1911 / Mar

G.R. No. L-4877 - MARCH 1911 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4877March 31, 1911 Crisanto Lichauco vs. Cho-Chun-Chac G.R. No. L-6044March 30, 1911 Manuel M. Padin vs. R.E. Humphreys, et al. G.R. No. L-6760March 29, 1911 Nicolas E. Nuñez vs. Chas. A. Low G.R. No. L-5939March 29, 1911 Jose Marin vs. Valentina Nacianceno G.R. No. L-6354March 28, 1911 United States vs. Eduardo Salazar, et al. G.R. No. L-6372March 27, 1911 United States vs. Pascual Molina G.R. No. L-6019March 25, 1911 Juan N. Aragon vs. Insular Government G.R. No. L-6016March 25, 1911 Andres Punzalan vs. Sisenando Ferriols, et al. G.R. No. L-5843March 25, 1911 United States vs. Canuto Gustilo G.R. No. L-5640March 25, 1911 Benigno Goitia vs. Chartered Bank of India, et al. G.R. No. L-5333March 25, 1911 Uy Aloc, et al. vs. Cho Jan Ling, et al. G.R. No. L-3026March 25, 1911 United States vs. Melchor Babasa, et al. G.R. No. L-5815March 24, 1911 United States vs. Pala, et al. G.R. No. L-6491March 23, 1911 United States vs. Tampacan, et al. G.R. No. L-6427March 23, 1911 United States vs. Constancio Flores G.R. No. L-6128March 23, 1911 United States vs. Silvestre Arzadon G.R. No. L-6008March 23, 1911 United States vs. Faustina Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-6432March 22, 1911 United States vs. Pedro Balagtas, et al. G.R. No. L-5688March 22, 1911 Henry Blum vs. Mariano Barretto G.R. No. L-6481March 21, 1911 United States vs. Quintin Mondejar G.R. No. L-6344March 21, 1911 United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-6276March 21, 1911 Tomasa M. Santiago, et al. vs. Marcela C. Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-6230March 21, 1911 A.R. Hager vs. Albert J. Bryan G.R. No. L-6160March 21, 1911 United States vs. Daniel Navarro, et al. G.R. No. L-6378March 21, 1911 United States vs. Pelagio Capa, et al. G.R. No. L-6624March 20, 1911 United States vs. Pedro Banila, et al. G.R. No. L-6469March 18, 1911 United States vs. Eustaquio Simbahan G.R. No. L-6365March 18, 1911 Canuta Guerrero vs. Eulalio Singson, et al. G.R. No. L-6231March 18, 1911 Celestino Sytiar Clemente vs. Ambrosio Marasigan G.R. No. L-6082March 18, 1911 United States vs. Isidro Vicentillo G.R. No. L-6061March 18, 1911 United States vs. Mateo Pado, et al. G.R. No. L-6002March 18, 1911 American Surety of New York, et al. vs. Prudencio Batangan G.R. No. L-6485March 17, 1911 Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Oria Hermanos G.R. No. L-5759March 17, 1911 Walter E. Olsen & Co., et al. vs. Matson, Lord & Belser Co. G.R. No. L-5174March 17, 1911 Candido Pascual vs. Eugenio del Saz Orozco, et al. G.R. No. L-6410March 16, 1911 Alejandro Tecson vs. La Corporacion de los Pp. Dominicos G.R. No. L-6407March 16, 1911 Francisca Fernandez, et al. vs. R.M. Shearer G.R. No. L-6219March 16, 1911 United States vs. Martin Domingo, et al. G.R. No. L-5729March 16, 1911 Vicente Padilla vs. Simeon Linsangan G.R. No. L-5358March 16, 1911 Lee Liong vs. Isidoro Hizola G.R. No. L-5741March 13, 1911 Estanislaua Arenas, et al. vs. Fausto O. Raymundo G.R. No. L-4641March 13, 1911 Seminary of San Carlos vs. Municipality of Cebu G.R. No. L-6483March 11, 1911 United States vs. Filemon Mendez G.R. No. L-6445March 11, 1911 United States vs. Silvino Madamba G.R. No. L-6343March 11, 1911 United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-6189March 11, 1911 Faustino Lichauco, et al. vs. Teodoro Limjuco, et al. G.R. No. L-6177March 11, 1911 United States vs. Juliana Brioso G.R. No. L-6110March 11, 1911 United States vs. Narciso Duco, et al. G.R. No. L-6102March 11, 1911 United States vs. Rufino Dineros G.R. No. L-5752March 11, 1911 United States vs. Lorenzo Sison, et al. G.R. No. L-5619March 11, 1911 Engracio Orense vs. Cirilio Jaucian G.R. No. L-5554March 11, 1911 Juan Noel vs. Geronimo Godinez, et al. G.R. No. L-6409March 10, 1911 United States vs. Tomas Cruz G.R. No. L-5446March 10, 1911 Manuel Cea vs. Mariano P. Villanueva, et al. G.R. No. L-6493March 9, 1911 United States vs. Agaton Ner G.R. No. L-6330March 6, 1911 United States vs. Juan Oracion, et al. G.R. No. L-6059March 3, 1911 United States vs. Arcadio Bernales G.R. No. L-6050March 3, 1911 United States vs. Emiliano Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-5969March 3, 1911 United States vs. Ceferino Benitez, et al. G.R. No. L-6510March 2, 1911 United States vs. Policarpio Gavarlan G.R. No. L-6486March 2, 1911 United States vs. Rafael B. Catolico G.R. No. L-6457March 2, 1911 United States vs. Isidro Madamba G.R. No. L-6423March 2, 1911 United States vs. Simeon Quiaoit G.R. No. L-6411March 2, 1911 United States vs. Pedro Reyes G.R. No. L-6300March 2, 1911 United States vs. Jacinta Mata, et al. G.R. No. L-6289March 2, 1911 Jose M. Arroyo vs. Matias Granada, et al. G.R. No. L-6064March 2, 1911 United States vs. Sy-Suikao G.R. Nos. L-5600 and 5602March 2, 1911 Froehlich &Amp; Kuttner vs. Insular Collector of Customs The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Crisanto Lichauco vs. Cho-Chun-Chac Manuel M. Padin vs. R.E. Humphreys, et al. Nicolas E. Nuñez vs. Chas. A. Low Jose Marin vs. Valentina Nacianceno United States vs. Eduardo Salazar, et al. United States vs. Pascual Molina Juan N. Aragon vs. Insular Government Andres Punzalan vs. Sisenando Ferriols, et al. United States vs. Canuto Gustilo Benigno Goitia vs. Chartered Bank of India, et al. Uy Aloc, et al. vs. Cho Jan Ling, et al. United States vs. Melchor Babasa, et al. United States vs. Pala, et al. United States vs. Tampacan, et al. United States vs. Constancio Flores United States vs. Silvestre Arzadon United States vs. Faustina Ortiz, et al. United States vs. Pedro Balagtas, et al. Henry Blum vs. Mariano Barretto United States vs. Quintin Mondejar United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al. Tomasa M. Santiago, et al. vs. Marcela C. Cruz, et al. A.R. Hager vs. Albert J. Bryan United States vs. Daniel Navarro, et al. United States vs. Pelagio Capa, et al. United States vs. Pedro Banila, et al. United States vs. Eustaquio Simbahan Canuta Guerrero vs. Eulalio Singson, et al. Celestino Sytiar Clemente vs. Ambrosio Marasigan United States vs. Isidro Vicentillo United States vs. Mateo Pado, et al. American Surety of New York, et al. vs. Prudencio Batangan Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Oria Hermanos Walter E. Olsen & Co., et al. vs. Matson, Lord & Belser Co. Candido Pascual vs. Eugenio del Saz Orozco, et al. Alejandro Tecson vs. La Corporacion de los Pp. Dominicos Francisca Fernandez, et al. vs. R.M. Shearer United States vs. Martin Domingo, et al. Vicente Padilla vs. Simeon Linsangan Lee Liong vs. Isidoro Hizola Estanislaua Arenas, et al. vs. Fausto O. Raymundo Seminary of San Carlos vs. Municipality of Cebu United States vs. Filemon Mendez United States vs. Silvino Madamba United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al. Faustino Lichauco, et al. vs. Teodoro Limjuco, et al. United States vs. Juliana Brioso United States vs. Narciso Duco, et al. United States vs. Rufino Dineros United States vs. Lorenzo Sison, et al. Engracio Orense vs. Cirilio Jaucian Juan Noel vs. Geronimo Godinez, et al. United States vs. Tomas Cruz Manuel Cea vs. Mariano P. Villanueva, et al. United States vs. Agaton Ner United States vs. Juan Oracion, et al. United States vs. Arcadio Bernales United States vs. Emiliano Ramos, et al. United States vs. Ceferino Benitez, et al. United States vs. Policarpio Gavarlan United States vs. Rafael B. Catolico United States vs. Isidro Madamba United States vs. Simeon Quiaoit United States vs. Pedro Reyes United States vs. Jacinta Mata, et al. Jose M. Arroyo vs. Matias Granada, et al. United States vs. Sy-Suikao Froehlich &Amp; Kuttner vs. Insular Collector of Customs The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4877 March 31, 1911

CRISANTO LICHAUCO,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CHO-CHUN-CHAC,defendants-appellant.

W.H. Bishop and Gibbs and Gale for appellant.
Felipe Agoncillo for appellee.

CARSON,J.:

Without attempting to review in detail the involved and somewhat unusual course of the long drawn out litigation which culminated in this appeal, and without discussing the contentions of the parties as to various alleged errors in procedure which in our opinion in no wise affect the merits of the real issue involved in this appeal, we think that upon the pleadings and the evidence the judgment of the court below must be sustained in so far as it allows to the plaintiff the sum of P1,824.16, the difference the actual cost price and the contract price of the launch constructed at the expense of the defendant under the terms of the final judgment of the Supreme Court dated November 18, 1900¹; but that the judgment of the court below must be reversed in so far as it allows to the plaintiff the sum of P11,900, the difference between the contract price and the estimated cost of constructing two other launches, the construction of which at the cost of the defendant was authorized by the above-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court but not actually executed in accordance with the terms of that judgment; and further, we are of opinion that the judgment of the court below must reversed in so far as it denies the right of the plaintiff to recover in this action the sum of P4,895, with interest from the 6th day March, 1907, the date of the filing of the complaint, that being the amount advanced by the plaintiff over and above the contract price of the single launch actually constructed in conformity with the original contract, and which would have been credited to the plaintiff in the settlement of his indebtedness had all the launches been constructed under the contract.

In support of our conclusions it is sufficient, we think, to indicate: First, That the defendant can not be heard at this time to deny the binding effect upon him of the final judgment rendered against him in P1900, which he has never sought to have set aside, and for the performance of which he was bound by his own action in appearing to "sustain the right of the defendant as the legitimate son and heir of the latter." Second, That the evidence satisfactorily establishes that the launch actually constructed under the terms of the judgment was in fact constructed for the plaintiff "at the expense of the defendant" at a cost which exceeded the original contract price by the sum of P1,824.16. Third, That the judgment of the Supreme Court dated November 18, 1900, on which plaintiff relies in this action, secured to him the right to have specific performance of the original contract, or to have the contract executed at the expense of the defendant and recoup any loss which he might incur resulting from the necessary expenditure therein of a greater amount than the contract price. But this judgment made no express provision for the recovery by him of damages unless the contract was actually executed at the expense of the defendant; and the plaintiff having elected to sue for specific performance and secured judgment therefor can not be permitted arbitrary to abandon the contract for the specific enforcement of which judgment was granted, and convert the judgment for specific performance into a judgment for damages theonlymeasure of which is the difference between the contract price and estimated, not the actual cost of executing the contract at the time when he elects to have that estimate made. We may add that the evidence of record satisfies us that plaintiff did, in fact, abandon and unexecuted portion of the contract long prior to the institution of this action. Fourth, That the complaint in this action clearly and specifically prays for the recovery of the above-mentioned sum of P4,895 which was advanced by the plaintiff on account of the unexpected portion of the contract, and the evidence satisfactorily establishing the justice of the claim and the amount of the advance as alleged, we know of no reason why he should not have had judgment therefor in this action, without being put to the expense and delay involved in the institution of a separate action therefor as seems to have been required by the court below. The justice of this particular claim not having been substantially denied at the trial in the court below, and disallowing as we do the greater part of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the court below, we are of opinion that the modified judgment to be entered by this court should dispose as far as may be of this as well as of all the other issues involved in these proceedings, and thus, perhaps, bring an end to litigation which so long has vexed the courts and the interested parties.

Twenty days hereafter let judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P6,719.16, with legal interest thereon from the 6th day of March, 1907, affirming so much of the judgment below as is in conformity herewith, and reversing so much thereof as is not, without costs to either party in their instance. Ten days thereafter let the record be returned to the court below for execution of the above judgment, and for such further proceedings as may be necessary and proper to make it effective.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, and Trent, JJ.,concur.

Separate Opinions

MORELAND,J.,concurring in part:

I do not agree with so much of the decision as finds against the defendant for the sum of P4,895. With the rest I concur.

Footnotes

¹Not published.