G.R. No. 118367 January 5, 1998
LYDIA P. CUBA, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and AGRIPINA P. CAPERAL,respondents.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
FACTS
These two consolidated cases stemmed from a complaint filed against the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Agripina Caperal filed by Lydia Cuba (CUBA) on 21 May 1985 with the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 54. The said complaint sought (1) the declaration of nullity of DBP’s appropriation of CUBA’s rights, title, and interests over a 44-hectares fishpond located in Bolinao, Pangasinan, for being violative of Article 2088 of the Civil Code; (2) the annulment of the Deed of Conditional Sale executed in her favor by DBP; (3) the annulment of DBP’s sale of the subject fishpond to Caperal; (4) the restoration of her rights, title, and interests over the fishpond; and (5) the recovery of damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses of litigation.
After the joinder of issues following the filing by the parties of their respective pleadings, the trial court conducted a pre-trial where CUBA and DBP agreed on the facts, which were embodied in the pre-trial order wherein Defendant Caperal admitted only the facts stated in paragraphs 14 and 15 :
14.That the DBP thereafter executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in favor of defendant Agripina Caperal on August 16, 1984;
15.Thereafter, defendant Caperal was awarded Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 2083-A on December 28, 1984 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
Trial was thereafter had on other matters.
The principal issue presented was whether the act of DBP in appropriating to itself CUBA’s leasehold rights over the fishpond in question without foreclosure proceedings was contrary to Article 2088 of the Civil Code and, therefore, invalid. CUBA insisted on an affirmative resolution. DBP stressed that it merely exercised its contractual right under the Assignments of Leasehold Rights, which was not a contract of mortgage. Defendant Caperal sided with DBP.
The trial court resolved the issue in favor of CUBA by declaring that DBP’s taking possession and ownership of the property without foreclosure was plainly violative of Article 2088 of the Civil Code.
The trial court also concluded that since DBP never acquired lawful ownership of CUBA’s leasehold rights, all acts of ownership and possession by the said bank were void. Accordingly, the Deed of Conditional Sale in favor of CUBA, the notarial rescission of such sale, and the Deed of Conditional Sale in favor of defendant Caperal, as well as the Assignment of Leasehold Rights executed by Caperal in favor of DBP, were also void and ineffective.
The trial court found “ample evidence on record” that in 1984 the representatives of DBP ejected CUBA and her caretakers not only from the fishpond area but also from the adjoining big house; and that when CUBA’s son and caretaker went there on 15 September 1985, they found the said house unoccupied and destroyed and CUBA’s personal belongings, machineries, equipment, tools, and other articles used in fishpond operation which were kept in the house were missing. The missing items were valued at about P550,000. It further found that when CUBA and her men were ejected by DBP for the first time in 1979, CUBA had stocked the fishpond with 250,000 pieces of bangus fish (milkfish), all of which died because the DBP representatives prevented CUBA’s men from feeding the fish. At the conservative price of P3.00 per fish, the gross value would have been P690,000, and after deducting 25% of said value as reasonable allowance for the cost of feeds, CUBA suffered a loss of P517,500. It then set the aggregate of the actual damages sustained by CUBA at P1,067,500.
The trial court further found that DBP was guilty of gross bad faith in falsely representing to the Bureau of Fisheries that it had foreclosed its mortgage on CUBA’s leasehold rights. The trial court also held that CUBA was entitled to P100,000 attorney’s fees in view of the considerable expenses she incurred for lawyers’ fees and in view of the finding that she was entitled to exemplary damages.
In its decision of 31 January 1990, the trial court disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff:
- DECLARING null and void and without any legal effect the act of defendant Development Bank of the Philippines in appropriating for its own interest, without any judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure, plaintiff’s leasehold rights and interest over the fishpond land in question under her Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 2083 (new);
- DECLARING the Deed of Conditional Sale dated February 21, 1980 by and between the defendant Development Bank of the Philippines and plaintiff and the acts of notarial rescission of the Development Bank of the Philippines relative to said sale void and ineffective;
- DECLARING the Deed of Conditional Sale dated August 16, 1984 by and between the Development Bank of the Philippines and defendant Agripina Caperal , the Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 2083-A dated December 28, 1984 of defendant Agripina Caperal and the Assignment of Leasehold Rights dated February 12, 1985 executed by defendant Agripina Caperal in favor of the defendant Development Bank of the Philippines as void ab initio;
- ORDERING defendant Development Bank of the Philippines and defendant Agripina Caperal, jointly and severally, to restore to plaintiff the latter’s leasehold rights and interests and right of possession over the fishpond land in question, without prejudice to the right of defendant Development Bank of the Philippines to foreclose the securities given by plaintiff;
- ORDERING defendant Development Bank of the Philippines to pay to plaintiff the following amounts:
- a) The sum of ONE MILLION SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P1,067,500.00), as and for actual damages;
- b) The sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS as moral damages;
- c) The sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, as and for exemplary damages;
- d) And the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS, as and for attorney’s fees;
- And ORDERING defendant Development Bank of the Philippines to reimburse and pay to defendant Agripina Caperal the sum of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TEN PESOS AND SEVENTY-FIVE CENTAVOS (P1,532,610.75) representing the amounts paid by defendant Agripina Caperal to defendant Development Bank of the Philippines under their Deed of Conditional Sale.
CUBA and DBP interposed separate appeals from the decision to the Court of Appeals. The former sought an increase in the amount of damages, while the latter questioned the findings of fact and law of the lower court.
In its decision of 25 May 1994, the Court of Appeals ruled that (1) the trial court erred in declaring that the deed of assignment was null and void and that defendant Caperal could not validly acquire the leasehold rights from DBP; (2) contrary to the claim of DBP, the assignment was not a cession under Article 1255 of the Civil Code because DBP appeared to be the sole creditor to CUBA — cession presupposes plurality of debts and creditors; (3) the deeds of assignment represented the voluntary act of CUBA in assigning her property rights in payment of her debts, which amounted to a novation of the promissory notes executed by CUBA in favor of DBP; (4) CUBA was estopped from questioning the assignment of the leasehold rights, since she agreed to repurchase the said rights under a deed of conditional sale; and (5) condition no. 12 of the deed of assignment was an express authority from CUBA for DBP to sell whatever right she had over the fishpond. It also ruled that CUBA was not entitled to loss of profits for lack of evidence, but agreed with the trial court as to the actual damages of P1,067,500. It, however, deleted the amount of exemplary damages and reduced the award of moral damages from P100,000 to P50,000 and attorney’s fees, from P100,000 to P50,000.
The Court of Appeals thus declared as valid the following: (1) the act of DBP in appropriating Cuba’s leasehold rights and interest under Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 2083; (2) the deeds of assignment executed by Cuba in favor of DBP; (3) the deed of conditional sale between CUBA and DBP; and (4) the deed of conditional sale between DBP and Caperal, the Fishpond Lease Agreement in favor of Caperal, and the assignment of leasehold rights executed by Caperal in favor of DBP. It then ordered DBP to turn over possession of the property to Caperal as lawful holder of the leasehold rights and to pay CUBA the following amounts: (a) P1,067,500 as actual damages; P50,000 as moral damages; and P50,000 as attorney’s fees.
Since their motions for reconsideration were denied, DBP and CUBA filed separate petitions for review.
In its petition (G.R. No. 118342), DBP assails the award of actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees in favor of CUBA.
Upon the other hand, in her petition (G.R. No. 118367), CUBA contends that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in not holding that the questioned deed of assignment was a pactum commissorium contrary to Article 2088 of the Civil Code; (b) in holding that the deed of assignment effected a novation of the promissory notes; (c) in holding that CUBA was estopped from questioning the validity of the deed of assignment when she agreed to repurchase her leasehold rights under a deed of conditional sale; and (d) in reducing the amounts of moral damages and attorney’s fees, in deleting the award of exemplary damages, and in not increasing the amount of damages.
We find no merit in DBP’s contention that the assignment novated the promissory notes in that the obligation to pay a sum of money the loans (under the promissory notes) was substituted by the assignment of the rights over the fishpond (under the deed of assignment). As correctly pointed out by CUBA, the said assignment merely complemented or supplemented the notes; both could stand together. The former was only an accessory to the latter. Contrary to DBP’s submission, the obligation to pay a sum of money remained, and the assignment merely served as security for the loans covered by the promissory notes. Significantly, both the deeds of assignment and the promissory notes were executed on the same dates the loans were granted. Also, the last paragraph of the assignment stated: “The assignor further reiterates and states all terms, covenants, and conditions stipulated in the promissory note or notes covering the proceeds of this loan, making said promissory note or notes, to all intent and purposes, an integral part hereof.”
Neither did the assignment amount to payment by cession under Article 1255 of the Civil Code for the plain and simple reason that there was only one creditor, the DBP. Article 1255 contemplates the existence of two or more creditors and involves the assignment of all the debtor’s property.
Nor did the assignment constitute dation in payment under Article 1245 of the civil Code, which reads: “Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money, shall be governed by the law on sales.” It bears stressing that the assignment, being in its essence a mortgage, was but a security and not a satisfaction of indebtedness.
SC did not, buy CUBA’s argument that condition no. 12 of the deed of assignment constituted pactum commissorium. DBP, however, exceeded the authority vested by condition no. 12 of the deed of assignment. As admitted by it during the pre-trial, it had “[w]ithout foreclosure proceedings, whether judicial or extrajudicial, . . . appropriated the [l]easehold [r]ights of plaintiff Lydia Cuba over the fishpond in question.” Its contention that it limited itself to mere administration by posting caretakers is further belied by the deed of conditional sale it executed in favor of CUBA. The deed stated:
Instead of taking ownership of the questioned real rights upon default by CUBA, DBP should have foreclosed the mortgage, as has been stipulated in condition no. 22 of the deed of assignment. But, as admitted by DBP, there was no such foreclosure. Yet, in its letter dated 26 October 1979, addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources and coursed through the Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, DBP declared that it “had foreclosed the mortgage and enforced the assignment of leasehold rights on March 21, 1979 for failure of said spouses [Cuba spouces] to pay their loan amortizations.” This only goes to show that DBP was aware of the necessity of foreclosure proceedings.
In view of the false representation of DBP that it had already foreclosed the mortgage, the Bureau of Fisheries cancelled CUBA’s original lease permit, approved the deed of conditional sale, and issued a new permit in favor of CUBA. Said acts which were predicated on such false representation, as well as the subsequent acts emanating from DBP’s appropriation of the leasehold rights, should therefore be set aside. To validate these acts would open the floodgates to circumvention of Article 2088 of the Civil Code.
Even in cases where foreclosure proceedings were had, this Court had not hesitated to nullify the consequent auction sale for failure to comply with the requirements laid down by law, such as Act No. 3135, as amended. 15With more reason that the sale of property given as security for the payment of a debt be set aside if there was no prior fore closure proceeding.
Hence, DBP should render an accounting of the income derived from the operation of the fishpond in question and apply the said income in accordance with condition no. 12 of the deed of assignment which provided: “Any amount received from rents, administration, . . . may be applied to the payment of repairs, improvements, taxes, assessment, and other incidental expenses and obligations and the balance, if any, to the payment of interest and then on the capital of the indebtedness. . .”
HELD
The 25 May 1994 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 26535 is hereby REVERSED, except as to the award of P50,000 as moral damages, which is hereby sustained. The 31 January 1990 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 54, in Civil Case No. A-1574 is MODIFIED setting aside the finding that condition no. 12 of the deed of assignment constituted pactum commissorium and the award of actual damages; and by reducing the amounts of moral damages from P100,000 to P50,000; the exemplary damages, from P50,000 to P25,000; and the attorney’s fees, from P100,000 to P20,000. The Development Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to render an accounting of the income derived from the operation of the fishpond in question.
Let this case be REMANDED to the trial court for the reception of the income statement of DBP, as well as the statement of the account of Lydia P. Cuba, and for the determination of each party’s financial obligation to one another.
Obligations and Contracts 