G.R. No. L-16411




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-16411 August 31, 1963 RODRIGO COLOSO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DOMINGO DE JESUS, as Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the deceased Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus, LILIA DE JESUS-SEVILLA and HERMAN SEVILLA, defendants-appellees. Salonga, Ordoñez & Associates for plaintiff-appellant. Recto Law Offices and Andres T. Velarde for defendants-appellees. LABRADOR, J.: This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Magno Gatmaitan, presiding, dismissing the complaint filed by plaintiff-appellant for damages and condemning the defendants to execute a deed of sale in favor of the plaintiff of the property subject of the action for the amount of P60,000 within the period of the duration of the contract, or 10 years. The record discloses that on February 12, 1955 Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus and Rodrigo Coloso entered into an agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to manage a parcel of land belonging to her containing 315 hectares and located in Samal, Bataan, with power to cut all trees and introduce productive improvements, and to appoint tenants or hire persons to work in the land. The parties agreed that they will divide the fruits of the trees and plants planted on the land on a fifty-fifty basis. It was further agreed that Coloso will commence the work and introduce improvements within two years from the date of the contract and upon failure to do so the contract will become of no force and effect. The plaintiff entered the land in accordance with the contract, clearing out the land for planting with the necessary improvements thereon. On January 14, 1956 a letter was sent to the President of the Philippines, signed by various individuals supposed to be working on the land, asking the President to purchase the property for re-sale to them. The letter was referred to the Land Tenure Administration, which received it on January 14, 1956. Thereupon said office proceeded to evaluate the land, and at the same time tried to secure from the owner and the plaintiff-appellant information as to the price that the latter would be willing to sell the property to the Land Tenure Administration. Meetings were had between the representatives of the Land Tenure Administration and Atty. Lilia de Jesus-Sevilla who represented her deceased mother, and Rodrigo Coloso. De Jesus and Coloso at first expressed their willingness to sell the property at P3,000 per hectare, which price Coloso later reduced to P2,685 and then to P2,500. On September 30, 1957 another meeting was held between the parties in which Lilia de Jesus did not appear. At this time Coloso reduced his price to P770 per hectare. Later in another meeting on October 21, 1957, Lilia de Jesus being present, she gave her price at P2,000. The committee appointed by the Land Tenure Administration to make the appraisal of the value of the property fixed the said value of P700, but as Lilia de Jesus insisted on the price of P2,000 per hectare and questioned the right of Coloso to enforce his right of option on the Land Tenure Administration, no final agreement could be made. In view of this statement Coloso brought this action for damages against the estate of Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus, alleging that by reason of the obstruction placed by Lilia de Jesus to the perfection of an agreement he has suffered the following damages: P161,050 actual damages, P40,000 moral damages, P30,000 compensatory damages, P20,000 exemplary damages, and P10,000 attorney's fees, or a total of P261,050. The heirs of Florentina de Jesus submitted their respective answers. Lilia de Jesus-Sevilla denied the right of action of the plaintiff alleging that the latter's action in participating in the conferences for the purchase of the property by the land Tenure Administration was not justified by any rights; that no definite or final offer was made by the Land Tenure Administration to acquire the property at any stated price; that the plaintiff had no authority to negotiate with the Land Tenure Administration for the sale of the property and that the property could not be sold without prior approval of the court of first instance because of the pendency of a proceeding for the administration of the estate of the deceased Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus. The other defendant Domingo de Jesus presented practically the same defenses. The parties went to trial had thereafter the judge rendered the decision already stated above. In finding for the defendants, the court declared that the negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendants with the Land Tenure Administration was only preliminary, to find out at what price the owners would be willing to part with the property at a negotiated sale; that the heir Lilia de Jesus was at liberty to agree or not to agree with the price offered by the plaintiff Coloso and that if the Land Tenure Administration desisted from concluding the agreement, the result of which would deprive Coloso of the chance to gain, Coloso could not complain because Lilia de Jesus, if she obstructed the sale, was only exercising her right to the property, and furthermore, because it is not clear that because of her obstruction the deal was not consummated, thereby depriving Coloso of an opportunity to gain from the intended transaction. However, the court recognized the right of Coloso to exercise his right to buy the property and ordered the defendants to execute the corresponding deed of sale of the property upon payment by Coloso of the sum of P60,000 as agreed upon. The above decision is the subject of the present appeal of plaintiff-appellant. Plaintiff claims in his first assignment of error that the lower court erred in finding that the Land Tenure Administration merely held preliminary negotiations for the said purchase of the property. In support of this supposed error it is argued that in October, 1957 the Land Tenure Administration had sent out notices to the parties to attend "a final negotiation." This took place on October 22, 1961. Aside from this fact the committee appointed to assess the property had recommended a fixed price of the property at P700 per hectare. This is all that transpired.1äwphï1.ñët It is to be noted that there was no formal offer made by the Land Tenure Administration to purchase the property for P700 a hectare. All that was held was a conference at which neither the Land Tenure Administration or its officials expressed readiness and willingness to pay for the land at the rate of P700 per hectare, or actually offered such price for the purchase of the property. It can not be deduced from these facts, therefore, that he Land Tenure Administration was ready and willing to pay P700 per hectare as no actual offer to purchase for that amount was made in the negotiations, either verbally or in writing thereafter. But assuming for the sake of argument that the negotiations failed because the price offered by Lilia de Jesus was P2,000, we agree with the court below that it was her right to demand the price what she wanted. At the time right of the negotiations Coloso had not yet become the owner of that property as he had not exercised the right of option by depositing the price fixed for the property. The interest of Coloso was not an absolute right to the property; it was a mere inchoate right dependent upon the exercise of the exercise of the option and the payment by him of the agreed price. We further agree with the trial court that if the cause of the failure of the negotiations was the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to agree to the price of P700, as she was still the owner of the property at that time, her refusal could not have caused any damage to Coloso subject to be repaired. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the court below erred in finding that there was no proof that the proximate and immediate cause of the failure of the negotiations was the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to come to terms and lower her price to P700. Neither do we find this supposed error to have been committed by the court below, no competent person testifying for the Land Tenure Administration having testified in court that the failure of the negotiations was due to the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to the price of P700 to which Rodrigo Coloso had agreed. The claim of the plaintiff-appellant that the refusal of Lilia de Jesus to conform to the prices of P700 is the cause of the failure of the negotiations is, therefore, without foundation in fact. It was merely a surmise of plaintiff-appellant or his lawyer. We, therefore, find that the conclusion of the court that there was no sufficient proof that the cause of the failure of the negotiations was the fault of Lilia de Jesus, is sustained by the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence. Finding no error in the decision appealed from, we hereby affirm it, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation