial Court of :e3te, Aranch VII, entitled @0ernando 6.
Mate vs. ?osefina R. Re3 and Inocencio 6an@ for !nnul,ent of
Contract ith Da,a"es. Defendant ?osefina R. Re3 2?osie4 as
declared in default and the case proceeded a"ainst private
respondent. Aut durin" the trial the R6C court asBed private
respondent to file an action for consolidation of onership of the
properties subDect of the sale and pursuant thereto he filed Civil Case
No. 9*)9 that as consolidated ith the case he filed earlier hich
ere later decided Dointl3 b3 the trial court in favor of private
respondent and as subseCuentl3 appealed to respondent Court that
affir,ed it ith ,odification. 6hereupon, petitioner filed a ,otion to
reconsider the decision but it as denied. /ence, the instant petition
for revie.
%
In this petition for revie, the petitioner presents as the sole issue the validit3 of the
Deed of Sale ith Ri"ht to Repurchase. /e contends that it is null and void for lacB of
consideration because alle"edl3 no ,one3 chan"ed hands hen he si"ned it and the
checBs that ere issued for rede,ption of the properties involved in the sale have been
dishonored b3 the draee banB for havin" been dran a"ainst a closed account.
4
6he contention is ithout ,erit.
6here as a consideration. 6he respondent court aptl3 observed that G
In preparin" and e1ecutin" the deed of sale ith ri"ht of repurchase
and in deliverin" to 6an the land titles, appellant actuall3
acco,,odated ?osefina so she ould not be char"ed cri,inall3 b3
6an. 6o ensure that he could repurchase his lots, appellant "ot a
checB of P%,&88,888.88 fro, her. !lso, b3 alloin" his titles to be in
possession of 6an for a period of si1 ,onths, appellant secured fro,
her another checB for P&#8,888.88. .ith this arran"e,ent, appellant
as convinced he had a "ood bar"ain. <nfortunatel3 his e1pectation
cru,bled. 0or this tra"ic incident, not onl3 ?osefina, but also 6an,
accordin" to appellant ,ust be anserable.
111 111 111
It is plain that consideration e1isted at the ti,e of the e1ecution of the
deed of sale ith ri"ht of repurchase. It is not onl3 appellant7s
Bindness to ?osefina, bein" his cousin, but also his receipt of
P&#8,888.88 fro, her hich i,pelled hi, to e1ecute such contract.
5
0urther,ore, hile petitioner did not receive the P%.& Million purchase prices fro,
respondent 6an, he had in his possession a postdated checB of ?osie Re3 in an
eCuivalent a,ount precisel3 to repurchase the to lots on or before the si1th ,onth.
!s ad,itted b3 petitioner, b3 virtue of the sale ith pacto de retro, ?osie Re3 "ave hi,,
as vendor'a'retro, a postdated checB in the a,ount of P%.& Million, hich represented
the repurchase price of the to 2#4 lots. !side fro, the P%.& Million checB, ?osie "ave
another postdated checB to petitioner in the a,ount of P&#8,888.88, ostensibl3 as
interest for si1 2+4 ,onths but hich apparentl3 as his fee for havin" e1ecuted
the pacto de retrodocu,ent. ?osie thus assu,ed the responsibilit3 of pa3in" the
repurchase price on behalf of petitioner to private respondent.
<nfortunatel3, the to checBs issued b3 ?osie Re3 ere orthless. Aoth ere
dishonored upon present,ent b3 petitioner ith the draee banBs. /oever, there is
absolutel3 no basis for petitioner to file a co,plaint a"ainst private respondent 6an and
?osie Re3 to annul the pacto de retro sale on the "round of lacB of consideration,
invoBin" his failure to encash the to checBs. Petitioner7s cause of action as to file
cri,inal actions a"ainst ?osie Re3 under A.P. ##, hich he did. 6he filin" of the cri,inal
cases as a tacit ad,ission b3 petitioner that there as a consideration of the pacto de
retro sale.
Petitioner further clai,s that the pacto de retro sale as subDect to the condition that in
the event the checBs "iven b3 ?osie Re3es to hi, for the repurchase of the propert3
ere dishonored, then the docu,ent shall be declared null and void for lacB of
consideration.
.e are not persuaded.
2
Private respondent 6an as alread3 poised to file cri,inal cases a"ainst ?osie Re3 and
her fa,il3. It ould not be lo"ical for respondent 6an to a"ree to the conditions
alle"edl3 i,posed b3 petitioner. Petitioner Bne that he as bound b3 the deed of sale
ith ri"ht to repurchase, as evidenced b3 his filin" cri,inal cases a"ainst ?osie Re3
hen the to checBs bounced.
6he respondent court further ,ade the candid but true observation that-
If there is an3bod3 to bla,e for his predica,ent, it is appellant
hi,self. /e is a la3er. /e as the one ho prepared the contract.
/e Bne hat he as enterin" into. Surel3, he ,ust have been
aare of the risB involved. .hen ?osefina7s checBs bounced, he
should have repurchased his lots ith his on ,one3. Instead, he
sued not onl3 ?osefina but also 6an for annul,ent of contract on the
"round of lacB of consideration and false pretenses on their part.
Petitioner then postulates that @it is not onl3 ille"al but i,,oral to reCuire hi, to
repurchase his on properties ith his on ,one3 hen he did not derive an3 benefit
fro, the transaction.@ 6hus, he invoBes the case of Singson vs.Isabela Sawmill, 88
SCRA 633, 643, here the Court said that @here one or to innocent persons ,ust
suffer, that person ho "ave occasion for the da,a"es to be caused ,ust bear
conseCuences.@ Petitioner7s reliance on this doctrine is ,isplaced. /e is not an
innocent person. !s a ,atter of fact, he "ave occasion for the da,a"e caused b3 virtue
of the deed of sale ith ri"ht to repurchase hich he prepared and si"ned. 6hus, there
is the eCuitable ,a1i, that beteen to innocent parties, the one ho ,ade it possible
for the ron" to be done should be the one to bear the resultin" loss.
&
Petitioner further insinuates that private respondent deceived hi, into si"nin" the deed
of sale ith ri"ht to repurchase. 6his is not borne out b3 the evidence nor b3 petitioner7s
on state,ent of facts hich e heretofore produced. !s aptl3 observed b3 the
respondent court @.e are at a loss h3 herein appellant ascribes false pretenses to
6an ho ,erel3 si"ned the contract.@
7
Contrar3 to petitioner7s pretension, respondent
6an did not e,plo3 an3 devious sche,e to ,aBe the for,er si"n the deed of sale. It is
to be noted that 6an aived his ri"ht to collect fro, ?osefina Re3 b3 virtue of the pacto
de retro sale. In turn, ?osefina "ave petitioner a postdated checB in the a,ount of P%.&
Million to ensure that the latter ould not lose his to lots. Petitioner, a la3er, should
have Bnon that the transaction as frau"ht ith risBs since ?osefina Re3 and fa,il3
had a checBered histor3 of issuin" orthless checBs. Aut had petitioner not a"reed to
the arran"e,ent, respondent 6an ould not have a"reed to aive prosecution of
?osefina Re3.
!pparentl3, it as petitioner7s a"reed for a hu"e profit that i,pelled hi, to accede to
the sche,e of ?osefina Re3 even if he Bne it as a dan"erous undertaBin". .hen the
drafted the pacto de retro docu,ent, he thre caution to the inds for"ettin" that
prudence ,i"ht have been the better course of action. .e can onl3 s3,pathi>e ith
petitioner7s predica,ent. /oever, a contract is a contract. One a"reed upon, and
provided all the essential ele,ents are present, it is valid and bindin" beteen the
parties.
Petitioner has no one to bla,e but hi,self for his ,isfortune.
./ERE0ORE, the Decision of the Court of !ppeals dated !u"ust #$, %$$& is hereb3
!00IRMED. 6he petition for revie is hereb3 DENIED D<E CO<RSE for lacB of ,erit.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Melo, Puno and Mendoa, !!", concur"
Foo'!o'()
3