Ouano vs. Court of Appeals

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188 11/15/19, 10:46 PM
VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 799

Ouano vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 40203. August 21, 1990.
PATERNO J. OUANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS and FRANCISCO B. ECHAVEZ, respondents.
Criminal Law; Machinations in public auctions under Art. 185

of the RPC; Causing another bidder to stay away from the auction in
order to cause reduction of the price of the property auctioned.
·These acts constitute a crime, as the Trial Court has stressed.
Ouano and Echavez had promised to share in the property in
question as a consideration for Ouano's refraining from taking part
in the public auction, and they had attempted to cause and in fact
succeeded in causing another bidder to stay away from the auction
in order to cause reduction of the price of the property auctioned. In
so doing, they committed the felony of machinations in public
auctions defined and penalized in Article 185 of the Revised Penal
Code, supra.
Same; Same; Contracts; In pari delicto principle applicable in
the case at bar; Inexistent and void contracts cannot be ratified.
·That both Ouano and Echavez did these acts is a matter of record,
as is the fact that thereby only one bid·that of Echavez·was
entered for the land in consequence of which Echavez eventually
acquired it. The agreement therefore being criminal in character,
the parties not only have no action against each other but are both
liable to prosecution and the things and price of their agreement
subject to disposal according to the provisions of the criminal code.
This, in accordance with the so-called pari delicto principle set out
in the Civil Code. Article 1409 of said Code declares as "inexistent
and void from the beginning" those contracts, among others, "whose
cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy," or "expressly prohibited x x by law."
Such contracts "cannot be ratified;" "the right to set up the defense
of illegality (cannot) be waived;" and, Article 1410 adds, the "action
or defense for the declaration of the inexistence x x (thereof) does
not prescribe."
Same; Same; Same; Same; Forfeiture of the proceeds of the
crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed;
Disposition of the land involved.·The dismissal of Ouano's action
by both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals was thus correct,
being plainly in accord with the Civil Code provisions just referred
to. Article 1411 also
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6f823d2651964248003600fb002c009e/p/APJ103/?username=Guest Page 1 of 14
* FIRST DIVISION
800
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
dictates the proper disposition of the land involved, i.e., "the

forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools
with which it was committed," as mandated by the provisions of
Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, this being obviously the
provision "of the Penal Code relative to the disposal of effects or
instruments of a crime" that Article 1411 makes "applicable to the
things or the price of the contract."
PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court

of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
De Castro & Cagampang Law Offices and Fiel
Manalo for petitioner.
Arturo M. Tolentino and Asuncion, Asuncion, Arcol &
Kapunan Law Offices for respondents.
NARVASA, J.:
The appellate proceedings at bar treat of a parcel of land

with an area of about 3,710 square meters, situated in
Mandawe, Cebu, identified as Philippine Railway Lot No.
3-A-1. It was covered by Torrens Title No. 7618 in the name
of the registered owner, Rehabilitation 'Finance
Corporation (RFC), now the Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP). Adjoining Lot 3-A-1 are lands belonging
to Francisco Echavez, private respondent herein, and
petitioner Paterno J. Ouano. What will have to be resolved
are the conflicting claims over this lot by the vendee
thereof, Echavez, and Ouano.
The property was offered 1
for sale by public bidding by
the RFC on April 1, 1958. Actually this was the second 2
public bidding scheduled for the property. The first ·in
which both Ouano and Echavez participated, together with 3
others·was nullified on account of a protest by Ouano.
_______________
1 The bidding on this date was in fact the second for the same property.
The first, in which petitioner herein, Ouano, and private respondent,
Echavez, participated, was nullified on account of the former's protest.
2 Held on March 22, 1958.
3 Rollo, p. 79.
801
VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 801

Now, it appears that prior to the second bidding, Ouano

and Echavez orally agreed that only Echavez would make a
bid, and that if it was accepted, they would divide the
property in proportion to their adjoining properties. To
ensure success of their enterprise, they also agreed to
induce the only other party known to be interested in the
property·a group headed4
by a Mrs. Bonsucan·to desist
from presenting a bid. They broached the matter to Mrs.
Bonsucan's group. The latter agreed to withdraw, as it did
in fact withdraw from the sale; and Ouano's
5
wife paid it
P2,000 as reimbursement for its expenses.
As expected, the highest bid submitted, and thus
accepted by the RFC, was that 6of Francisco Echavez, who
offered P27,826.00 for the land. Echavez paid the sum of7
P5,565.00 representing 20% deposit of the profferred price.
A week later, Echavez sent a letter to Ouano regarding
the P2,000.00
8
paid by the latter's wife to the Bonsucan
group. It said:
"Because the owner of the money which he deposited for your share
has stipulated that today is the last day for the return of his money
x ws he would like to request you that for the P2,000.00 which you
have advanced to Mrs. Bonsucan and company, he will just give you
250 sq. meters right in front of your house at P8.05 per sq. meter x
x." (N.B. 250 x P8.05 equals P2,012.50.)
Still later, or two weeks after Echavez won the bid, a

document simply
9
entitled "Agreement," was signed by him
and Ouano. That document, prepared10
by Echavez in his
own handwriting, reads as follows:
_______________
4 Id., p. 80.
5 Id., pp. 80,160.
6 Ouano, it seems, also submitted a bid, but although the price offered
by him, P27,826.00, was the same as that of Echavez, his bid was inferior
in that, unlike Echavez's offer, it was not accompanied by a deposit of
P5,565.00. Rollo, p. 159.
7 Rollo, p. 80.
8 Id., pp. 82-83, Exh. LL,
9 This document was marked Exh. C for plaintiff Ouano, and Exh. 3
for defendant Echavez.
10 Rollo, pp. 82-83.
802

"KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
Inasmuch as it was Francisco B, Echavez who won in the public
bidding held at the RFC office for Lot 3-A-1 last April, 1958, it is
hereby agreed between us, Francisco B. Echavez and Paterno J.
Ouano, that we share the said lot between us according to the
herein sketch:
(Sketch omitted x x)
That each of us takes care in paying direct to the RFC office
Cebu Branch, the installments, interests and amortizations on a
ten-year plan in our respective names, such that we would request
the RFC to have the said Lot 3-A-1 subdivided into two portions: A
portion of Lot 3-A-1 for Francisco B. Echavez to contain 1882.5 sq.
m. more or less depending on the actual survey based on the above
sketch, and another portion of Lot 3-A-1 for Paterno J. Ouano to
contain 1827.5 sq. m. more or less also based on the above sketch.
That they have agreed to share proportionately all legal
expenses that may be assessed and incurred in connection with the
acquisition of the said lot in case such expenses are levied as a
whole against Francisco B. Echavez, but if such expenses are levied
separately after the RFC consents to the subdivision and
registration in our respective ,names our share of the said lot, then
we take care individually of paying such expenses if there be any.
In witness whereof, we hereby set our hand and sign this
agreement this 15th day of April, 1958 at Mandawe, Cebu,
Philippines, subject to the approval of the RFC, Cebu Branch and
Manila."
On the same day that the "Agreement" was executed,

Echavez set down in writing a computation of the 11
sharing
of expenses of his joint venture with Ouano, viz.:
1827.5 ·No. of sq. meters for Paterno

Ouano
7.50
91375
127925
P13706.25
.20
P 2741.25
_______________
11 Id., pp. 80-81, Exh. F (also, Exh. 6)
803
VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 803

-1016.55 · Share of Echavez for the P2,000.00 given to

Mrs. Bonsucan & Companions
P1 · Balance payable by Mr. Ouano to F.B.
,724.70 Echavez for the deposit made by the latter at
the RFC. This is subject to the approval of
the RFC, Cebu Branch.
Mandawe, April 15, 1958.

(Sgd.) F.B. ECHAVEZ.
Thereafter, on various dates, Ouano and/or his wife

delivered sums of money to Echavez aggregating P1,725.00,
obviously in payment of the balance indicated in Echavez's
computation just mentioned, viz.: P500.00 on April 19,
1958, another P500.00 on April 20, and P725.00 on April
27, 1958. Receipts therefor were given by Echavez, all
similarly worded to the effect that the money was being
received "as part of their reimbursement for the deposit (of
P5,565.00) he have made with the RFC for Lot 3-A-iv which
he won in the bidding and which lot he have consented to
share with12 Mr. Paterno J. Ouano, subject to the approval of
the RFC."
However, the RFC never approved the sharing
agreement be-tween Echavez and Ouano concerning Lot 3-
A-1. It approved the sale of the lot to Echavez only, on May
9, 1958, on the condition that the purchase price of
P27,825.00 be paid in cash. Apparently Echavez found
great initial difficulty in complying with this condition. It
took all of four years, and patient negotiation and diligent
effort on his part, for him ultimately to acquire title to the
property, which came about in December, 1963. His travails
13
are succinctly narrated by the Trial Court as follows:
"x x Apparently, the successful bidder was caught flatfooted, for he

was not able to comply with this condition, notwithstanding the fact
that he has been making efforts to acquire the property (See Exhibit
21, letter of March 29, 1958; also Exhibit 22). So, he exerted much
effort to change the terms of the sale from cash to monthly
_______________
12 Id., p. 166.
13 Id., p. 210: Record on Appeal [Annex R, petition], pp. 142-143.
804

amortization plan (Exhs. 24 and 10). But the Rehabilitation

Finance Corporation was adamant. The terms of the bid giving the
option to pay the balance of the purchase price either in cash or
within ten years on monthly amortization plan at 6% interest
notwithstanding, said Corporation denied defendant's request in a
letter dated September 18, 1958 signed by Chairman Romualdez
(Exh. 11). This went on for more than 4-1/2 years, with none of the
parties herein having secured the conformity of the RFC or DBP to
a novation of the original terms of the sale. Thus, the said sale was
finally cancelled, and the deposit of P5,549.72 made by the
defendant to the RFC forfeited as of April 4, 1962 (Exh. 12).
However, on July 18, 1962, upon request of the defendant, this
cancellation was considered under the condition, among others, that
the price of the sale of P27,825.00 be payable 20% down and the
balance in 5 years at 8% interest per annum on the monthly
amortization plan, commencing retroactively on June 9, 1958, and
that a payment of P2,000.00 be applied to the total arrearages of
P25,799.00, which had to be paid within 90 days. The defendant
paid on August 28,1962 a further amount of P2,000.00. On
September 3, 1962, the deed of conditional sale, covering the
property in question, was entered into by the DBP and the
defendant (Exh. D, same as Exh. 4), culminating in the signing of
the corresponding promissory note dated September 7, 1962 (Exh.
E, same as Exh. 5). It is admitted that the defendant is now the
registered owner of the property, after having fully paid
P29,3218.87 on account of the price to the Development Bank of the
Philippines, as per Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 9, 1963
(Exhs. 14 and 34)."
It was pursuant to the absolute sale of December 9, 1963

just mentioned, that a Torrens
14
title (TCT No, 10776) was
issued in Echavez's name.
Ouano, in his turn, tried to have DBP either accept and
implement his sharing agreement with Echavez, or allow
him to pay the full price of the lot in Echavez's behalf. By
his own account, he sent a letter dated June 3, 1963 to the
DBP, "handcarried by his wife," "requesting among others,
that he be permitted to pay immediately either for his
share in the aforesaid lot comprising 1,828 sq. meters at
the bid price of P7.50 per sq. meter including charges, or
for the whole lot;" and that he in fact tried to 15make such
payment but the Bank turned down his request.
_______________
14 ld., p. 77.
15 Id., p. 290: Petitioner's brief, p. 34. He further avers [Rollo, p.
805
VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 805

Shortly after his representation with the DBP were

rebuffed·more precisely on June 24, 1963, months before
the deed of absolute sale was executed by the DBP in
Echavez's favor·Paterno J. Ouano filed suit for "specific
performance and reconveyance" in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu against Francisco Echavez 16
and the
Development Bank of 17
the Philippines (DBP).
In his complaint, Ouano recited substantially the facts
just related, and further alleged that·
"x x on June 3, 1963 plaintiffs wife and his attorney conferred with
defendant x x Echavez for the purpose of again requesting said
defendant to sign a document which would be notarized and to
permit plaintiff to pay for his share direct to the defendant DBP, but
said defendant refused and instead informed them that there had
been no agreement regarding joint bidding and joint ownership of
Lot 3-A-1."
The complaint was amended a few weeks later, chiefly to

allege that DBP was on the point of rescinding its contract
with Echavez; and that Ouano's offer to the DBP to pay in
Echavez's behalf the price of the lot in full (P28,206.61),
had been rejected; and that consequently, and "to show his
good faith," he had consigned the amount with the18Court
"for and in behalf of defendant x x Echavez," The
amended complaint specifically prayed that·
1) pending trial, and upon such bond as may be fixed

by the Court, a writ of preliminary injunction issue
to restrain Echavez and RFC "from rescinding,
cancelling or in any way terminating the
conditional sale contract with respect to Lot 3-A-1,
TCT 7618;"
2) after trial, Echavez be ordered "to sign an
agreement in accordance with Annex A and the
foregoing allegations which should be notarized;"
3) by virtue of aforesaid agreement and his deposit in
Court of
_______________
31] that "(t)o show his further interest in the settlement of defendant's
obligation to the Bank, plaintiff deposited the amount of P28,206.61,
with the clerk x x (of the Trial Court)."
16 Docketed as Civil Case No. R-8011.
17 Rollo, p. 210; Record on appeal, pp. 1-10.
18 Id.: id., p. 14. 14.
806

P28,206.61, Ouano be declared as "legally

subrogated to the rights, interest and participation
of defendant x x Echavez in Lot 3-A-1 to the extent
of 1,828.5 sq. m.;"
4) Echavez be ordered to reimburse Ouano
"P14,358.37 corresponding to defendant x x
Echavez' share of 1,882.5 sq. m.;"
5) should Echavez be unable to pay said amount
within 15 days, Ouano be declared "legally
subrogated to the rights, interest and participation
of x x Echavez in Lot 3-A-1 to the extent of 1,882.5
sq. m.;"
6) DBP be ordered to consider the deposit made by
Ouano for and in behalf of Echavez as "complete
and valid payment of Lot 3-A-1 and to execute the
necessary documents of sale in (the former's) favor
x x for 1,827.5 sq. m. and in favor of x x Echavez for
1,882.5 sq. m.;"

7) DBP be ordered to hold the deed of sale in favor of
Echavez for 1,882 sq. m. in abeyance until the latter
has reimbursed Ouano "the amount of P14,385.37
corresponding to ws x Echavez's share of 1,882.5 sq.
m.," and should Echavez be unable to do so within
15 days, DBP be ordered to "execute said deed of
sale in favor of plaintiff;" and
8) Echavez be ordered to pay Ouano P1,000.00 as
attorney's fees, P5,000.00 as moral damages, and
P5,000.00 as exemplary damages, as well as the
costs of suit."
The DBP moved to dismiss the amended complaint,

alleging
19
that no cause of action was therein stated against
it. The Court found the motion to be well taken, overruled
Ouano's opposition thereto, dismissed the amended
complaint and dissolved the writ of20
preliminary injunction,
by Order dated August 27, 1963. It 21
subsequently denied
Ouano's motion for reconsideration. Ouano appealed but
on learning of the absolute sale of Lot 3-A-1 executed by
DBP in Echavez's favor on December 9, 1963·which
according to him rendered moot the case for legal
subrogation and injunction as far as DBP was concerned·
he withdrew the appeal and moved
22
instead for admission of
a second amended complaint, which the Court admitted in
the absence of opposition thereto. In the second
______________
19 Id.: id., pp. 17-24.

20 Id.: id., pp. 43-46.
21 Id.: id., pp. 71.
22 Id.: id., pp. 71-72.
807
VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 807

amended complaint, dated January 4, 1964,23 the DBP

was no longer included as a party. Echavez was the sole
defendant. The second amended complaint adverted to the
dismissal of the case as against the DBP and additionally
alleged that Echavez, "in gross and evident bad faith,
mortgaged the whole of Lot 3-A-1 to one Dr. Serafica." It
prayed particularly that Echavez be commanded:
1. To execute a public document embodying and

confirming the oral contract of joint ownership of
Lot 3-A-1, TCT 7618, of April 1, 1958 between
plaintiff and defendant x x;
2. To execute a deed of reconveyance of 1, ,827.5 sq. m.
of Lot 3-A-iv x x after reimbursement of the sum of
P14,821.24 by the plaintiff;
3. To pay plaintiff P1,000 as attorney's fees, P5,000.00

as moral damages, P5,000.00 as exemplary
damages and the expenses of litigation; and
4. To pay the costs,"
Trial ensued after which the Trial Court rendered

judgment OR June 29,1968. It found that the sharing
agreement between Ouano and Echavez could not be
enforced in view of the absence of consent of the RFC (DBP)
which the latter never gave; apart from this, the agreement
had an unlawful cause and hence could "produce no effect
whatever" in accordance with Article 1352 of the Civil
Code, because involving a felony defined in Article 185 of
the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
"ART. 185. Machinations in public auctions.·Any person who shall

solicit any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from
taking part in any public auction, and any person who shall attempt
to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts,
promises, or any other artifice, with intent to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing auctioned, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period and a fine ranging from 10 to 50
per centum of the value of the thing auctioned."
The decision accordingly dismissed the Second Amended

Complaint, ordered Ouano, "to vacate the portion of Lot No.
3-A-1 he
_______________
3 Id.: id., pp. 73-79.
808

occupied pursuant to Exhibit C," and also dismissed

Echavez's counterclaim.
Ouano appealed to the Court of Appeals. Here he fared
no better. He enjoyed initial success, to 24be sure. Judgment
was promulgated on February 28, 1974 setting aside the
Trial Court's judgment, and directing: (a) Echavez "to
execute a deed of conveyance in favor of plaintiff of 1827.5
square meters as the latter's share in the property in
controversy and (b) Ouano "to pay defendant the amount of
P1 4,821.24 representing the cost of his share." However,
on a second motion for reconsideration presented by
Echavez, the Appellate Court, on November 21, 1974,
reconsidered its decision of February 28, 1974 and entered
another "affirming
25
in toto the decision appealed from
without costs." This26 second decision found that the
documentary evidence preponderantly established that
"the parties have manifested their intention to subordinate
their agreement to the approval of the RFC."
"Consequently," the decision stated,
"x x had the plaintiff s and defendant's proposal been accepted by

the RFC (DBP) two separate contracts, covering the two segregated
lots according to the sketch would have come into existence, to be
executed by the RFC separately in favor of the plaintiff and the
defendant. But unfortunately, the RFC disapproved the proposal as
the sale was to be for cash. As a result, the obligatory force of the
'agreement' or the consent of the parties, which was subordinated to
the taking effect of the suspensive condition that the agreement be
subject to the approval of the RFC never happened. This being the
case, the agreement never became effective. The rule is settled that:
'When the consent of a party to a contract is given subject to the

fulfillment of a suspensive condition, the contract is not perfected unless
the condition is first complied with' (Ruperto vs. Cosca, 26 Phil. 227).
And when the obligation assumed by a party to a contract is expressly
subjected to a condition, the obligation cannot be
_______________
24 Rollo, pp. 74-101. N.B, The decision was written for the Court (Fifth
Division) by Martin, J., with whom concurred Gancayco and Serrano, JJ.
25 Rollo, pp. 157-168. N.B. The second decision was also written by Martin,
J., with whom again concurred Gancayco and Serrano, JJ.
26 Exhs. Ex (or 6), G. (or 7), H, (or 8), and he (or 9).
809
VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 809

enforced against him unless the condition is complied with" (Wise & Co.
vs. Kelly, 37 Phil. 696; Philippine National Bank vs. Philippine Trust
Co., 68 Phil. 48).
At best, the non-fulfillment of the suspensive condition has the

effect of negating the conditional obligation. It has been held that
what characterizes a conditional obligation is the fact that its
efficacy or obligatory force is subordinated to the happening of a
future and uncertain event, so that if the suspensive condition does
not take place, the parties would stand as if the conditional
obligation had never existed (Gaite vs. Fonacier, L-11827, July 31,
1961, 2 SCRA 831)."
Motions for reconsideration and for oral argument filed by

Ouano were denied by Resolutions dated February 6,
February 11, and February 21, 1975, the last containing a
suggestion
27
"that appellant go to the Higher Court for
relief."
Ouano is now before this Court, on appeal by certiorari,
to seek the relief that both the Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals have declined to concede to him. In this Court, he
attempts to make the following points, to wit:
1. The verbal agreement between the parties to

acquire and share the land in proportion to their
respective abutting properties, and executed by the
immediate occupation by the parties of their
respective shares in the land, is a perfected

consensual contract and not "a mere promise to
deliver something subject to a suspensive condition"
(as ruled in the second decision of the Court of
Appeals); hence the petitioner is entitled to compel
private respondent to execute a public document for
the registration in his name of the petitioner's
share in the land in question pursuant to Art. 1315
of the Civil Code (as held in the first decision of the
Court of Appeals).
2. The agreement to acquire and share the land was
not subject to a suspensive condition.
3. Assuming in gratia argumenti the agreement to be
subject to a suspensive condition, since the
condition consisted in obtaining the approval of the
RFC -a third party who could not in any way be
compelled to give such approval·the condition is
deemed constructively fulfilled because petitioner
had done all
_______________
27 Rollo, p. 208.
810

in his power to comply with the condition, and

private respondent, who also had the duty to get
such approval, in effect prevented the fulfillment of
the condition by doing nothing to secure the
approval.
4. The circumstances show that Echavez clearly acted
in bad faith, and it is unjust to allow him to benefit
from his bad faith and ingenious scheme.
Two material facts, however, about which Ouano and

Echavez are in agreement, render these questions of
academic interest only, said facts being determinative of
this dispute on an altogether different ground. These facts
are:
1) that they had both orally agreed that only Echavez

would make a bid at the second bidding called by
the RFC, and that if it was accepted, they would
divide the property in proportion to their adjoining
properties; and
2) that to ensure success of their scheme, they had
also agreed to induce the only other party known to
be interested in the property·a group headed by 28a
Mrs. Bonsucan·to desist from presenting a bid,
as they did succeed in inducing Mrs. Bonsucan's
group to withdraw from the sale, paying said

29
group
P2,000 as reimbursement for its expenses.
These acts constitute a crime, as the Trial Court has

stressed. Ouano and Echavez had promised to share in the
property in question as a consideration for Ouano's
refraining from taking part in the public auction, and they
had attempted to cause and in fact succeeded in causing
another bidder to stay away from the auction in order to
cause reduction of the price of the property auctioned. In so
doing, they committed the felony of machinations in public
auctions defined and penalized in Article 185 of the Revised
Penal Code, supra.
That both Ouano and Echavez did these acts is a matter
of record, as is the fact that thereby only one bid·that of
Echavez·was entered for the land in consequence of which
Echavez eventually acquired it. The agreement therefore
being criminal in character, the parties not only have no
action against each other but are both liable to prosecution
and the things and
_______________
28 Id., p. 80.
29 Id., pp. 80,160.
811
VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 811

price of their agreement subject to disposal according to the

provisions of the criminal code. This, in accordance with
the socalled pari delicto principle set out in the Civil Code.
Article 1409 of said Code declares as "inexistent and
void from the beginning" those contracts, among others,
"whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order or public policy," or "expressly
prohibited x x by law." Such contracts "cannot be ratified;"
"the right to set up the defense of illegality (cannot) be
waived;" and, Article 1410 adds, the "action or defense for
the declaration of the inexistence x x (thereof) does not
prescribe." 30Furthermore, according to Article 1411 of the
same Code ·
"x x. When the nullity proceeds from the illegality of the cause or
object of the contract, and the act constitutes a criminal offense,
both parties being in pari delicto, they shall have no action against
each other, and both shall be prosecuted. Moreover, the provisions of
the Penal Code relative to the disposal of effects or instruments of a
crime shall be applicable to the things or the price of the contract.
" x x."
The dismissal of Ouano's action by both the Trial Court and

the Court of Appeals was thus correct, being plainly in 31
accord with the Civil Code provisions just referred to.
Article 1411 also dictates the proper disposition of the land

involved, i.e., "the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime
and the instruments or tools with which it was committed,"
as mandated by the provisions of Article 45 of the Revised
Penal Code, this being obviously the provision "of the Penal
Code relative to the disposal of effects or instruments of a
crime" that Article 1411 makes
_______________
30 Italics supplied.
31 SEE Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Anno. 1989 ed., Vol. IV, pp.
736, 740 et citing Cabauatan v. Uy Hoo, 88 Phil. 103; de Raquiza vs.
Castellvi, 77 SCRA 88; Teja Marketing, et al., v. Nale, et al., G.R. No.
65510, Mar. 9, 1987; Padilla, Civil Code Anno., 1974 ed., Vol. IV, pp. 993,
citing Inson v. Belzunce, 32 Phil. 342; Liguez v. C.A., 102 Phil. 577;
Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hu, 93 Phil. 827, etc.; Tolentino, Civil Code, 1973
ed., Vol. IV, p. 638-9·all cited in Compañia General de Tabacos de
Filipinas v, C.A., et al, G.R. No. 59534, May 10, 1990.
812

Nasser us. Cuevas
"applicable to the things or the price of the contract"

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Court of
Appeals is MODIFIED, so that in addition to affirming the
Trial Court's judgment dismissing Ouano's complaint and
Echavez's counterclaim in Civil Case No. R-8011, Lot No. 3-
A-1 subject of said case is ordered FORFEITED in its
entirety in favor of the Government of the Philippines. No
pronouncement as to costs. Let copy of this Decision be
furnished the Solicitor General.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., Took no part; he concurred in the
decision of the Court of Appeals subject of the petition for
review (See footnotes 24 and 25, supra).
Decision modified.
Notes.·As parties to a void contract, plaintiff have no

rights to enforce. (Homena vs. Casa, 157 SCRA 232.)
Being a void contract, the action or defense for the
declaration of its inexistence is imprescriptible. (Fornilda
vs. RTC of Pasig, Br. 164, 166 SCRA 281.)
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ouano vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ouano vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ouano vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188 11/15/19, 10:46 PM

VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 799

PATERNO J. OUANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

Criminal Law; Machinations in public auctions under Art. 185

800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ouano vs. Court of Appeals

dictates the proper disposition of the land involved, i.e., "the

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court

The appellate proceedings at bar treat of a parcel of land

VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 801

Ouano vs. Court of Appeals

Now, it appears that prior to the second bidding, Ouano

Still later, or two weeks after Echavez won the bid, a

802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

"KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

Inasmuch as it was Francisco B, Echavez who won in the public

On the same day that the "Agreement" was executed,

1827.5 ·No. of sq. meters for Paterno

11 Id., pp. 80-81, Exh. F (also, Exh. 6)

VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 803

-1016.55 · Share of Echavez for the P2,000.00 given to

Mandawe, April 15, 1958.

Thereafter, on various dates, Ouano and/or his wife

"x x Apparently, the successful bidder was caught flatfooted, for he

804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

amortization plan (Exhs. 24 and 10). But the Rehabilitation

It was pursuant to the absolute sale of December 9, 1963

VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 805

Shortly after his representation with the DBP were

The complaint was amended a few weeks later, chiefly to

1) pending trial, and upon such bond as may be fixed

806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

P28,206.61, Ouano be declared as "legally

1,882.5 sq. m.;"

The DBP moved to dismiss the amended complaint,

19 Id.: id., pp. 17-24.

VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 807

amended complaint, dated January 4, 1964,23 the DBP

1. To execute a public document embodying and

3. To pay plaintiff P1,000 as attorney's fees, P5,000.00

Trial ensued after which the Trial Court rendered

"ART. 185. Machinations in public auctions.·Any person who shall

The decision accordingly dismissed the Second Amended

3 Id.: id., pp. 73-79.

808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

occupied pursuant to Exhibit C," and also dismissed

"x x had the plaintiff s and defendant's proposal been accepted by

'When the consent of a party to a contract is given subject to the

VOL. 188, AUGUST 21, 1990 809

At best, the non-fulfillment of the suspensive condition has the

Motions for reconsideration and for oral argument filed by

1. The verbal agreement between the parties to

respective shares in the land, is a perfected

810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

in his power to comply with the condition, and

Two material facts, however, about which Ouano and

1) that they had both orally agreed that only Echavez

group to withdraw from the sale, paying said

These acts constitute a crime, as the Trial Court has