Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest No. 3: Abrenica vs. Gonda
Case Digest No. 3: Abrenica vs. Gonda
CONTENT
vs.
The Facts
This case was brought by the plaintiff to compel the defendants to return the two parcels of
land described in the complaint which he claimed were sold to the defendants under the right
of repurchase for seven years and for the sum of 75Php. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the
defendant refused to deliver the same when, upon the expiration of the period, mentioned,
he is entitled to redeem the subject parcels of land upon the payment of the amount agreed
upon.
However, the plaintiff stated that the agreement for the sale with right of repurchase was
done verbally between him and Gonda (one of the defendants). When he was placed on the
stand as a witness, he testified at length and answered all the questions asked by his lawyer
regarding the said agreement/contract, including its details, the persons who witnessed it,
the place it was made, and the various other circumstances connected with its execution.
The defendant’s counsel failed to raise an objection to the examination. The defendant’s
lawyer also challenged one of the questions as leading and claimed another question was
irrelevant. Moreover, he only moved to strike out all of the testimony and statements given
by the plaintiff when the examination was already terminated on the ground that the period
for the fulfillment of the contract exceeded one year and that it could not be proven except
by means of a written instrument. The lawyer also did a cross examination and asked
several questions relative to the plaintiff’s ownership of the parcels of land.
Issue
Whether the two parcels of land were sold under the right of repurchase by the plaintiff to the
defendant.
7
Held
Yes. The two parcels of land were sold under the right of repurchase by the plaintiff to the
defendant with the seven-year term for 75 php. Moreover, the fact that the defendants’
counsel asked various cross-questions, both of the plaintiff and of the other witness, in
connection with the answers given by them in their direct examination, with respect to
particulars concerning the contract, implies a waiver on his part to have the evidence
stricken out.
No timely objection or protest was made to the admission of the testimony of the plaintiff with
respect to the contract; and as the motion to strike out said evidence came to late; and,
furthermore, as the defendants themselves, by the cross- questions put by their counsel for
the witnesses in respect to said contract, tacitly waived their right to have it stricken out, that
evidence, therefore, cannot be considered either inadmissible or illegal.
The plaintiff made use of his right to recover the property within the period stipulated by the
contract and which did not exceed ten years, and as he deposited with the clerk of the court
the sum of P75, the price of the purchase, in due time, the defendant is not entitled to
oppose the recovery, and the said parcels of land must be delivered to the plaintiff, even
though they be in the possession of the other defendant, Marcelino de Garcia, to whom they
were sold by his codefendant Gonda, for the latter could not sell them to De Gracia except
under the condition that they could be repurchased by the plaintiff within the said period of
seven years.
REFLECTION / CONCLUSION:
This agreement, though verbally made is ratified by the failure of the defendant’s
party to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same as expressed on
Article 1405 of the New Civil Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
The party should promptly object to the presentation of the witness once it becomes
apparent that no evidence in writing could be presented to prove the contract. The objection
must be invoked during the “offer of the testimony” of the witness or a motion to dismiss may
be filed before answer to the complaint is filed.
REFERENCE:
8
CASE DIGEST NO. 4
CONTENT
vs.
HON. ANACLETO B. ALZATE as Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of first Instance of
Tarlac, TOMASA BUMANLAG, and SILVINO ESPUGADO, respondents.
The Facts
On the first case which entitled Bumanlag, et. al. v. Bumanlag, et. al. the petitioner sued
herein the private respondents for partition of the lots inherited by both parties from their
deceased father, respondents however moved to dismiss on the ground that some years
before a final and executory judgment (based on a compromise agreement) involving the
same parties, same subject matter, and same causes of action had already been rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction and that therefore the doctrine of res judicata clearly bars
the present case; petitioners contend that said judgment is void because the compromise
agreement had been signed in their behalf by their lawyer who had not been authorized by
them to enter into such agreement, consequently there can be no res judicata.
Issue
Whether or not the lawyer who signed a compromised agreement on behalf of his client
without the consent of the latter is void?
Held
No, the compromise is not void but only unenforceable and may therefore be ratified by the
client expressly or impliedly which stated on “Art. 1403 --- The following contracts are
unenforceable, unless they are ratified: 1. Those entered into in the name of another person
9
by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond
his powers.”
REFLECTION / CONCLUSION:
A statute of frauds does not of itself render a contract void. The statute makes certain
contracts “voidable” by one of the parties, in the event that the party does not wish to follow
through on the agreement. A contract that is “void” cannot be enforced. A contract that is
“voidable” remains valid unless one of the parties chooses to void the contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFERENCE:
10