8/11/2019 04 Ong v. CA (1999)

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 97347 July 6, 1999

JAIME G. ONG, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES MIGUEL . ROBLES !"#ALEJAN$RO M. ROBLES,respondents.

%NARES&SANTIAGO, J.:

efore us is a petition for revie! on certiorarifro" the #ud$"ent rendered b% the &ourtof 'ppeals !hich, e(cept as to the a!ard of e(e"plar% da"a$es, affir"ed the decisionof the Re$ional Trial &ourt of )ucena &it%, ranch *+, settin$ aside the '$ree"ent ofPurchase and Sale entered into b% herein petitioner and private respondent spouses in&ivil &ase No. -/-.1wphi1.nt

On Ma% 0+, 01-2, petitioner 3ai"e On$, on the one hand, and respondent spousesMi$uel 4. Robles and 'le#andra Robles, on the other hand, e(ecuted an '$ree"ent ofPurchase and Sale respectin$ t!o parcels of land situated at arrio Puri, San 'ntonio,5ue6on. The ter"s and conditions of the contract read7

0. That for and in consideration of the a$reed purchase price of T8O MI))ION P9SOS:P;,+++,+++.++?NDR9D T>O?S'ND P9SOS :P*++,+++.++< asverball% a$reed b% the parties, shall be bro@en do!n as follo!s7

0. P0+2,A11.10 shall be paid, and as alread% paid b% the BUYERto theSELLERSonMarch ;;, 01-2, as stipulated under the Certification of undertakingdated March ;;,01-2 and covered b% a chec@ of even date.

;. That the su" of PA1*,++.+1 shall be paid directl% b% the BUYERto the an@ ofPhilippine Islands to ans!er for the loan of the SELLERS!hich as of March 0, 01-2a"ounted to P2B,20+.0+, and for the interest that "a% accrued :sic< fro" March 0,01-2, up to the ti"e said obli$ation of theSELLERS!ith the said ban@ has beensettled, provided ho!ever that the a"ount in e(cess of PA1*,++.+1, shall bechar$eable fro" the ti"e deposit of the SELLERS!ith the aforesaid ban@.

. That the balance of ON9 MI))ION FO?R >?NDR9D T>O?S'ND :P0,A++,+++.++o!ever, althou$h the parties a$reed to credit the proceeds fro" thesale of the transfor"ers to petitioners obli$ation, he !as supposed to rei"burse the

sa"e later to respondent spouses. This can onl% "ean that there !as never anintention on the part of either of the parties to novate petitioners "anner of pa%"ent.

Petitioner contends that the parties verball% a$reed to novate the "anner of pa%"ent!hen respondent spouses proposed to operate the rice "ill on the condition that the%!ill account for its earnin$s. 8e find that this is unsubstantiated b% the evidenced onthe record. The tenor of his letter dated 'u$ust 0;, 01-A to respondent spouses, in fact,sho!s that petitioner had a little "isunderstandin$ !ith respondent spouses !ho" he!as evidentl% tr%in$ to appease b% authori6in$ the" to continue te"poraril% !ith theoperation of the rice "ill. &learl%, !hile petitioner "i$ht have !anted to novate theori$inal a$ree"ent as to his "anner of pa%"ent, the records are bereft of evidence thatrespondent spouses !illin$l% a$reed to "odif% their previous arran$e"ent.

In order for novation to ta@e place, the concurrence of the follo!in$ reCuisites isindispensable7 :0< there "ust be a previous valid obli$ationG :;< there "ust be ana$ree"ent of the parties concerned to a ne! contractG :2< there "ust be thee(tin$uish"ent of the old contractG and :A< there "ust be the validit% of the ne!contract. '(The aforesaid reCuisites are not found in the case at bench. ThesubseCuent acts of the parties hardl% de"onstrate their intent to dissolve the old

obli$ation as a consideration for the e"er$ence of the ne! one. 8e repeat to the pointof triteness, novation is never presu"ed, there "ust be an e(press intention to novate.

's re$ards the i"prove"ents introduced b% petitioner to the pre"ises and for !hich heclai"s rei"burse"ent, !e see no reason to depart fro" the rulin$ of the trial court andthe appellate court that petitioner is a builder in bad faith. >e introduced thei"prove"ents on the pre"ises @no!in$ full% !ell that he has not paid the considerationof the contract in full and over the vi$orous ob#ections of respondent spouses.Moreover, petitioner introduced "a#or i"prove"ents on the pre"ises even !hile thecase a$ainst hi" !as pendin$ before the trial court.

The a!ard of e(e"plar% da"a$es !as correctl% deleted b% the &ourt of 'ppeals in as"uch as no "oral, te"perate, liCuidated or co"pensator% da"a$es in addition to

e(e"plar% da"a$es !ere a!arded.

8>9R9FOR9, the decision rendered b% the &ourt of 'ppeals is hereb% 'FFIRM9D!ith the MODIFI&'TION that respondent spouses are ordered to return to petitionerthe su" of PA-,*-+.++ in addition to the a"ounts alread% a!arded. &osts a$ainstpetitioner.

SO ORD9R9D.

4