SANDICO v. PIGUING and PARAS


SANDICO V. PIGUING and PARAS
G.R. No. L-26115 
November 29, 1971

FACTS

Petitioner spouses Sandico and Timbol obtained a judgment in their favor against Respondent Paras in an action for easement and damages in the CFI & CA.

CA JUDGMENT = FINAL
 “xxx respondent [Desiderio] is condemned to recognize the easement which is held binding as to him; he is sentenced pay petitioners [Sandico et. al.] the sums of P5,000.00 actual, and P500.00 exemplary damages, and P500.00 attorney's fees; plus costs in both instances.”

AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
The petitioners and the respondent reached a settlement to reduce the money judgment from P6,000 to P4,000. Thus, the respondent paid the petitioners the sum of P3,000; he made another payment in the amount of P1,000 as evidenced by a receipt issued by the petitioners' counsel. [TOTAL = P4,000]

NON-CONSTRUCTION OF THE CANAL, MOTION TO CITE IN CONTEMPT = DENIED
Subsequently, the petitioners sent the respondent a letter demanding compliance by the latter with the portion of the judgment relative to the reconstruction and reopening of the irrigation canal.

Because of such failure to reconstruct, the petitioners filed with the court a quo, with Respondent Judge Minerva R. Inocencio Piguing presiding, a motion to declare the said private respondent in CONTEMPT of court.

Respondent Judge Piguing denied the motion:
 there is nothing the dispositive part of the decision ordering the respondent to reconstruct the canal”

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION = DENIED
Petitioners moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the judgment of the C.A.

Respondent moved to set aside the said writ, alleging full satisfaction of the money judgment per agreement of the parties when the petitioners received the sum of P4,000.

The respondent judge stated in her order that the agreement of the parties "novated" the money judgment provided for in the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the said decision. Nothing more is left to be executed from the aforesaid Decision.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.



ISSUES
1. W/N the respondents should be required to reconstruct and reopen the irrigation canal?
2. W/N the payment by the respondent to the petitioners of the amount of P4,000 extinguished the money judgment?




RULING
1. YES. In order to give full force and effect to the existence of the easement, the respondent should reconstruct and restore the irrigation canal to its former condition.


2. YES.
The payment by the respondent of the lesser amount of P4,000, accepted by the petitioners without any protest or objection and acknowledged by them as "in full satisfaction of the money judgment" in civil case, completely extinguished the judgment debt and released the respondent from his pecuniary liability.

Novation results in two stipulations — one to extinguish an existing obligation, the other to substitute a new one in its place.

Fundamental it is that novation effects a substitution or modification of an obligation by another or an extinguishment of one obligation by the creation of another.

In the case at hand, we fail to see what new or modified obligation arose out of the payment by the respondent of the reduced amount of P4,000 and substituted the monetary liability for P6,000 of the said respondent under the appellate court's judgment.

Additionally, to sustain novation necessitates that the same be so declared in unequivocal terms — clearly and unmistakably shown by the express agreement of the parties or by acts of equivalent import — or that there is complete and substantial incompatibility between the two obligations.

The terms of the receipt are clear and definite. The receipt neither expressly nor impliedly declares that the reduction of the money judgment was conditioned on the respondent's reconstruction and reopening of the irrigation canal. The receipt merely embodies the recognition by the respondent of his obligation to reconstruct the irrigation canal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., [G.R. No. 196596. November 9, 2016.]   FACTS: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. The BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner failed to act on the protest; thus, DLSU filed on August 3, 2005 a petition for review with the CTA Division. ...
Read more

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

  DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC   G.R. No. 73002 | December 29, 1986 FACTS The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the IAC affirming a decision of the CFI of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of 5 parcels of land, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel , members of the Dumagat tribe .   The appealed judgment sums up the findings of the trial court: That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario is a corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario can acquire real properties pursuant to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation That the land subject of the Land Registration proceeding was ancestrally acquired by Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on October 29, 1962, from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members of ...
Read more

CIR v. PAGCOR

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents   G.R. No. 177387, November 9, 2016   FACTS :   PAGCOR has operated under a legislative franchise granted by PD No. 1869, in its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that: (2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under this Franchise.   Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the BIR issued several assessments against PAGCOR of P13,710,145,629.67 for alleged defic...
Read more