G.R. No. L-3572 - AUGUST 1907 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3572August 17, 1907 S.G. Larson vs. H. Brodek G.R. No. L-3554August 17, 1907 Julianna Benemerito vs. Fernando Velasco G.R. No. L-3363August 17, 1907 United States vs. Joaquin Celis G.R. No. L-3562August 15, 1907 Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Anthony V. Vallejo G.R. No. L-2839August 15, 1907 Calder & Co. vs. United States G.R. No. L-3529August 14, 1907 Esteban Guillermo vs. Ramon Matienzo, et al. G.R. No. L-3456August 14, 1907 Joseph H. Wolfson vs. Elias Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-3488August 10, 1907 C.S. Robinson, et al. vs. Ship "Alta", et al. G.R. No. L-2841August 10, 1907 Rubert & Guamis vs. United States G.R. No. L-3507August 9, 1907 Isabelo Aguirre vs. Prov. Board of Occidental Nergros, et al. G.R. No. L-4002August 8, 1907 Lo PO vs. H.B. Mccoy G.R. No. L-2840August 8, 1907 Kuenzle & Stereif vs. United States G.R. No. L-2836August 8, 1907 CALDER vs. THE UNITED STATES G.R. No. L-4008August 7, 1907 Agustin Garcia Gavieres vs. William Robinson, et al. G.R. No. L-3842August 7, 1907 Victorino Ron, et al. vs. Felix Mojica G.R. No. L-3608August 7, 1907 United States vs. Estanislao Floirendo G.R. No. L-3586August 7, 1907 United States vs. Higinio Velasquez G.R. No. L-3517August 7, 1907 United States vs. Jose Magno, et al. G.R. No. L-3419August 7, 1907 United States vs. Domingo Polintan G.R. No. L-2838August 7, 1907 Macondray & Co. vs. United States G.R. No. L-2837August 7, 1907 Calder & Co. vs. United States G.R. No. L-2730August 7, 1907 United States vs. Basilio Morales, et al. G.R. No. L-3841August 3, 1907 Chung Kiat vs. Lim Kio, et al. G.R. No. L-3576August 3, 1907 Florencio Ternate vs. Maria Aniversario G.R. No. L-3422August 3, 1907 United States vs. Manuel Samonte G.R. No. L-4052August 2, 1907 Enrique F. Somes vs. A.S. Crossfield, et al. G.R. No. L-3965August 2, 1907 Enrique F. Somes, et al. vs. Crossfield, et al. G.R. No. L-3574August 2, 1907 United States vs. Nicomedes de Dios G.R. No. L-4011August 1, 1907 Mamerta Banal vs. Jose Safont, et al. G.R. No. L-3640August 1, 1907 Charles S. Robinson vs. Charles F. Garry The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. S.G. Larson vs. H. Brodek Julianna Benemerito vs. Fernando Velasco United States vs. Joaquin Celis Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Anthony V. Vallejo Calder & Co. vs. United States Esteban Guillermo vs. Ramon Matienzo, et al. Joseph H. Wolfson vs. Elias Reyes, et al. C.S. Robinson, et al. vs. Ship "Alta", et al. Rubert & Guamis vs. United States Isabelo Aguirre vs. Prov. Board of Occidental Nergros, et al. Lo PO vs. H.B. Mccoy Kuenzle & Stereif vs. United States CALDER vs. THE UNITED STATES Agustin Garcia Gavieres vs. William Robinson, et al. Victorino Ron, et al. vs. Felix Mojica United States vs. Estanislao Floirendo United States vs. Higinio Velasquez United States vs. Jose Magno, et al. United States vs. Domingo Polintan Macondray & Co. vs. United States Calder & Co. vs. United States United States vs. Basilio Morales, et al. Chung Kiat vs. Lim Kio, et al. Florencio Ternate vs. Maria Aniversario United States vs. Manuel Samonte Enrique F. Somes vs. A.S. Crossfield, et al. Enrique F. Somes, et al. vs. Crossfield, et al. United States vs. Nicomedes de Dios Mamerta Banal vs. Jose Safont, et al. Charles S. Robinson vs. Charles F. Garry The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3572 August 17, 1907
S.G. LARSON,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
H. BRODEK,defendant-appellant.
Bishop & O'Brien for the appellant.
Smith & Hargis for appellee.
TRACEY,J.:
On the 23rd of August, 1904, the parties in this cause executed a contract whereby the plaintiff rented from the defendant the steam launchHenry, for a monthly rent of P450, with the right to apply P250 to repairs and an option to purchase the launch for P5,000.
After the execution of this contract the defendant received that, as drawn, it apparently authorized the reduction of P250, for repairs, from the rent of each month. Upon his attention being called to this item, the plaintiff conceded that it was not in accordance with the agreement, and the parties proceeded to the office of a notary public, where a second contract was executed correcting this error. In the typewriting in which the corrected contract was taken down by the notary, under the personal instruction of the defendant and in his presence, this was the only change of terms. In that instrument, however, as put in evidence, the words "five thousand (P5,000), Philippine currency," as the purchase price, were changed with a pen by erasing the word "Philippine" and writing over it the words "United States," in effect thus doubling the amount, the change being noted in the margin over the initials of the notary. The fight in this long action was waged over this change, the defendant and the notary contending that before the execution of the instrument it had been called to the attention of the plaintiff and authorized by him on the 23rd of August, the same date as that of the first contract; he, on the contrary, maintaining that it had never been suggested and did not exist in the instrument at the time of its signature on August 24, but was a subsequent forgery.
It is consistent with his story, but not with that of his adversary, that within the stipulated time he gave notice of his acceptance of the option and in reliance thereupon contracted for leasing the launch to the Army quartermaster for the term of nine months, an undertaking involving the possibility of heavy loss were he not able to assure continuous possession.
It is unnecessary to narrate all the fact in this case, which were reviewed in a complete and conclusive manner by the trial judge, with whose estimate of them and conclusion upon them we concur. Much of the long record is taken up with testimony as to the value of the launch at different periods. The issue being not the value of the property but the price stipulated, which was to be determined by direct evidence as to the time and the manner of the alteration of the words in the contract, the mere value of the launch bore no immediate relation to it and was immaterial. As might have been expected, the evidence of the parties and their experts was so conflicting as to leave the value in doubt and had nothing to the probability of either side having made an imprudent bargain. It should not have been received.
The judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, and Johnson, JJ.,concur.
Willard, J.,concurs in the result.