Spouses Javier v. CA

G.R. No.
L-48194 March 15, 1990
JOSE M. JAVIER and ESTRELLA F. JAVIER, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and LEONARDO TIRO, respondents.
Facts:
Private respondent is a holder of an ordinary timber license issued by the Bureau of Forestry covering 2,535 hectares in the town of
Medina, Misamis Oriental. On February 15, 1966 he executed a "Deed of Assignment" in favor of herein petitioners.
At the time the said deed of assignment was executed, private respondent had a pending application, dated October 21, 1965, for
an additional forest concession covering an area of 2,000 hectares southwest of and adjoining the area of the concession subject of
the deed of assignment. Hence, on February 28, 1966, private respondent and petitioners entered into another "Agreement".
On November 18, 1966, the Acting Director of Forestry wrote private respondent that his forest concession was renewed up to May
12, 1967 under O.T.L. No. 391-51267, but since the concession consisted of only 2,535 hectares, he was therein informed that:
In pursuance of the Presidential directive of May 13, 1966, you are hereby given until May 12, 1967 to form an
organization such as a cooperative, partnership or corporation with other adjoining licensees so as to have a
total holding area of not less than 20,000 hectares of contiguous and compact territory and an aggregate
allowable annual cut of not less than 25,000 cubic meters, otherwise, your license will not be further renewed.
Consequently, petitioners, now acting as timber license holders by virtue of the deed of assignment executed by private respondent
in their favor, entered into a Forest Consolidation Agreement on April 10, 1967 with other ordinary timber license holders in Misamis
Oriental, namely, Vicente L. De Lara, Jr., Salustiano R. Oca and Sanggaya Logging Company. Under this consolidation agreement,
they all agreed to pool together and merge their respective forest concessions into a working unit, as envisioned by the
aforementioned directives. This consolidation agreement was approved by the Director of Forestry on May 10, 1967. The working
unit was subsequently incorporated as the North Mindanao Timber Corporation, with the petitioners and the other signatories of the
aforesaid Forest Consolidation Agreement as incorporators.
On July 16, 1968, for failure of petitioners to pay the balance due under the two deeds of assignment, private respondent filed an
action against petitioners, based on the said contracts, for the payment of the amount of P83,138.15 with interest at 6% per annum
from April 10, 1967 until full payment, plus P12,000.00 for attorney's fees and costs.
On September 23, 1968, petitioners filed their answer admitting the due execution of the contracts but interposing the special
defense of nullity thereof since private respondent failed to comply with his contractual obligations and, further, that the conditions
for the enforceability of the obligations of the parties failed to materialize. As a counterclaim, petitioners sought the return of
P55,586.00 which private respondent had received from them pursuant to an alleged management agreement, plus attorney's fees
and costs.
After trial, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing private respondent's complaint and ordering him to pay petitioners the sum
of P33,161.85 with legal interest at six percent per annum from the date of the filing of the answer until complete payment. 12
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the court of a quo.
Issue:
Whether or not the deed of assignment dated February 15, 1966 and the agreement of February 28, 1966 are null and void, the
former for total absence of consideration and the latter for non-fulfillment of the conditions stated therein. (YES)
Ruling:
It is settled that the previous and simultaneous and subsequent acts of the parties are properly cognizable indica of their true
intention. Where the parties to a contract have given it a practical construction by their conduct as by acts in partial performance,
such construction may be considered by the court in construing the contract, determining its meaning and ascertaining the mutual
intention of the parties at the time of contracting. The parties' practical construction of their contract has been characterized as a
clue or index to, or as evidence of, their intention or meaning and as an important, significant, convincing, persuasive, or influential
factor in determining the proper construction of the agreement.
As found by the Court of Appeals, the true cause or consideration of said deed was the transfer of the forest concession of private
respondent to petitioners for P120,000.00. This finding is supported by the following considerations, viz:
1. Both parties, at the time of the execution of the deed of assignment knew that the Timberwealth Corporation stated therein was
non-existent.
2. In their subsequent agreement, private respondent conveyed to petitioners his inchoate right over a forest concession covering an
additional area for his existing forest concession, which area he had applied for, and his application was then pending in the Bureau
of Forestry for approval.
3. Petitioners, after the execution of the deed of assignment, assumed the operation of the logging concessions of private
respondent.
4. The statement of advances to respondent prepared by petitioners stated: "P55,186.39 advances to L.A. Tiro be applied to
succeeding shipments. Based on the agreement, we pay P10,000.00 every after (sic) shipment. We had only 2 shipments".
5. Petitioners entered into a Forest Consolidation Agreement with other holders of forest concessions on the strength of the
questioned deed of assignment.
The aforesaid contemporaneous and subsequent acts of petitioners and private respondent reveal that the cause stated in the
questioned deed of assignment is false. The deed of assignment of February 15, 1966 is a relatively simulated contract which states
a false cause or consideration, or one where the parties conceal their true agreement. A contract with a false consideration is not
null and void per se. Under Article 1346 of the Civil Code, a relatively simulated contract, when it does not prejudice a third person
and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real
agreement.
In view of the analysis, the defendants-appellees are liable to the plaintiff-appellant for the sale and transfer in their favor of the
latter's forest concessions.
As to the alleged nullity of the agreement dated February 28, 1966, we agree with petitioners that they cannot be held liable thereon.
The efficacy of said deed of assignment is subject to the condition that the application of private respondent for an additional area
for forest concession be approved by the Bureau of Forestry. Since private respondent did not obtain that approval, said deed
produces no effect. When a contract is subject to a suspensive condition, its birth or effectivity can take place only if and when the
event which constitutes the condition happens or is fulfilled. If the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties would stand
as if the conditional obligation had never existed.
The said agreement is a bilateral contract which gave rise to reciprocal obligations, that is, the obligation of private respondent to
transfer his rights in the forest concession over the additional area and, on the other hand, the obligation of petitioners to pay
P30,000.00. The demandability of the obligation of one party depends upon the fulfillment of the obligation of the other. In this case,
the failure of private respondent to comply with his obligation negates his right to demand performance from petitioners. Delivery
and payment in a contract of sale, are so interrelated and intertwined with each other that without delivery of the goods there is no
corresponding obligation to pay. The two complement each other.
Moreover, under the second paragraph of Article 1461 of the Civil Code, the efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is
deemed subject to the condition that the thing will come into existence. In this case, since private respondent never acquired any
right over the additional area for failure to secure the approval of the Bureau of Forestry, the agreement executed therefor, which
had for its object the transfer of said right to petitioners, never became effective or enforceable.

Spouses Javier v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Javier v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Spouses Javier v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-48194 March 15, 1990

JOSE M. JAVIER and ESTRELLA F. JAVIER, petitioners,

You might also like