Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 118114 December 7, 1995 TEODORO ACAP, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and EDY DE LOS REYES, respondents. PADILLA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, in CAG.R. No. 36177, which affirmed the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental holding that private respondent Edy de los Reyes had acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 of the Cadastral Survey of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental based on a document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights", and ordering the dispossession of petitioner as leasehold tenant of the land for failure to pay rentals. The facts of the case are as follows: The title to Lot No. 1130 of the Cadastral Survey of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental was evidenced by OCT No. R-12179. The lot has an area of 13,720 sq. meters. The title was issued and is registered in the name of spouses Santiago Vasquez and Lorenza Oruma. After both spouses died, their only son Felixberto inherited the lot. In 1975, Felixberto executed a duly notarized document entitled "Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Absolute Sale" in favor of Cosme Pido. The evidence before the court a quo established that since 1960, petitioner Teodoro Acap had been the tenant of a portion of the said land, covering an area of nine thousand five hundred (9,500) meters. When ownership was transferred in 1975 by Felixberto to Cosme Pido, Acap continued to be the registered tenant thereof and religiously paid his leasehold rentals to Pido and thereafter, upon Pido's death, to his widow Laurenciana. The controversy began when Pido died intestate and on 27 November 1981, his surviving heirs executed a notarized document denominated as "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights of Lot No. 1130 Hinigaran Cadastre," wherein they declared; to quote its pertinent portions, that: . . . Cosme Pido died in the Municipality of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, he died intestate and without any known debts and obligations which the said parcel of land is (sic) held liable. That Cosme Pido was survived by his/her legitimate heirs, namely: LAURENCIANA PIDO, wife, ELY, ERVIN, ELMER, and ELECHOR all surnamed PIDO; children; That invoking the provision of Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, the above-mentioned heirs do hereby declare unto [sic] ourselves the only heirs of the late Cosme Pido and that we hereby adjudicate unto ourselves the above-mentioned parcel of land in equal shares. Now, therefore, We LAURENCIANA 3, ELY, ELMER, ERVIN and ELECHOR all surnamed PIDO, do hereby waive, quitclaim all our rights, interests and participation over the said parcel of land in favor of EDY DE LOS REYES, of legal age, (f)ilipino, married to VIRGINIA DE LOS REYES, and resident of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, Philippines. . . . 4 (Emphasis supplied) The document was signed by all of Pido's heirs. Private respondent Edy de los Reyes did not sign said

document. It will be noted that at the time of Cosme Pido's death, title to the property continued to be registered in the name of the Vasquez spouses. Upon obtaining the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of Rights in his favor, private respondent Edy de los Reyes filed the same with the Registry of Deeds as part of a notice of an adverse claim against the original certificate of title. Thereafter, private respondent sought for petitioner (Acap) to personally inform him that he (Edy) had become the new owner of the land and that the lease rentals thereon should be paid to him. Private respondent further alleged that he and petitioner entered into an oral lease agreement wherein petitioner agreed to pay ten (10) cavans of palay per annum as lease rental. In 1982, petitioner allegedly complied with said obligation. In 1983, however, petitioner refused to pay any further lease rentals on the land, prompting private respondent to seek the assistance of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The MAR invited petitioner to a conference scheduled on 13 October 1983. Petitioner did not attend the conference but sent his wife instead to the conference. During the meeting, an officer of the Ministry informed Acap's wife about private respondent's ownership of the said land but she stated that she and her husband (Teodoro) did not recognize private respondent's claim of ownership over the land. On 28 April 1988, after the lapse of four (4) years, private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner, alleging in the main that as his leasehold tenant, petitioner refused and failed to pay the agreed annual rental of ten (10) cavans of palay despite repeated demands. During the trial before the court a quo, petitioner reiterated his refusal to recognize private respondent's ownership over the subject land. He averred that he continues to recognize Cosme Pido as the owner of the said land, and having been a registered tenant therein since 1960, he never reneged on his rental obligations. When Pido died, he continued to pay rentals to Pido's widow. When the latter left for abroad, she instructed him to stay in the landholding and to pay the accumulated rentals upon her demand or return from abroad. Petitioner further claimed before the trial court that he had no knowledge about any transfer or sale of the lot to private respondent in 1981 and even the following year after Laurenciana's departure for abroad. He denied having entered into a verbal lease tenancy contract with private respondent and that assuming that the said lot was indeed sold to private respondent without his knowledge, R.A. 3844, as amended, grants him the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price. Petitioner also bewailed private respondent's ejectment action as a violation of his right to security of tenure under P.D. 27. On 20 August 1991, the lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent, the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Edy de los Reyes, and against the defendant, Teodoro Acap, ordering the following, to wit: 1. Declaring forfeiture of defendant's preferred right to issuance of a Certificate of Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and his farmholdings; 2. Ordering the defendant Teodoro Acap to deliver possession of said farm to plaintiff, and; 3. Ordering the defendant to pay P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, the sum of P1,000.00 as expenses of litigation and the amount of P10,000.00 as actual damages. 5 In arriving at the above-mentioned judgment, the trial court stated that the evidence had established

that the subject land was "sold" by the heirs of Cosme Pido to private respondent. This is clear from the following disquisitions contained in the trial court's six (6) page decision: There is no doubt that defendant is a registered tenant of Cosme Pido. However, when the latter died their tenancy relations changed since ownership of said land was passed on to his heirs who, by executing a Deed of Sale, which defendant admitted in his affidavit, likewise passed on their ownership of Lot 1130 to herein plaintiff (private respondent). As owner hereof, plaintiff has the right to demand payment of rental and the tenant is obligated to pay rentals due from the time demand is made. . . . 6 xxx xxx xxx Certainly, the sale of the Pido family of Lot 1130 to herein plaintiff does not of itself extinguish the relationship. There was only a change of the personality of the lessor in the person of herein plaintiff Edy de los Reyes who being the purchaser or transferee, assumes the rights and obligations of the former landowner to the tenant Teodoro Acap, herein defendant. 7 Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, imputing error to the lower court when it ruled that private respondent acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 and that he, as tenant, should pay rentals to private respondent and that failing to pay the same from 1983 to 1987, his right to a certificate of land transfer under P.D. 27 was deemed forfeited. The Court of Appeals brushed aside petitioner's argument that the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights (Exhibit "D"), the document relied upon by private respondent to prove his ownership to the lot, was excluded by the lower court in its order dated 27 August 1990. The order indeed noted that the document was not identified by Cosme Pido's heirs and was not registered with the Registry of Deeds of Negros Occidental. According to respondent court, however, since the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights appears to have been duly notarized, no further proof of its due execution was necessary. Like the trial court, respondent court was also convinced that the said document stands as prima facie proof of appellee's (private respondent's) ownership of the land in dispute. With respect to its non-registration, respondent court noted that petitioner had actual knowledge of the subject sale of the land in dispute to private respondent because as early as 1983, he (petitioner) already knew of private respondent's claim over the said land but which he thereafter denied, and that in 1982, he (petitioner) actually paid rent to private respondent. Otherwise stated, respondent court considered this fact of rental payment in 1982 as estoppel on petitioner's part to thereafter refute private respondent's claim of ownership over the said land. Under these circumstances, respondent court ruled that indeed there was deliberate refusal by petitioner to pay rent for a continued period of five years that merited forfeiture of his otherwise preferred right to the issuance of a certificate of land transfer. In the present petition, petitioner impugns the decision of the Court of Appeals as not in accord with the law and evidence when it rules that private respondent acquired ownership of Lot No. 1130 through the aforementioned Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights. Hence, the issues to be resolved presently are the following: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT DECLARATION OF HEIRSHIP AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS IS A RECOGNIZED MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT OVER THE LOT IN QUESTION. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE SAID DOCUMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED A DEED OF SALE IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT OF THE LOT IN QUESTION.

Petitioner argues that the Regional Trial Court, in its order dated 7 August 1990, explicitly excluded the document marked as Exhibit "D" (Declaration of Heirship, etc.) as private respondent's evidence because it was not registered with the Registry of Deeds and was not identified by anyone of the heirs of Cosme Pido. The Court of Appeals, however, held the same to be admissible, it being a notarized document, hence, a prima facie proof of private respondents' ownership of the lot to which it refers. Petitioner points out that the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights is not one of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership under Article 712 of the Civil Code. Neither can the same be considered a deed of sale so as to transfer ownership of the land to private respondent because no consideration is stated in the contract (assuming it is a contract or deed of sale). Private respondent defends the decision of respondent Court of Appeals as in accord with the evidence and the law. He posits that while it may indeed be true that the trial court excluded his Exhibit "D" which is the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights as part of his evidence, the trial court declared him nonetheless owner of the subject lot based on other evidence adduced during the trial, namely, the notice of adverse claim (Exhibit "E") duly registered by him with the Registry of Deeds, which contains the questioned Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights as an integral part thereof. We find the petition impressed with merit. In the first place, an asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing arising from a juridical act, however justified, is not per se sufficient to give rise to ownership over the res. That right or title must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by law. Hence, ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process. While title is the juridical justification, mode is the actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownership over a thing in question. 8 Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2) classes, namely, the original mode (i.e., through occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation) and the derivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assignment or mutuum). In the case at bench, the trial court was obviously confused as to the nature and effect of the Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights, equating the same with a contract (deed) of sale. They are not the same. In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. 9 Upon the other hand, a declaration of heirship and waiver of rights operates as a public instrument when filed with the Registry of Deeds whereby the intestate heirs adjudicate and divide the estate left by the decedent among themselves as they see fit. It is in effect an extrajudicial settlement between the heirs under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. 10 Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights. The first presumes the existence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties. 11 The second is, technically speaking, a mode of extinction of ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge of its existence and intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession. 12 Private respondent, being then a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document which neither recites the elements of either a sale, 13 or a donation, 14 or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership. Quite surprisingly, both the trial court and public respondent Court of Appeals concluded that a "sale" transpired between Cosme Pido's heirs and private respondent and that petitioner acquired actual

knowledge of said sale when he was summoned by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform to discuss private respondent's claim over the lot in question. This conclusion has no basis both in fact and in law. On record, Exhibit "D", which is the "Declaration of Heirship and Waiver of Rights" was excluded by the trial court in its order dated 27 August 1990 because the document was neither registered with the Registry of Deeds nor identified by the heirs of Cosme Pido. There is no showing that private respondent had the same document attached to or made part of the record. What the trial court admitted was Annex "E", a notice of adverse claim filed with the Registry of Deeds which contained the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of rights and was annotated at the back of the Original Certificate of Title to the land in question. A notice of adverse claim, by its nature, does not however prove private respondent's ownership over the tenanted lot. "A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the registered owner, the validity of which is yet to be established in court at some future date, and is no better than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice of a case already pending in court." 15 It is to be noted that while the existence of said adverse claim was duly proven, there is no evidence whatsoever that a deed of sale was executed between Cosme Pido's heirs and private respondent transferring the rights of Pido's heirs to the land in favor of private respondent. Private respondent's right or interest therefore in the tenanted lot remains an adverse claim which cannot by itself be sufficient to cancel the OCT to the land and title the same in private respondent's name. Consequently, while the transaction between Pido's heirs and private respondent may be binding on both parties, the right of petitioner as a registered tenant to the land cannot be perfunctorily forfeited on a mere allegation of private respondent's ownership without the corresponding proof thereof. Petitioner had been a registered tenant in the subject land since 1960 and religiously paid lease rentals thereon. In his mind, he continued to be the registered tenant of Cosme Pido and his family (after Pido's death), even if in 1982, private respondent allegedly informed petitioner that he had become the new owner of the land. Under the circumstances, petitioner may have, in good faith, assumed such statement of private respondent to be true and may have in fact delivered 10 cavans of palay as annual rental for 1982 to private respondent. But in 1983, it is clear that petitioner had misgivings over private respondent's claim of ownership over the said land because in the October 1983 MAR conference, his wife Laurenciana categorically denied all of private respondent's allegations. In fact, petitioner even secured a certificate from the MAR dated 9 May 1988 to the effect that he continued to be the registered tenant of Cosme Pido and not of private respondent. The reason is that private respondent never registered the Declaration of Heirship with Waiver of Rights with the Registry of Deeds or with the MAR. Instead, he (private respondent) sought to do indirectly what could not be done directly, i.e., file a notice of adverse claim on the said lot to establish ownership thereover. It stands to reason, therefore, to hold that there was no unjustified or deliberate refusal by petitioner to pay the lease rentals or amortizations to the landowner/agricultural lessor which, in this case, private respondent failed to establish in his favor by clear and convincing evidence. 16 Consequently, the sanction of forfeiture of his preferred right to be issued a Certificate of Land Transfer under P.D. 27 and to the possession of his farmholdings should not be applied against petitioners, since private respondent has not established a cause of action for recovery of possession against petitioner. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 1 May 1994 which affirmed the decision of the RTC of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental dated 20 August 1991 is hereby SET ASIDE. The private respondent's complaint for

recovery of possession and damages against petitioner Acap is hereby DISMISSED for failure to properly state a cause of action, without prejudice to private respondent taking the proper legal steps to establish the legal mode by which he claims to have acquired ownership of the land in question. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 109410 August 28, 1996 CLARA M. BALATBAT, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses JOSE REPUYAN and AURORA REPUYAN, respondents.

TORRES, JR. , J.:p Petitioner Clara M. Balatbat instituted this petition for review pursuant to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to set aside the decision dated August 12, 1992 of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CV No. 29994 entitled "Alexandra Balatbat and Clara Balatbat, plaintiffs-appellants versus Jose Repuyan and Aurora Repuyan, defendants-appellees", the dispositive portion of which reads: 1 WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the modification that the awards of P10,000.00 for attorney's fees and P5,000.00 as costs of litigation are deleted. SO ORDERED. The records show the following factual antecedents: It appears that on June 15, 1977, Aurelio A. Roque filed a complaint for partition docketed as Civil Case No. 109032 against Corazon Roque, Alberto de los Santos, Feliciano Roque, Severa Roque and Osmundo Roque before the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IX. 2 Defendants therein were declared in default and plaintiff presented evidence ex-parte. On March 29, 1979, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff Aurelio A. Roque, the pertinent portion of which reads: 3 From the evidence, it has been clearly established that the lot in question covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51330 was acquired by plaintiff Aurelio Rogue and Maria Mesina during their conjugal union and the house constructed thereon was likewise built during their marital union. Out of their union, plaintiff and Maria Mesina had four children, who are the defendants in this case. When Maria Mesina died on August 28, 1966, the only conjugal properties left are the house and lot above stated of which plaintiff herein, as the legal spouse, is entitled to one-half share pro-indiviso thereof. With respect to the one-half share pro-indiviso now forming the estate of Maria Mesina, plaintiff and the

four children, the defendants here, are each entitled to one-fifth (1/5) share pro-indiviso. The deceased wife left no debt. Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the partition of the properties, subject matter of this case consisting of the house and lot, in the following manner: 1. Of the house and lot forming the conjugal properties, plaintiff is entitled to one-half share pro-indiviso thereof while the other half forms the estate of the deceased Maria Mesina; 2. Of the Estate of deceased Maria Mesina, the same is to be divided into five (5) shares and plaintiff and his four children are entitled each to one-fifth share thereof pro-indiviso. Plaintiff claim for moral, exemplary and actual damages and attorney's fees not having been established to the satisfaction of the Court, the same is hereby denied. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED On June 2, 1979, the decision became final and executory. The corresponding entry of judgment was made on March 29, 1979. 4 On October 5, 1979, the Register of Deeds of Manila issued a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 135671 in the name of the following persons in the following proportions: 5 Aurelio A. Roque 6/10 shareSeverina M. Roque 1/10 shareOsmundo M. Roque 1/10 shareFeliciano M. Roque 1/10 shareCorazon M. Roque 1/10 share On April 1, 1980, Aurelio A. Rogue sold his 6/10 share in T.C.T. No. 135671 to spouses Aurora Tuazon-Repuyan and Jose Repuyan as evidenced by ."Deed of Absolute Sale." 6 On July 21, 1980, Aurora Tuazon Repuyan caused the annotation of her affidavit of adverse claim 7 on the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 135671, 8 to wit: Entry No. 5627/T-135671 NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM Filed by Aurora Tuazon Repuyan, married, claiming among others that she bought 6/10 portion of the property herein described from Aurelio Roque for the amount of P50,000.00 with a down payment of P5,000.00 and the balance of P45,000.00 to be paid after the partition and subdivision of the property herein described, other claims set forth in Doc. No. 954, page 18, Book 94 of ________________ 64 _______ PEDRO DE CASTRO, Notary Public of Manila. Date of instrument July 21, 1980Date of inscription July 21, 1980 at 3:35 p.m. TERESITA H. NOBLEJASActing Register of Deeds By: RAMON D. MACARICANActing Second Deputy On August 20, 1980, Aurelio A. Roque filed a complaint for "Rescission of Contract" docketed as Civil Case No. 134131 against spouses Aurora Tuazon-Repuyan and Jose Repuyan before Branch IV of the then Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint is grounded on spouses Repuyan's failure to pay the balance of P45,000.00 of the purchase price. 9 On September 5, 1980, spouses Repuyan filed their

answer with counterclaim.

10

In the meantime, the trial court issued an order in Civil Case No. 109032 (Partition case) dated February 2, 1982, to wit: 11 In view of all the foregoing and finding that the amount of P100,000.00 as purchase price for the sale of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 51330 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila consisting of 84 square meters situated in Callejon Sulu, District of Santa Cruz, Manila, to be reasonable and fair, and considering the opportunities given defendants to sign the deed of absolute sale voluntarily, the Court has no alternative but to order, as it hereby orders, the Deputy Clerk of this Court to sign the deed of absolute sale for and in behalf of defendants pursuant to Sec. 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in order to effect the partition of the property involved in this case. SO ORDERED. A deed of absolute sale was executed on February 4, 1982 between Aurelio S. Roque, Corazon Roque, Feliciano Roque, Severa Roque and Osmundo Roque and Clara Balatbat, married to Alejandro Balatbat. 12 On April 14, 1982, Clara Balatbat filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession which was granted by the trial court on September 14, 1982 "subject, however, to valid rights and interest of third persons over the same portion thereof, other than vendor or any other person or persons privy to or claiming any rights or interests under it." The corresponding writ of possession was issued on September 20, 1982. 13 On May 20, 1982, petitioner Clara Balatbat filed a motion to intervene in Civil Case No. 134131 14 which was granted as per court's resolution of October 21, 1982. 15 However, Clara Balatbat failed to file her complaint in intervention. 16 On April 15, 1986, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, the pertinent portion of which reads: 17 The rescission of contracts are provided for in the laws and nowhere in the provision of the Civil Code under the title Rescissible Contracts does the circumstances in the case at bar appear to have occurred, hence, the prayer for rescission is outside the ambit for which rescissible [sic] could be granted. The Intervenor Plaintiff, Clara Balatbat, although allowed to intervene, did not file her complaint in intervention. Consequently, the plaintiff having failed to prove with sufficient preponderance his action, the relief prayed for had to be denied. The contract of sale denominated as "Deed of Absolute Sale" (Exh. 7 and sub-markings) being valid and enforceable, the same pursuant to the provisions of Art. 1159 of the Civil Code which says: Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. has the effect of being the law between the parties and should be complied with. The obligation of the plaintiff under the contract being to have the land covered by TCT No. 135671 partitioned and subdivided, and title issued in the name of the defendant buyer (see page 2 par. C of Exh. 7-A) plaintiff had to comply thereto to give effect to the contract. WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered against the plaintiff, Aurelio A. Roque, and the plaintiff in intervention, Clara Balatbat, and in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, and declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1980 as valid and enforceable and the plaintiff is, as he is hereby ordered, to partition and subdivide the land covered by T.C.T. No. 135671, and to

aggregate therefrom a portion equivalent to 6/10 thereof, and cause the same to be titled in the name of the defendants, and after which, the defendants, and after which, the defendants, and after which, the defendants, and after which, the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P45,000.00. Considering further that the defendants suffered damages since they were forced to litigate unnecessarily, by way of their counterclaim, plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay defendants the sum of P15,000.00 as moral damages, attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00. Costs against plaintiff. SO ORDERED. On March 3, 1987, petitioner Balatbat filed a notice of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 109032 before the Register of Deeds of Manila. 18 On December 9, 1988, petitioner Clara Balatbat and her husband, Alejandro Balatbat filed the instant complaint for delivery of the owners duplicate copy of T.C.T. No. 135671 docketed as Civil Case No. 88-47176 before Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila against private respondents Jose Repuyan and Aurora Repuyan. 19 On January 27, 1989, private respondents filed their answer with affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaim. 20 On November 13, 1989, private respondents filed their memorandum memorandum on November 23, 1989. 22
21

while petitioners filed their

On August 2, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24, rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, the dispositive portion of which reads : 23 Considering all the foregoing, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish their cause of action against the defendants and have no right to the reliefs demanded in the complaint and the complaint of the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby DISMISSED. On the counterclaim, the plaintiff are ordered to pay defendants the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos by way of attorney's fees, Five Thousand Pesos as costs of litigation and further to pay the costs of the suit. SO ORDERED. Dissatisfied, petitioner Balatbat filed an appeal before the respondent Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed decision on August 12, 1992, to wit: 24 WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the modification that the awards of P10,000.00 for attorney's fees and P5,000.00 as costs of litigation are deleted. SO ORDERED. On March 22, 1993, the respondent Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 25 Hence, this petition for review. Petitioner raised the following issues for this Court's resolution: I WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED SALE TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WAS MERELY

EXECUTORY AND NOT A CONSUMMATED TRANSACTION? II WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A DOUBLE SALE AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER ART. 1544 OF THE CIVIL CODE? III WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE? IV WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CONSIDERATION TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHICH WERE NOT OFFERED? Petitioner asseverates that the respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the appealed judgment considering (1) that the alleged sale in favor of the private respondents Repuyan was merely executory; (2) that there is no double sale; (3) that petitioner is a buyer in good faith and for value; and (4) that private respondents did not offer their evidence during the trial. Contrary to petitioner's contention that the sale dated April 1, 1980 in favor of private respondents Repuyan was merely executory for the reason that there was no delivery of the subject property and that consideration/price was not fully paid, we find the sale as consummated, hence, valid and enforceable. In a decision dated April 15, 1986 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch IV in Civil Case No. 134131, the Court dismissed vendor's Aurelio Roque complaint for rescission of the deed of sale and declared that the Sale dated April 1, 1980, as valid and enforceable. No appeal having been made, the decision became final and executory. It must be noted that herein petitioner Balatbat filed a motion for intervention in that case but did not file her complaint in intervention. In that case wherein Aurelio Roque sought to rescind the April 1, 1980 deed of sale in favor of the private respondents for non-payment of the P45,000.00 balance, the trial court dismissed the complaint for rescission. Examining the terms and conditions of the "Deed of Sale" dated April 1, 1980, the P45,000.00 balance is payable only "after the property covered by T.C.T. No. 135671 has been partitioned and subdivided, and title issued in the name of the BUYER" hence, vendor Roque cannot demand payment of the balance unless and until the property has been subdivided and titled in the name of private respondents. Devoid of any stipulation that "ownership in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price" 26, ownership in thing shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been fully paid. The failure of the buyer has not yet been fully paid. The failure of the buyer to make good the price does not, in law, cause the ownership to revest to the seller unless the bilateral contract of sale is first rescinded or resolved pursuant to Article 1191 of the New Civil Code. 27 Non-payment only creates a right to demand the fulfillment of the obligation or to rescind the contract. With respect to the non-delivery of the possession of the subject property to the private respondent, suffice it to say that ownership of the thing sold is acquired only from the time of delivery thereof, either actual or constructive. 28 Article 1498 of the Civil Code provides that when the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot be inferred. 29 The execution of the public instrument, without actual delivery of the thing, transfers the ownership from the vendor to the vendee, who may thereafter exercise the rights of an owner over the same. 30 In the instant case, vendor Roque delivered the owner's certificate of title to herein private respondent. It is not necessary that vendee be physically present at every square inch of the land bought by him,

possession of the public instrument of the land is sufficient to accord him the rights of ownership. Thus, delivery of a parcel of land may be done by placing the vendee in control and possession of the land (real) or by embodying the sale in a public instrument (constructive). The provision of Article 1358 on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a public instrument. 31 A contract of sale being consensual, it is perfected by the mere consent of the parties. 32 Delivery of the thing bought or payment of the price is not necessary for the perfection of the contract; and failure of the vendee to pay the price after the execution of the contract does not make the sale null and void for lack of consideration but results at most in default on the part of the vendee, for which the vendor may exercise his legal remedies. 33 Article 1544 of the New Civil Code provides: If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be movable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession and in the absence thereof, to the person who present the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale of an immovable property, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. 34 In the case at bar, vendor Aurelio Roque sold 6/10 portion of his share in TCT No. 135671 to private respondents Repuyan on April 1, 1980. Subsequently, the same lot was sold again by vendor Aurelio Roque (6/10) and his children (4/10), represented by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Section 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on February 4, 1982. Undoubtedly, this is a case of double sale contemplated under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code. This is an instance of a double sale of an immovable property hence, the ownership shall vests in the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Evidently, private respondents Repuyan's caused the annotation of an adverse claim on the title of the subject property denominated as Entry No. 5627/T-135671 on July 21, 1980. 35 The annotation of the adverse claim on TCT No. 135671 in the Registry of Property is sufficient compliance as mandated by law and serves notice to the whole world. On the other hand, petitioner filed a notice of lis pendens only on February 2, 1982. Accordingly, private respondents who first caused the annotation of the adverse claim in good faith shall have a better right over herein petitioner. Moreover, the physical possession of herein petitioners by virtue of a writ of possession issued by the trial court on September 20, 1982 is "subject to the valid rights and interest of third persons over the same portion thereof, other than vendor or any other person or persons privy to or claiming any rights to interest under it." 36 As between two purchasers, the one who has registered the sale in his favor, has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable property. 37 Further, even in default of the first registrant or first in possession, private respondents have presented the oldest title. 38 Thus, private respondents who acquired the subject property in good faith and for valuable consideration established a superior right as against the petitioner.

Evidently, petitioner cannot be considered as a buyer in good faith. In the complaint for rescission filed by vendor Aurelio Roque on August 20, 1980, herein petitioner filed a motion for intervention on May 20, 1982 but did not file her complaint in intervention, hence, the decision was rendered adversely against her. If petitioner did investigate before buying the land on February 4, 1982, she should have known that there was a pending case and an annotation of adverse claim was made in the title of the property before the Register of Deeds and she could have discovered that the subject property was already sold to the private respondents. It is incumbent upon the vendee of the property to ask for the delivery of the owner's duplicate copy of the title from the vendor. A purchaser of a valued piece of property cannot just close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard and then claim that he acted in good faith and under the belief that there were no defect in the title of the vendor. 39 One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. Good faith, or the want of it is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be judged of by actual or fancied tokens or signs. 40 In fine, petitioner had nobody to blame but herself in dealing with the disputed property for failure to inquire or discover a flaw in the title to the property, thus, it is axiomatic that culpa lata dolo aequiparatur gross negligence is equivalent to intentional wrong. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, this petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila EN BANC G.R. No. L-8506 August 31, 1956

CELESTINO CO & COMPANY, petitioner, vs.COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, Fisrt Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Federico V. Sian for respondent. BENGZON, J.: Appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. Celestino Co & Company is a duly registered general copartnership doing business under the trade name of "Oriental Sash Factory". From 1946 to 1951 it paid percentage taxes of 7 per cent on the gross receipts of its sash, door and window factory, in accordance with section one hundred eighty-six of the National Revenue Code imposing taxes on sale of manufactured articles. However in 1952 it began to claim liability only to the contractor's 3 per cent tax (instead of 7 per cent) under section 191 of

the same Code; and having failed to convince the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it brought the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals, where it also failed. Said the Court: To support his contention that his client is an ordinary contractor . . . counsel presented . . . duplicate copies of letters, sketches of doors and windows and price quotations supposedly sent by the manager of the Oriental Sash Factory to four customers who allegedly made special orders to doors and window from the said factory. The conclusion that counsel would like us to deduce from these few exhibits is that the Oriental Sash Factory does not manufacture ready-made doors, sash and windows for the public but only upon special order of its select customers. . . . I cannot believe that petitioner company would take, as in fact it has taken, all the trouble and expense of registering a special trade name for its sash business and then orders company stationery carrying the bold print "Oriental Sash Factory (Celestino Co & Company, Prop.) 926 Raon St. Quiapo, Manila, Tel. No. 33076, Manufacturers of all kinds of doors, windows, sashes, furniture, etc. used season-dried and kiln-dried lumber, of the best quality workmanships" solely for the purpose of supplying the needs for doors, windows and sash of its special and limited customers. One ill note that petitioner has chosen for its tradename and has offered itself to the public as a "Factory", which means it is out to do business, in its chosen lines on a big scale. As a general rule, sash factories receive orders for doors and windows of special design only in particular cases but the bulk of their sales is derived from a ready-made doors and windows of standard sizes for the average home. Moreover, as shown from the investigation of petitioner's book of accounts, during the period from January 1, 1952 to September 30, 1952, it sold sash, doors and windows worth P188,754.69. I find it difficult to believe that this amount which runs to six figures was derived by petitioner entirely from its few customers who made special orders for these items. Even if we were to believe petitioner's claim that it does not manufacture ready-made sash, doors and windows for the public and that it makes these articles only special order of its customers, that does not make it a contractor within the purview of section 191 of the national Internal Revenue Code. there are no less than fifty occupations enumerated in the aforesaid section of the national Internal Revenue Code subject to percentage tax and after reading carefully each and every one of them, we cannot find under which the business of manufacturing sash, doors and windows upon special order of customers fall under the category of "road, building, navigation, artesian well, water workers and other construction work contractors" are those who alter or repair buildings, structures, streets, highways, sewers, street railways railroads logging roads, electric lines or power lines, and includes any other work for the construction, altering or repairing for which machinery driven by mechanical power is used. (Payton vs. City of Anadardo 64 P. 2d 878, 880, 179 Okl. 68). Having thus eliminated the feasibility off taxing petitioner as a contractor under 191 of the national Internal Revenue Code, this leaves us to decide the remaining issue whether or not petitioner could be taxed with lesser strain and more accuracy as seller of its manufactured articles under section 186 of the same code, as the respondent Collector of Internal Revenue has in fact been doing the Oriental Sash Factory was established in 1946. The percentage tax imposed in section 191 of our Tax Code is generally a tax on the sales of services, in contradiction with the tax imposed in section 186 of the same Code which is a tax on the original sales of articles by the manufacturer, producer or importer. (Formilleza's Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the National Internal Revenue Code, Vol. II, p. 744). The fact that the articles sold are manufactured by the seller does not exchange the contract from the purview of section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code as a sale of articles. There was a strong dissent; but upon careful consideration of the whole matter are inclines to accept the above statement of the facts and the law. The important thing to remember is that Celestino Co & Company habitually makes sash, windows and doors, as it has represented in its stationery and advertisements to the public. That it "manufactures" the same is practically admitted by appellant itself. The fact that windows and doors are made by it only when customers place their orders, does not alter the nature of the establishment, for it is obvious that it only accepted such orders as called for the

employment of such material-moulding, frames, panels-as it ordinarily manufactured or was in a position habitually to manufacture. Perhaps the following paragraph represents in brief the appellant's position in this Court: Since the petitioner, by clear proof of facts not disputed by the respondent, manufacturers sash, windows and doors only for special customers and upon their special orders and in accordance with the desired specifications of the persons ordering the same and not for the general market: since the doors ordered by Don Toribio Teodoro & Sons, Inc., for instance, are not in existence and which never would have existed but for the order of the party desiring it; and since petitioner's contractual relation with his customers is that of a contract for a piece of work or since petitioner is engaged in the sale of services, it follows that the petitioner should be taxed under section 191 of the Tax Code and NOT under section 185 of the same Code." (Appellant's brief, p. 11-12). But the argument rests on a false foundation. Any builder or homeowner, with sufficient money, may order windows or doors of the kind manufactured by this appellant. Therefore it is not true that it serves special customers only or confines its services to them alone. And anyone who sees, and likes, the doors ordered by Don Toribio Teodoro & Sons Inc. may purchase from appellant doors of the same kind, provided he pays the price. Surely, the appellant will not refuse, for it can easily duplicate or even mass-produce the same doors-it is mechanically equipped to do so. That the doors and windows must meet desired specifications is neither here nor there. If these specifications do not happen to be of the kind habitually manufactured by appellant special forms for sash, mouldings of panels it would not accept the order and no sale is made. If they do, the transaction would be no different from a purchasers of manufactured goods held is stock for sale; they are bought because they meet the specifications desired by the purchaser. Nobody will say that when a sawmill cuts lumber in accordance with the peculiar specifications of a customer-sizes not previously held in stock for sale to the public-it thereby becomes an employee or servant of the customer, 1 not the seller of lumber. The same consideration applies to this sash manufacturer. The Oriental Sash Factory does nothing more than sell the goods that it mass-produces or habitually makes; sash, panels, mouldings, frames, cutting them to such sizes and combining them in such forms as its customers may desire. On the other hand, petitioner's idea of being a contractor doing construction jobs is untenable. Nobody would regard the doing of two window panels a construction work in common parlance.2 Appellant invokes Article 1467 of the New Civil Code to bolster its contention that in filing orders for windows and doors according to specifications, it did not sell, but merely contracted for particular pieces of work or "merely sold its services". Said article reads as follows: A contract for the delivery at a certain price of an article which the vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general market, whether the same is on hand at the time or not, is a contract of sale, but if the goods are to be manufactured specially for the customer and upon his special order, and not for the general market, it is contract for a piece of work. It is at once apparent that the Oriental Sash Factory did not merely sell its services to Don Toribio Teodoro & Co. (To take one instance) because it also sold the materials. The truth of the matter is that it sold materials ordinarily manufactured by it sash, panels, mouldings to Teodoro & Co., although

in such form or combination as suited the fancy of the purchaser. Such new form does not divest the Oriental Sash Factory of its character as manufacturer. Neither does it take the transaction out of the category of sales under Article 1467 above quoted, because although the Factory does not, in the ordinary course of its business, manufacture and keep on stock doors of the kind sold to Teodoro, it could stock and/or probably had in stock the sash, mouldings and panels it used therefor (some of them at least). In our opinion when this Factory accepts a job that requires the use of extraordinary or additional equipment, or involves services not generally performed by it-it thereby contracts for a piece of work filing special orders within the meaning of Article 1467. The orders herein exhibited were not shown to be special. They were merely orders for work nothing is shown to call them special requiring extraordinary service of the factory. The thought occurs to us that if, as alleged-all the work of appellant is only to fill orders previously made, such orders should not be called special work, but regular work. Would a factory do business performing only special, extraordinary or peculiar merchandise? Anyway, supposing for the moment that the transactions were not sales, they were neither lease of services nor contract jobs by a contractor. But as the doors and windows had been admittedly "manufactured" by the Oriental Sash Factory, such transactions could be, and should be taxed as "transfers" thereof under section 186 of the National Revenue Code. The appealed decision is consequently affirmed. So ordered.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 71122 March 25, 1988 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.ARNOLDUS CARPENTRY SHOP, INC. and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. The Solicitor General for petitioner. Generoso Jacinto for respondents.

CORTES, J.: Assailed in this petition is the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA case No. 3357 entitled "ARNOLDUS CARPENTRY SHOP, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE." The facts are simple. Arnoldus Carpentry Shop, Inc. (private respondent herein) is a domestic corporation which has been in existence since 1960. It has for its secondary purpose the "preparing, processing, buying, selling,

exporting, importing, manufacturing, trading and dealing in cabinet shop products, wood and metal home and office furniture, cabinets, doors, windows, etc., including their component parts and materials, of any and all nature and description" (Rollo, pp. 160-161). These furniture, cabinets and other woodwork were sold locally and exported abroad. For this business venture, private respondent kept samples or models of its woodwork on display from where its customers may refer to when placing their orders. Sometime in March 1979, the examiners of the petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue conducted an investigation of the business tax liabilities of private respondent pursuant to Letter of Authority No. 08307 NA dated November 23, 1978. As per the examination, the total gross sales of private respondent for the year 1977 from both its local and foreign dealings amounted to P5,162,787.59 (Rollo. p. 60). From this amount, private respondent reported in its quarterly percentage tax returns P2,471,981.62 for its gross local sales. The balance of P2,690,805.97, which is 52% of the total gross sales, was considered as its gross export sales (CTA Decision, p. 12). Based on such an examination, BIR examiners Honesto A. Vergel de Dios and Voltaire Trinidad made a report to the Commissioner classifying private respondent as an "other independent contractor" under Sec. 205 (16) [now Sec. 169 (q)] of the Tax Code. The relevant portion of the report reads: Examination of the records show that per purchase orders, which are hereby attached, of the taxpayer's customers during the period under review, subject corporation should be considered a contractor and not a manufacturer. The corporation renders service in the course of an independent occupation representing the will of his employer only as to the result of his work, and not as to the means by which it is accomplished, (Luzon Stevedoring Co. v. Trinidad, 43 Phil. 803). Hence, in the computation of the percentage tax, the 3% contractor's tax should be imposed instead of the 7% manufacturer's tax. [Rollo, p. 591 (Emphasis supplied.) xxx xxx xxx As a result thereof, the examiners assessed private respondent for deficiency tax in the amount of EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO PESOS AND TWENTY THREE CENTAVOS ( P88,972.23 ). Later, on January 31, 1981, private respondent received a letter/notice of tax deficiency assessment inclusive of charges and interest for the year 1977 in the amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY PESOS AND NINETY TWO CENTAVOS ( P 108,720.92 ). This tax deficiency was a consequence of the 3% tax imposed on private respondent's gross export sales which, in turn, resulted from the examiners' finding that categorized private respondent as a contractor (CTA decision, p.2). Against this assessment, private respondent filed on February 19, 1981 a protest with the petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In the protest letter, private respondent's manager maintained that the carpentry shop is a manufacturer and therefor entitled to tax exemption on its gross export sales under Section 202 (e) of the National Internal Revenue Code. He explained that it was the 7% tax exemption on export sales which prompted private respondent to exploit the foreign market which resulted in the increase of its foreign sales to at least 52% of its total gross sales in 1977 (CTA decision, pp. 1213). On June 23, 1981, private respondent received the final decision of the petitioner stating: It is the stand of this Office that you are considered a contractor an not a manufacturer. Records show that you manufacture woodworks only upon previous order from supposed manufacturers and only in accordance with the latter's own design, model number, color, etc. [Rollo p. 64] (Emphasis supplied.) On July 22, 1981, private respondent appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals alleging that the decision of

the Commissioner was contrary to law and the facts of the case. On April 22, 1985, respondent Court of Tax Appeals rendered the questioned decision holding that private respondent was a manufacturer thereby reversing the decision of the petitioner. Hence, this petition for review wherein petitioner raises the sole issue of. Whether or not the Court of Tax Appeals erred in holding that private respondent is a manufacturer and not a contractor and therefore not liable for the amount of P108,720.92, as deficiency contractor's tax, inclusive of surcharge and interest, for the year 1977. The petition is without merit. 1. Private respondent is a "manufacturer" as defined in the Tax Code and not a "contractor" under Section 205(e) of the Tax Code as petitioner would have this Court decide. (a) Section 205 (16) [now Sec. 170 (q)] of the Tax Code defines "independent contractors" as: ... persons (juridical and natural) not enumerated above (but not including individuals subject to the occupation tax under Section 12 of the Local Tax Code) whose activity consists essentially of the sale of all kinds of services for a fee regardless of whether or not the performance of the service calls for the exercise or use of the physical or mental faculties of such contractors or their employees. (Emphasis supplied.) Private respondent's business does not fall under this definition. Petitioner contends that the fact that private respondent "designs and makes samples or models that are 'displayed' or presented or 'submitted' to prospective buyers who 'might choose' therefrom" signifies that what private respondent is selling is a kind of service its shop is capable of rendering in terms of woodwork skills and craftsmanship (Brief for Petitioner, p. 6). He further stresses the point that if there are no orders placed for goods as represented by the sample or model, the shop does not produce anything; on the other hand, if there are orders placed, the shop goes into fall production to fill up the quantity ordered (Petitioner's Brief, p. 7). The facts of the case do not support petitioner's claim. Petitioner is ignoring the fact that private respondent sells goods which it keeps in stock and not services. As the respondent Tax Court had found: xxx xxx xxx Petitioner [private respondent herein] claims, and the records bear petitioner out, that it had a ready stock of its shop products for sale to its foreign and local buyers. As a matter of fact, the purchase orders from its foreign buyers showed that they ordered by referring to the models designated by petitioner. Even purchases by local buyers for television cabinets (Exhs. '2 to13', pp. 1-13, BIR records) were by orders for existing models except only for some adjustments in sizes and accessories utilized. With regard to the television cabinets, petitioner presented three witnesses its bookkeeper, production manager and manager who testified that samples of television cabinets were designed and made by petitioner, from which models the television companies such as Hitachi National and others might choose, then specified whatever innovations they desired. If found to be saleable, some television cabinets were manufactured for display and sold to the general public. These cabinets were not exported but only sold locally. (t.s.n., pp. 2235, February 18,1982; t.s.n., pp. 7-10, March 25, 1982; t.s.n., pp. 3-6, August 10, 1983.)

xxx xxx xxx In the case of petitioner's other woodwork products such as barometer cases, knife racks, church furniture, school furniture, knock down chairs, etc., petitioner's above-mentioned witnesses testified that these were manufactured without previous orders. Samples were displayed, and if in stock, were available for immediate sale to local and foreign customers. Such testimony was not contradicted by respondent (petitioner herein). And in all the purchase orders presented as exhibits, whether from foreign or local buyers, reference was made to the model number of the product being ordered or to the sample submitted by petitioner. Respondent's examiners, in their memorandum to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, stated that petitioner manufactured only upon previous orders from customers and "only in accordance with the latter's own design, model number, color, etc." (Exh. '1', p. 27, BIR records.) Their bare statement that the model numbers and designs were the customers' own, unaccompanied by adequate evidence, is difficult to believe. It ignores commonly accepted and recognized business practices that it is not the customer but the manufacturer who furnishes the samples or models from which the customers select when placing their orders, The evidence adduced by petitioner to prove that the model numbers and designs were its own is more convincing [CTA decision, pp. 6-8.] (Emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx This Court finds no reason to disagree with the Tax Court's finding of fact. It has been consistently held that while the decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals are appealable to the Supreme Court, the former's finding of fact are entitled to the highest respect. The factual findings can only be disturbed on the part of the tax court [Collector of Intern. al Revenue v. Henderson, L-12954, February 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 649; Aznar v. Court of Tax Appeals, L-20569, Aug. 23, 1974, 58 SCRA 519; Raymundo v. de Joya, L27733, Dec. 3, 1980, 101 SCRA 495; Industrial Textiles Manufacturing Co. of the Phils. , Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-27718 and L-27768, May 27,1985,136 SCRA 549.] (b) Neither can Article 1467 of the New Civil Code help petitioner's cause. Article 1467 states: A contract for the delivery at a certain price of an article Which the vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the - general market, whether the same is on hand at the time or not, is a contract of sale, but if the goods are to be manufactured specially for the customer and upon his special order, and not for the general market, it is a contract for a piece of work. Petitioner alleged that what exists prior to any order is but the sample model only, nothing more, nothing less and the ordered quantity would never have come into existence but for the particular order as represented by the sample or model [Brief for Petitioner, pp. 9-101.] Petitioner wants to impress upon this Court that under Article 1467, the true test of whether or not the contract is a piece of work (and thus classifying private respondent as a contractor) or a contract of sale (which would classify private respondent as a manufacturer) is the mere existence of the product at the time of the perfection of the contract such that if the thing already exists, the contract is of sale, if not, it is work. This is not the test followed in this jurisdiction. As can be clearly seen from the wordings of Art. 1467, what determines whether the contract is one of work or of sale is whether the thing has been manufactured specially for the customer and upon his special order." Thus, if the thing is specially done at the order of another, this is a contract for a piece of work. If, on the other hand, the thing is manufactured or procured for the general market in the ordinary course of one's business, it is a b contract of sale. Jurisprudence has followed this criterion. As held in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Engineering

Equipment and Supply Co. (L-27044 and L-27452, June 30, 1975, 64 SCRA 590, 597), "the distinction between a contract of sale and one for work, labor and materials is tested by the inquiry whether the thing transferred is one not in existence and which never would have existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it, or a thing which would have existed and has been the subject of sale to some other persons even if the order had not been given." (Emphasis supplied.) And in a BIR ruling, which as per Sec. 326 (now Sec. 277) of the Tax Court the Commissioner has the power to make and which, as per settled jurisprudence is entitled to the greatest weight as an administrative view [National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) v. Ovejera, G.R. No. 59743, May 31, 1982, 114 SCRA 354, 391; Sierra Madre Trust v. Hon. Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Nos. 32370 and 32767, April 20, 1983,121 SCRA 384; Espanol v. Chairman and Members of the Board of Administrators, Phil. Veterans Administration, L-44616, June 29, 1985, 137 SCRA 3141, "one who has ready for the sale to the general public finished furniture is a manufacturer, and the mere fact that he did not have on hand a particular piece or pieces of furniture ordered does not make him a contractor only" (BIR Ruling No. 331, series of 1960). Likewise, xxx xxx xxx When the vendor enters into a contract for the delivery of an article which in the ordinary course of his business he manufactures or procures for the general market at a price certain (Art. 1458) such contract is one of sale even if at the time of contracting he may not have such article on hand. Such articles fall within the meaning of "future goods" mentioned in Art. 1462, par. 1. [5 Padilla, Civil Law: Civil Code Annotated 139 (1974) xxx xxx xxx These considerations were what precisely moved the respondent Court of Tax Appeals to rule that 'the fact that [private respondent] kept models of its products... indicate that these products were for sale to the general public and not for special orders,' citing Celestino Co and Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue [99 Phil, 841 (1956)]. (CTA Decision, pp. 8-9.) Petitioner alleges that the error of the respondent Tax Court was due to the 'heavy albeit misplaced and indiscriminate reliance on the case of Celestino Co and Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue [99 Phil. 841, 842 (1956)] which is not a case in point' 1 Brief for Petitioner, pp. 14-15). The Commissioner of Internal Revenue made capital of the difference between the kinds of business establishments involved a FACTORY in the Celestino Co case and a CARPENTRY SHOP in this case (Brief for Petitioner, pp. 14-18). Petitioner seems to have missed the whole point in the former case. True, the former case did mention the fact of the business concern being a FACTORY, Thus: xxx xxx xxx ... I cannot believe that petitioner company would take, as in fact it has taken, all the trouble and expense of registering a special trade name for its sash business and then orders company stationery carrying the bold print "Oriental Sash Factory (Celestino Co and Company, Prop.) 926 Raon St., Quiapo, Manila, Tel. No. 33076, Manufacturers of all kinds of doors, windows, sashes furniture, etc. used season dried and kiln-dried lumber, of the best quality workmanship" solely for the purpose of supplying the need for doors, windows and sash of its special and limited customers. One will note that petitioner has chosen for its trade name and has offered itself to the public as a FACTORY, which means it is out to do business in its chosen lines on a big scale. As a general rule, sash factories receive orders for doors and windows of special design only in particular cases but the bulk of their sales is derived from ready-made doors and windows of standard sizes for the average home. [Emphasis supplied.] xxx xxx xxx

However, these findings were merely attendant facts to show what the Court was really driving at the habituality of the production of the goods involved for the general public. In the instant case, it may be that what is involved is a CARPENTRY SHOP. But, in the same vein, there are also attendant facts herein to show habituality of the production for the general public. In this wise, it is noteworthy to again cite the findings of fact of the respondent Tax Court: xxx xxx xxx Petitioner [private respondent herein] claims, and the records bear petitioner out, that it had a ready stock of its shop products for sale to its foreign and local buyers. As a matter of fact, the purchase orders from its foreign buyers showed that they ordered by referring to the models designed by petitioner. Even purchases by local buyers for television cabinets... were by orders for existing models. ... With regard to the television cabinets, petitioner presented three witnesses... who testified that samples of television cabinets were designed and made by petitioner, from which models the television companies ... might choose, then specified whatever innovations they desired. If found to be saleable, some television cabinets were manufactured for display and sold to the general public. xxx xxx xxx In the case of petitioner's other woodwork products... these were manufactured without previous orders. Samples were displayed, and if in stock, were available for immediate sale to local and foreign customers. (CTA decision, pp. 6-8.1 [Emphasis supplied.] (c) The private respondent not being a "contractor" as defined by the Tax Code or of the New Civil Code, is it a 'manufacturer' as countered by the carpentry shop? Sec. 187 (x) [now Sec. 157 (x)] of the Tax Code defines a manufacturer' as follows: "Manufacturer" includes every person who by physical or chemical process alters the exterior texture or form or inner substance of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product in such manner as to prepare it for a special use or uses to which it could not have been in its original condition, or who by any such process alters the quality or any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured product so as to reduce it to marketable shape or prepare it for any of the uses of industry, or who by any such process combines any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products with other materials or products of the same or different kinds and in such manner that the finished product of such process or manufacture can be put to a special use or uses to which such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products in their original condition would not have been put, and who in addition alters such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products, or combines the same to produce such finished products for the purpose of their sale or distribution to others and not for his own use or consumption. It is a basic rule in statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says [Banawa et al. v. Mirano et al., L-24750, May 16, 1980, 97 SCRA 517, 533]. The term "manufacturer" had been considered in its ordinary and general usage. The term has been construed broadly to include such processes as buying and converting duck eggs to salted eggs ('balut") [Ngo Shiek v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 100 Phil. 60 (1956)1; the processing of unhusked kapok into clean kapok fiber [Oriental Kapok Industries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-17837,

Jan. 31, 1963, 7 SCRA 132]; or making charcoal out of firewood Bermejo v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 87 Phil. 96 (1950)]. 2. As the Court of Tax Appeals did not err in holding that private respondent is a "manufacturer," then private respondent is entitled to the tax exemption under See. 202 (d) and (e) mow Sec. 167 (d) and (e)] of the Tax Code which states: Sec. 202. Articles not subject to percentage tax on sales. The following shall be exempt from the percentage taxes imposed in Sections 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, and 201: xxx xxx xxx (d) Articles shipped or exported by the manufacturer or producer, irrespective of any shipping arrangement that may be agreed upon which may influence or determine the transfer of ownership of the articles so exported. (e) Articles sold by "registered export producers" to (1) other" registered export producers" (2) "registered export traders' or (3) foreign tourists or travelers, which are considered as "export sales." The law is clear on this point. It is conceded that as a rule, as argued by petitioner, any claim for tax exemption from tax statutes is strictly construed against the taxpayer and it is contingent upon private respondent as taxpayer to establish a clear right to tax exemption [Brief for Petitioners, p. 181. Tax exemptions are strictly construed against the grantee and generally in favor of the taxing authority [City of Baguio v. Busuego, L-29772, Sept. 18, 1980, 100 SCRA 1161; they are looked upon with disfavor [Western Minolco Corp. v. Commissioner Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 61632, Aug. 16,1983,124 1211. They are held strictly against the taxpayer and if expressly mentioned in the law, must at least be within its purview by clear legislative intent [Commissioner of Customs v. Phil., Acetylene Co., L-22443, May 29, 1971, 39 SCRA 70, Light and Power Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. L-28739 and L-28902, March 29, 1972, 44 SCRA 122]. Conversely therefore, if there is an express mention or if the taxpayer falls within the purview of the exemption by clear legislative intent, then the rule on strict construction will not apply. In the present case the respondent Tax Court did not err in classifying private respondent as a "manufacturer". Clearly, the 'latter falls with the term 'manufacturer' mentioned in Art. 202 (d) and (e) of the Tax Code. As the only question raised by petitioner in relation to this tax exemption claim by private respondent is the classification of the latter as a manufacturer, this Court affirms the holding of respondent Tax Court that private respondent is entitled to the percentage tax exemption on its export sales. There is nothing illegal in taking advantage of tax exemptions. When the private respondent was still exporting less and producing locally more, the petitioner did not question its classification as a manufacturer. But when in 1977 the private respondent produced locally less and exported more, petitioner did a turnabout and imposed the contractor's tax. By classifying the private respondent as a contractor, petitioner would likewise take away the tax exemptions granted under Sec. 202 for manufacturers. Petitioner's action finds no support in the applicable law. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the Petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the Court of Tax Appeals decision in CTA Case No. 3357. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-27044 June 30, 1975 THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. L-27452 June 30, 1975 ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondent. Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, Solicitor Lolita O. Gal-lang, and Special Attorney Gemaliel H. Montalino for Commissioner of Internal Revenue, etc. Melquides C. Gutierrez, Jose U. Ong, Juan G. Collas, Jr., Luis Ma. Guerrero and J.R. Balonkita for Engineering and Supply Company.

ESGUERRA, J.: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 681, dated November 29, 1966, assessing a compensating tax of P174,441.62 on the Engineering Equipment and Supply Company. As found by the Court of Tax Appeals, and as established by the evidence on record, the facts of this case are as follows: Engineering Equipment and Supply Co. (Engineering for short), a domestic corporation, is an engineering and machinery firm. As operator of an integrated engineering shop, it is engaged, among others, in the design and installation of central type air conditioning system, pumping plants and steel fabrications. (Vol. I pp. 12-16 T.S.N. August 23, 1960) On July 27, 1956, one Juan de la Cruz, wrote the then Collector, now Commissioner, of Internal Revenue denouncing Engineering for tax evasion by misdeclaring its imported articles and failing to pay the correct percentage taxes due thereon in connivance with its foreign suppliers (Exh. "2" p. 1 BIR record Vol. I). Engineering was likewise denounced to the Central Bank (CB) for alleged fraud in obtaining its dollar allocations. Acting on these denunciations, a raid and search was conducted by a joint team of Central Bank, (CB), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) agents on September 27, 1956, on which occasion voluminous records of the firm were seized and confiscated. (pp. 173-177 T.S.N.) On September 30, 1957, revenue examiners Quesada and Catudan reported and recommended to the then Collector, now Commissioner, of Internal Revenue (hereinafter referred to as Commissioner) that Engineering be assessed for P480,912.01 as deficiency advance sales tax on the theory that it misdeclared its importation of air conditioning units and parts and accessories thereof which are subject to tax under Section 185(m) 1 of the Tax Code, instead of Section 186 of the same Code. (Exh. "3" pp. 59-63 BIR rec. Vol. I) This assessment was revised on January 23, 1959, in line with the observation of the Chief, BIR Law Division, and was raised to P916,362.56 representing deficiency advance sales tax

and manufacturers sales tax, inclusive of the 25% and 50% surcharges. (pp. 72-80 BIR rec. Vol. I) On March 3, 1959. the Commissioner assessed against, and demanded upon, Engineering payment of the increased amount and suggested that P10,000 be paid as compromise in extrajudicial settlement of Engineering's penal liability for violation of the Tax Code. The firm, however, contested the tax assessment and requested that it be furnished with the details and particulars of the Commissioner's assessment. (Exh. "B" and "15", pp. 86-88 BIR rec. Vol. I) The Commissioner replied that the assessment was in accordance with law and the facts of the case. On July 30, 1959, Engineering appealed the case to the Court of Tax Appeals and during the pendency of the case the investigating revenue examiners reduced Engineering's deficiency tax liabilities from P916,362.65 to P740,587.86 (Exhs. "R" and "9" pp. 162-170, BIR rec.), based on findings after conferences had with Engineering's Accountant and Auditor. On November 29, 1966, the Court of Tax Appeals rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: For ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision of respondent appealed from is hereby modified, and petitioner, as a contractor, is declared exempt from the deficiency manufacturers sales tax covering the period from June 1, 1948. to September 2, 1956. However, petitioner is ordered to pay respondent, or his duly authorized collection agent, the sum of P174,141.62 as compensating tax and 25% surcharge for the period from 1953 to September 1956. With costs against petitioner. The Commissioner, not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, appealed to this Court on January 18, 1967, (G.R. No. L-27044). On the other hand, Engineering, on January 4, 1967, filed with the Court of Tax Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision abovementioned. This was denied on April 6, 1967, prompting Engineering to file also with this Court its appeal, docketed as G.R. No. L-27452. Since the two cases, G.R. No. L-27044 and G.R. No. L-27452, involve the same parties and issues, We have decided to consolidate and jointly decide them. Engineering in its Petition claims that the Court of Tax Appeals committed the following errors: 1. That the Court of Tax Appeals erred in holding Engineering Equipment & Supply Company liable to the 30% compensating tax on its importations of equipment and ordinary articles used in the central type air conditioning systems it designed, fabricated, constructed and installed in the buildings and premises of its customers, rather than to the compensating tax of only 7%; 2. That the Court of Tax Appeals erred in holding Engineering Equipment & Supply Company guilty of fraud in effecting the said importations on the basis of incomplete quotations from the contents of alleged photostat copies of documents seized illegally from Engineering Equipment and Supply Company which should not have been admitted in evidence; 3. That the Court of Tax Appeals erred in holding Engineering Equipment & Supply Company liable to the 25% surcharge prescribed in Section 190 of the Tax Code; 4. That the Court of Tax Appeals erred in holding the assessment as not having prescribed; 5. That the Court of Tax Appeals erred in holding Engineering Equipment & Supply Company liable for the sum of P174,141.62 as 30% compensating tax and 25% surcharge instead of completely absolving it from the deficiency assessment of the Commissioner.

The Commissioner on the other hand claims that the Court of Tax Appeals erred: 1. In holding that the respondent company is a contractor and not a manufacturer. 2. In holding respondent company liable to the 3% contractor's tax imposed by Section 191 of the Tax Code instead of the 30% sales tax prescribed in Section 185(m) in relation to Section 194(x) both of the same Code; 3. In holding that the respondent company is subject only to the 30% compensating tax under Section 190 of the Tax Code and not to the 30% advance sales tax imposed by section 183 (b), in relation to section 185(m) both of the same Code, on its importations of parts and accessories of air conditioning units; 4. In not holding the company liable to the 50% fraud surcharge under Section 183 of the Tax Code on its importations of parts and accessories of air conditioning units, notwithstanding the finding of said court that the respondent company fraudulently misdeclared the said importations; 5. In holding the respondent company liable for P174,141.62 as compensating tax and 25% surcharge instead of P740,587.86 as deficiency advance sales tax, deficiency manufacturers tax and 25% and 50% surcharge for the period from June 1, 1948 to December 31, 1956. The main issue revolves on the question of whether or not Engineering is a manufacturer of air conditioning units under Section 185(m), supra, in relation to Sections 183(b) and 194 of the Code, or a contractor under Section 191 of the same Code. The Commissioner contends that Engineering is a manufacturer and seller of air conditioning units and parts or accessories thereof and, therefore, it is subject to the 30% advance sales tax prescribed by Section 185(m) of the Tax Code, in relation to Section 194 of the same, which defines a manufacturer as follows: Section 194. Words and Phrases Defined. In applying the provisions of this Title, words and phrases shall be taken in the sense and extension indicated below: xxx xxx xxx (x) "Manufacturer" includes every person who by physical or chemical process alters the exterior texture or form or inner substance of any raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products in such manner as to prepare it for a special use or uses to which it could not have been put in its original condition, or who by any such process alters the quality of any such material or manufactured or partially manufactured product so as to reduce it to marketable shape, or prepare it for any of the uses of industry, or who by any such process combines any such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products with other materials or products of the same or of different kinds and in such manner that the finished product of such process of manufacture can be put to special use or uses to which such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products in their original condition could not have been put, and who in addition alters such raw material or manufactured or partially manufactured products, or combines the same to produce such finished products for the purpose of their sale or distribution to others and not for his own use or consumption. In answer to the above contention, Engineering claims that it is not a manufacturer and setter of airconditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof subject to tax under Section 185(m) of the Tax Code, but a contractor engaged in the design, supply and installation of the central type of airconditioning system subject to the 3% tax imposed by Section 191 of the same Code, which is essentially a tax on the sale of services or labor of a contractor rather than on the sale of articles

subject to the tax referred to in Sections 184, 185 and 186 of the Code. The arguments of both the Engineering and the Commissioner call for a clarification of the term contractor as well as the distinction between a contract of sale and contract for furnishing services, labor and materials. The distinction between a contract of sale and one for work, labor and materials is tested by the inquiry whether the thing transferred is one not in existence and which never would have existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it, or a thing which would have existed and has been the subject of sale to some other persons even if the order had not been given. 2 If the article ordered by the purchaser is exactly such as the plaintiff makes and keeps on hand for sale to anyone, and no change or modification of it is made at defendant's request, it is a contract of sale, even though it may be entirely made after, and in consequence of, the defendants order for it. 3 Our New Civil Code, likewise distinguishes a contract of sale from a contract for a piece of work thus: Art. 1467. A contract for the delivery at a certain price of an article which the vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general market, whether the same is on hand at the time or not, is a contract of sale, but if the goods are to be manufactured specially for the customer and upon his special order and not for the general market, it is a contract for a piece of work. The word "contractor" has come to be used with special reference to a person who, in the pursuit of the independent business, undertakes to do a specific job or piece of work for other persons, using his own means and methods without submitting himself to control as to the petty details. (Araas, Annotations and Jurisprudence on the National Internal Revenue Code, p. 318, par. 191 (2), 1970 Ed.) The true test of a contractor as was held in the cases of Luzon Stevedoring Co., vs. Trinidad, 43, Phil. 803, 807-808, and La Carlota Sugar Central vs. Trinidad, 43, Phil. 816, 819, would seem to be that he renders service in the course of an independent occupation, representing the will of his employer only as to the result of his work, and not as to the means by which it is accomplished. With the foregoing criteria as guideposts, We shall now examine whether Engineering really did "manufacture" and sell, as alleged by the Commissioner to hold it liable to the advance sales tax under Section 185(m), or it only had its services "contracted" for installation purposes to hold it liable under section 198 of the Tax Code. I After going over the three volumes of stenographic notes and the voluminous record of the BIR and the CTA as well as the exhibits submitted by both parties, We find that Engineering did not manufacture air conditioning units for sale to the general public, but imported some items (as refrigeration compressors in complete set, heat exchangers or coils, t.s.n. p. 39) which were used in executing contracts entered into by it. Engineering, therefore, undertook negotiations and execution of individual contracts for the design, supply and installation of air conditioning units of the central type (t.s.n. pp. 20-36; Exhs. "F", "G", "H", "I", "J", "K", "L", and "M"), taking into consideration in the process such factors as the area of the space to be air conditioned; the number of persons occupying or would be occupying the premises; the purpose for which the various air conditioning areas are to be used; and the sources of heat gain or cooling load on the plant such as sun load, lighting, and other electrical appliances which are or may be in the plan. (t.s.n. p. 34, Vol. I) Engineering also testified during the hearing in the Court of Tax Appeals that relative to the installation of air conditioning system, Engineering designed and engineered complete each particular plant and that no two plants were identical but each had to be engineered separately. As found by the lower court, which finding 4 We adopt Engineering, in a nutshell, fabricates, assembles, supplies and installs in the buildings of its various customers the central type air conditioning system; prepares the plans and specifications therefor

which are distinct and different from each other; the air conditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof used by petitioner are not the window type of air conditioner which are manufactured, assembled and produced locally for sale to the general market; and the imported air conditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof are supplied and installed by petitioner upon previous orders of its customers conformably with their needs and requirements. The facts and circumstances aforequoted support the theory that Engineering is a contractor rather than a manufacturer. The Commissioner in his Brief argues that "it is more in accord with reason and sound business management to say that anyone who desires to have air conditioning units installed in his premises and who is in a position and willing to pay the price can order the same from the company (Engineering) and, therefore, Engineering could have mass produced and stockpiled air conditioning units for sale to the public or to any customer with enough money to buy the same." This is untenable in the light of the fact that air conditioning units, packaged, or what we know as self-contained air conditioning units, are distinct from the central system which Engineering dealt in. To Our mind, the distinction as explained by Engineering, in its Brief, quoting from books, is not an idle play of words as claimed by the Commissioner, but a significant fact which We just cannot ignore. As quoted by Engineering Equipment & Supply Co., from an Engineering handbook by L.C. Morrow, and which We reproduce hereunder for easy reference: ... there is a great variety of equipment in use to do this job (of air conditioning). Some devices are designed to serve a specific type of space; others to perform a specific function; and still others as components to be assembled into a tailor-made system to fit a particular building. Generally, however, they may be grouped into two classifications unitary and central system. The unitary equipment classification includes those designs such as room air conditioner, where all of the functional components are included in one or two packages, and installation involves only making service connection such as electricity, water and drains. Central-station systems, often referred to as applied or built-up systems, require the installation of components at different points in a building and their interconnection. The room air conditioner is a unitary equipment designed specifically for a room or similar small space. It is unique among air conditioning equipment in two respects: It is in the electrical appliance classification, and it is made by a great number of manufacturers. There is also the testimony of one Carlos Navarro, a licensed Mechanical and Electrical Engineer, who was once the Chairman of the Board of Examiners for Mechanical Engineers and who was allegedly responsible for the preparation of the refrigeration and air conditioning code of the City of Manila, who said that "the central type air conditioning system is an engineering job that requires planning and meticulous layout due to the fact that usually architects assign definite space and usually the spaces they assign are very small and of various sizes. Continuing further, he testified: I don't think I have seen central type of air conditioning machinery room that are exactly alike because all our buildings here are designed by architects dissimilar to existing buildings, and usually they don't coordinate and get the advice of air conditioning and refrigerating engineers so much so that when we come to design, we have to make use of the available space that they are assigning to us so that we have to design the different component parts of the air conditioning system in such a way that will be accommodated in the space assigned and afterwards the system may be considered as a definite portion of the building. ... Definitely there is quite a big difference in the operation because the window type air conditioner is a sort of compromise. In fact it cannot control humidity to the desired level; rather the manufacturers, by hit and miss, were able to satisfy themselves that the desired comfort within a room could be made by

a definite setting of the machine as it comes from the factory; whereas the central type system definitely requires an intelligent operator. (t.s.n. pp. 301-305, Vol. II) The point, therefore, is this Engineering definitely did not and was not engaged in the manufacture of air conditioning units but had its services contracted for the installation of a central system. The cases cited by the Commissioner (Advertising Associates, Inc. vs. Collector of Customs, 97, Phil. 636; Celestino Co & Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 99 Phil. 841 and Manila Trading & Supply Co. vs. City of Manila, 56 O.G. 3629), are not in point. Neither are they applicable because the facts in all the cases cited are entirely different. Take for instance the case of Celestino Co where this Court held the taxpayer to be a manufacturer rather than a contractor of sash, doors and windows manufactured in its factory. Indeed, from the very start, Celestino Co intended itself to be a manufacturer of doors, windows, sashes etc. as it did register a special trade name for its sash business and ordered company stationery carrying the bold print "ORIENTAL SASH FACTORY (CELESTINO CO AND COMPANY, PROP.) 926 Raon St., Quiapo, Manila, Tel. No. etc., Manufacturers of All Kinds of Doors, Windows ... ." Likewise, Celestino Co never put up a contractor's bond as required by Article 1729 of the Civil Code. Also, as a general rule, sash factories receive orders for doors and windows of special design only in particular cases, but the bulk of their sales is derived from ready-made doors and windows of standard sizes for the average home, which "sales" were reflected in their books of accounts totalling P118,754.69 for the period from January, 1952 to September 30, 1952, or for a period of only nine (9) months. This Court found said sum difficult to have been derived from its few customers who placed special orders for these items. Applying the abovestated facts to the case at bar, We found them to he inapposite. Engineering advertised itself as Engineering Equipment and Supply Company, Machinery Mechanical Supplies, Engineers, Contractors, 174 Marques de Comillas, Manila (Exh. "B" and "15" BIR rec. p. 186), and not as manufacturers. It likewise paid the contractors tax on all the contracts for the design and construction of central system as testified to by Mr. Rey Parker, its President and General Manager. (t.s.n. p. 102, 103) Similarly, Engineering did not have ready-made air conditioning units for sale but as per testimony of Mr. Parker upon inquiry of Judge Luciano of the CTA Q Aside from the general components, which go into air conditioning plant or system of the central type which your company undertakes, and the procedure followed by you in obtaining and executing contracts which you have already testified to in previous hearing, would you say that the covering contracts for these different projects listed ... referred to in the list, Exh. "F" are identical in every respect? I mean every plan or system covered by these different contracts are identical in standard in every respect, so that you can reproduce them? A No, sir. They are not all standard. On the contrary, none of them are the same. Each one must be designed and constructed to meet the particular requirements, whether the application is to be operated. (t.s.n. pp. 101-102) What We consider as on all fours with the case at bar is the case of S.M. Lawrence Co. vs. McFarland, Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the State of Tennessee and McCanless, 355 SW 2d, 100, 101, "where the cause presents the question of whether one engaged in the business of contracting for the establishment of air conditioning system in buildings, which work requires, in addition to the furnishing of a cooling unit, the connection of such unit with electrical and plumbing facilities and the installation of ducts within and through walls, ceilings and floors to convey cool air to various parts of the building, is liable for sale or use tax as a contractor rather than a retailer of tangible personal property. Appellee took the Position that appellant was not engaged in the business of selling air conditioning equipment as such but in the furnishing to its customers of completed air conditioning systems pursuant to contract, was a contractor engaged in the construction or improvement of real property, and as such was liable for sales or use tax as the consumer of materials and equipment used in the consummation of contracts, irrespective of the tax status of its contractors. To transmit the warm or cool air over the buildings, the appellant installed system of ducts running from the basic units through walls, ceilings and floors to registers. The contract called for completed air conditioning systems which became permanent part of the buildings and improvements to the realty." The Court held the appellant a

contractor which used the materials and the equipment upon the value of which the tax herein imposed was levied in the performance of its contracts with its customers, and that the customers did not purchase the equipment and have the same installed. Applying the facts of the aforementioned case to the present case, We see that the supply of air conditioning units to Engineer's various customers, whether the said machineries were in hand or not, was especially made for each customer and installed in his building upon his special order. The air conditioning units installed in a central type of air conditioning system would not have existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it and if it existed without the special order of Engineering's customer, the said air conditioning units were not intended for sale to the general public. Therefore, We have but to affirm the conclusion of the Court of Tax Appeals that Engineering is a contractor rather than a manufacturer, subject to the contractors tax prescribed by Section 191 of the Code and not to the advance sales tax imposed by Section 185(m) in relation to Section 194 of the same Code. Since it has been proved to Our satisfaction that Engineering imported air conditioning units, parts or accessories thereof for use in its construction business and these items were never sold, resold, bartered or exchanged, Engineering should be held liable to pay taxes prescribed under Section 190 5 of the Code. This compensating tax is not a tax on the importation of goods but a tax on the use of imported goods not subject to sales tax. Engineering, therefore, should be held liable to the payment of 30% compensating tax in accordance with Section 190 of the Tax Code in relation to Section 185(m) of the same, but without the 50% mark up provided in Section 183(b). II We take up next the issue of fraud. The Commissioner charged Engineering with misdeclaration of the imported air conditioning units and parts or accessories thereof so as to make them subject to a lower rate of percentage tax (7%) under Section 186 of the Tax Code, when they are allegedly subject to a higher rate of tax (30%) under its Section 185(m). This charge of fraud was denied by Engineering but the Court of Tax Appeals in its decision found adversely and said" ... We are amply convinced from the evidence presented by respondent that petitioner deliberately and purposely misdeclared its importations. This evidence consists of letters written by petitioner to its foreign suppliers, instructing them on how to invoice and describe the air conditioning units ordered by petitioner. ... (p. 218 CTA rec.) Despite the above findings, however, the Court of Tax Appeals absolved Engineering from paying the 50% surcharge prescribe by Section 183(a) of the Tax Code by reasoning out as follows: The imposition of the 50% surcharge prescribed by Section 183(a) of the Tax Code is based on willful neglect to file the monthly return within 20 days after the end of each month or in case a false or fraudulent return is willfully made, it can readily be seen, that petitioner cannot legally be held subject to the 50% surcharge imposed by Section 183(a) of the Tax Code. Neither can petitioner be held subject to the 50% surcharge under Section 190 of the Tax Code dealing on compensating tax because the provisions thereof do not include the 50% surcharge. Where a particular provision of the Tax Code does not impose the 50% surcharge as fraud penalty we cannot enforce a non-existing provision of law notwithstanding the assessment of respondent to the contrary. Instances of the exclusion in the Tax Code of the 50% surcharge are those dealing on tax on banks, taxes on receipts of insurance companies, and franchise tax. However, if the Tax Code imposes the 50% surcharge as fraud penalty, it expressly so provides as in the cases of income tax, estate and inheritance taxes, gift taxes, mining tax, amusement tax and the monthly percentage taxes. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not subject to the 50% surcharge despite the existence of fraud in the absence of legal basis to support the importation thereof. (p. 228 CTA rec.) We have gone over the exhibits submitted by the Commissioner evidencing fraud committed by Engineering and We reproduce some of them hereunder for clarity.

As early as March 18, 1953, Engineering in a letter of even date wrote to Trane Co. (Exh. "3-K" pp. 152-155, BIR rec.) viz: Your invoices should be made in the name of Madrigal & Co., Inc., Manila, Philippines, c/o Engineering Equipment & Supply Co., Manila, Philippines forwarding all correspondence and shipping papers concerning this order to us only and not to the customer. When invoicing, your invoices should be exactly as detailed in the customer's Letter Order dated March 14th, 1953 attached. This is in accordance with the Philippine import licenses granted to Madrigal & Co., Inc. and such details must only be shown on all papers and shipping documents for this shipment. No mention of words air conditioning equipment should be made on any shipping documents as well as on the cases. Please give this matter your careful attention, otherwise great difficulties will be encountered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs when clearing the shipment on its arrival in Manila. All invoices and cases should be marked "THIS EQUIPMENT FOR RIZAL CEMENT CO." The same instruction was made to Acme Industries, Inc., San Francisco, California in a letter dated March 19, 1953 (Exh. "3-J-1" pp. 150-151, BIR rec.) On April 6, 1953, Engineering wrote to Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., New York, U.S.A. (Exh. "3-1" pp. 147-149, BIR rec.) also enjoining the latter from mentioning or referring to the term 'air conditioning' and to describe the goods on order as Fiberglass pipe and pipe fitting insulation instead. Likewise on April 30, 1953, Engineering threatened to discontinue the forwarding service of Universal Transcontinental Corporation when it wrote Trane Co. (Exh. "3-H" p. 146, BIR rec.): It will be noted that the Universal Transcontinental Corporation is not following through on the instructions which have been covered by the above correspondence, and which indicates the necessity of discontinuing the use of the term "Air conditioning Machinery or Air Coolers". Our instructions concerning this general situation have been sent to you in ample time to have avoided this error in terminology, and we will ask that on receipt of this letter that you again write to Universal Transcontinental Corp. and inform them that, if in the future, they are unable to cooperate with us on this requirement, we will thereafter be unable to utilize their forwarding service. Please inform them that we will not tolerate another failure to follow our requirements. And on July 17, 1953 (Exh- "3-g" p. 145, BIR rec.) Engineering wrote Trane Co. another letter, viz: In the past, we have always paid the air conditioning tax on climate changers and that mark is recognized in the Philippines, as air conditioning equipment. This matter of avoiding any tie-in on air conditioning is very important to us, and we are asking that from hereon that whoever takes care of the processing of our orders be carefully instructed so as to avoid again using the term "Climate changers" or in any way referring to the equipment as "air conditioning." And in response to the aforequoted letter, Trane Co. wrote on July 30, 1953, suggesting a solution, viz: We feel that we can probably solve all the problems by following the procedure outlined in your letter of March 25, 1953 wherein you stated that in all future jobs you would enclose photostatic copies of your import license so that we might make up two sets of invoices: one set describing equipment ordered simply according to the way that they are listed on the import license and another according to our ordinary regular methods of order write-up. We would then include the set made up according to the import license in the shipping boxes themselves and use those items as our actual shipping documents and invoices, and we will send the other regular invoice to you, by separate correspondence. (Exh- No. "3-F-1", p. 144 BIR rec.) Another interesting letter of Engineering is one dated August 27, 1955 (Exh. "3-C" p. 141 BIR rec.)

In the process of clearing the shipment from the piers, one of the Customs inspectors requested to see the packing list. Upon presenting the packing list, it was discovered that the same was prepared on a copy of your letterhead which indicated that the Trane Co. manufactured air conditioning, heating and heat transfer equipment. Accordingly, the inspectors insisted that this equipment was being imported for air conditioning purposes. To date, we have not been able to clear the shipment and it is possible that we will be required to pay heavy taxes on equipment. The purpose of this letter is to request that in the future, no documents of any kind should be sent with the order that indicate in any way that the equipment could possibly be used for air conditioning. It is realized that this a broad request and fairly difficult to accomplish and administer, but we believe with proper caution it can be executed. Your cooperation and close supervision concerning these matters will be appreciated. (Emphasis supplied) The aforequoted communications are strongly indicative of the fraudulent intent of Engineering to misdeclare its importation of air conditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof to evade payment of the 30% tax. And since the commission of fraud is altogether too glaring, We cannot agree with the Court of Tax Appeals in absolving Engineering from the 50% fraud surcharge, otherwise We will be giving premium to a plainly intolerable act of tax evasion. As aptly stated by then Solicitor General, now Justice, Antonio P. Barredo: 'this circumstance will not free it from the 50% surcharge because in any case whether it is subject to advance sales tax or compensating tax, it is required by law to truly declare its importation in the import entries and internal revenue declarations before the importations maybe released from customs custody. The said entries are the very documents where the nature, quantity and value of the imported goods declared and where the customs duties, internal revenue taxes, and other fees or charges incident to the importation are computed. These entries, therefore, serve the same purpose as the returns required by Section 183(a) of the Code.' Anent the 25% delinquency surcharge, We fully agree to the ruling made by the Court of Tax Appeals and hold Engineering liable for the same. As held by the lower court: At first blush it would seem that the contention of petitioner that it is not subject to the delinquency, surcharge of 25% is sound, valid and tenable. However, a serious study and critical analysis of the historical provisions of Section 190 of the Tax Code dealing on compensating tax in relation to Section 183(a) of the same Code, will show that the contention of petitioner is without merit. The original text of Section 190 of Commonwealth Act 466, otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 503, effective on October 1, 1939, does not provide for the filing of a compensation tax return and payment of the 25 % surcharge for late payment thereof. Under the original text of Section 190 of the Tax Code as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 503, the contention of the petitioner that it is not subject to the 25% surcharge appears to be legally tenable. However, Section 190 of the Tax Code was subsequently amended by the Republic Acts Nos. 253, 361, 1511 and 1612 effective October 1, 1946, July 1, 1948, June 9, 1949, June 16, 1956 and August 24, 1956 respectively, which invariably provides among others, the following: ... If any article withdrawn from the customhouse or the post office without payment of the compensating tax is subsequently used by the importer for other purposes, corresponding entry should be made in the books of accounts if any are kept or a written notice thereof sent to the Collector of Internal Revenue and payment of the corresponding compensating tax made within 30 days from the date of such entry or notice and if tax is not paid within such period the amount of the tax shall be increased by 25% the increment to be a part of the tax. Since the imported air conditioning units-and spare parts or accessories thereof are subject to the compensating tax of 30% as the same were used in the construction business of Engineering, it is incumbent upon the latter to comply with the aforequoted requirement of Section 190 of the Code, by posting in its books of accounts or notifying the Collector of Internal Revenue that the imported articles

were used for other purposes within 30 days. ... Consequently; as the 30% compensating tax was not paid by petitioner within the time prescribed by Section 190 of the Tax Code as amended, it is therefore subject to the 25% surcharge for delinquency in the payment of the said tax. (pp. 224-226 CTA rec.) III Lastly the question of prescription of the tax assessment has been put in issue. Engineering contends that it was not guilty of tax fraud in effecting the importations and, therefore, Section 332(a) prescribing ten years is inapplicable, claiming that the pertinent prescriptive period is five years from the date the questioned importations were made. A review of the record however reveals that Engineering did file a tax return or declaration with the Bureau of Customs before it paid the advance sales tax of 7%. And the declaration filed reveals that it did in fact misdeclare its importations. Section 332 of the Tax Code which provides: Section 332. Exceptions as to period of limitation of assessment and collection of taxes. (a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of a failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment at any time within ten years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission. is applicable, considering the preponderance of evidence of fraud with the intent to evade the higher rate of percentage tax due from Engineering. The, tax assessment was made within the period prescribed by law and prescription had not set in against the Government. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed with the modification that Engineering is hereby also made liable to pay the 50% fraud surcharge. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 103577 October 7, 1996 ROMULO A. CORONEL, ALARICO A. CORONEL, ANNETTE A. CORONEL, ANNABELLE C. GONZALES (for herself and on behalf of Florida C. Tupper, as attorney-in-fact), CIELITO A. CORONEL, FLORAIDA A. ALMONTE, and CATALINA BALAIS MABANAG, petitioners, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, CONCEPCION D. ALCARAZ, and RAMONA PATRICIA ALCARAZ, assisted by GLORIA F. NOEL as attorney-in-fact, respondents.

MELO, J.:p The petition before us has its roots in a complaint for specific performance to compel herein petitioners (except the last named, Catalina Balais Mabanag) to

consummate the sale of a parcel of land with its improvements located along Roosevelt Avenue in Quezon City entered into by the parties sometime in January 1985 for the price of P1,240,000.00. The undisputed facts of the case were summarized by respondent court in this wise: On January 19, 1985, defendants-appellants Romulo Coronel, et al. (hereinafter referred to as Coronels) executed a document entitled "Receipt of Down Payment" (Exh. "A") in favor of plaintiff Ramona Patricia Alcaraz (hereinafter referred to as Ramona) which is reproduced hereunder: RECEIPT OF DOWN PAYMENT P1,240,000.00 Total amount 50,000 Down paymentP1,190,000.00 Balance Received from Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz of 146 Timog, Quezon City, the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos purchase price of our inherited house and lot, covered by TCT No. 119627 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, in the total amount of P1,240,000.00. We bind ourselves to effect the transfer in our names from our deceased father, Constancio P. Coronel, the transfer certificate of title immediately upon receipt of the down payment above-stated. On our presentation of the TCT already in or name, We will immediately execute the deed of absolute sale of said property and Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz shall immediately pay the balance of the P1,190,000.00. Clearly, the conditions appurtenant to the sale are the following: 1. Ramona will make a down payment of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos upon execution of the document aforestated; 2. The Coronels will cause the transfer in their names of the title of the property registered in the name of their deceased father upon receipt of the Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos down payment; 3. Upon the transfer in their names of the subject property, the Coronels will execute the deed of absolute sale in favor of Ramona and the latter will pay the former the whole balance of One Million One Hundred Ninety Thousand (P1,190,000.00) Pesos.

On the same date (January 15, 1985), plaintiff-appellee Concepcion D. Alcaraz (hereinafter referred to as Concepcion), mother of Ramona, paid the down payment of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos (Exh. "B", Exh. "2"). On February 6, 1985, the property originally registered in the name of the Coronels' father was transferred in their names under TCT No. 327043 (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4") On February 18, 1985, the Coronels sold the property covered by TCT No. 327043 to intervenor-appellant Catalina B. Mabanag (hereinafter referred to as Catalina) for One Million Five Hundred Eighty Thousand (P1,580,000.00) Pesos after the latter has paid Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos (Exhs. "F-3"; Exh. "6-C") For this reason, Coronels canceled and rescinded the contract (Exh. "A") with Ramona by depositing the down payment paid by Concepcion in the bank in trust for Ramona Patricia Alcaraz. On February 22, 1985, Concepcion, et al., filed a complaint for specific performance against the Coronels and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of TCT No. 327403 (Exh. "E"; Exh. "5"). On April 2, 1985, Catalina caused the annotation of a notice of adverse claim covering the same property with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City (Exh. "F"; Exh. "6"). On April 25, 1985, the Coronels executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property in favor of Catalina (Exh. "G"; Exh. "7"). On June 5, 1985, a new title over the subject property was issued in the name of Catalina under TCT No. 351582 (Exh. "H"; Exh. "8"). (Rollo, pp. 134-136) In the course of the proceedings before the trial court (Branch 83, RTC, Quezon City) the parties agreed to submit the case for decision solely on the basis of documentary exhibits. Thus, plaintiffs therein (now private respondents) proffered their documentary evidence accordingly marked as Exhibits "A" through "J", inclusive of their corresponding submarkings. Adopting these same exhibits as their own, then defendants (now petitioners) accordingly offered and marked them as Exhibits "1" through "10", likewise inclusive of their corresponding submarkings. Upon motion of the parties, the trial court gave them thirty (30) days within which to simultaneously submit their respective memoranda, and an additional 15 days within which to submit their corresponding comment or reply

thereof, after which, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution. On April 14, 1988, the case was submitted for resolution before Judge Reynaldo Roura, who was then temporarily detailed to preside over Branch 82 of the RTC of Quezon City. On March 1, 1989, judgment was handed down by Judge Roura from his regular bench at Macabebe, Pampanga for the Quezon City branch, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment for specific performance is hereby rendered ordering defendant to execute in favor of plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale covering that parcel of land embraced in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 327403 (now TCT No. 331582) of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, together with all the improvements existing thereon free from all liens and encumbrances, and once accomplished, to immediately deliver the said document of sale to plaintiffs and upon receipt thereof, the said document of sale to plaintiffs and upon receipt thereof, the plaintiffs are ordered to pay defendants the whole balance of the purchase price amounting to P1,190,000.00 in cash. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 331582 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City in the name of intervenor is hereby canceled and declared to be without force and effect. Defendants and intervenor and all other persons claiming under them are hereby ordered to vacate the subject property and deliver possession thereof to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' claim for damages and attorney's fees, as well as the counterclaims of defendants and intervenors are hereby dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. So Ordered. Macabebe, Pampanga for Quezon City, March 1, 1989. (Rollo, p. 106) A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner before the new presiding judge of the Quezon City RTC but the same was denied by Judge Estrella T. Estrada, thusly: The prayer contained in the instant motion, i.e., to annul the decision and to render anew decision by the undersigned Presiding Judge should be denied for the following reasons: (1) The instant case became submitted for decision as of April 14, 1988 when the parties terminated the presentation of their respective documentary evidence and when the Presiding Judge at that time was Judge Reynaldo Roura. The fact that they were allowed to file memoranda at some future date did not change the fact that the hearing of the case was terminated before Judge Roura and therefore the same should be submitted to him for

decision; (2) When the defendants and intervenor did not object to the authority of Judge Reynaldo Roura to decide the case prior to the rendition of the decision, when they met for the first time before the undersigned Presiding Judge at the hearing of a pending incident in Civil Case No. Q-46145 on November 11, 1988, they were deemed to have acquiesced thereto and they are now estopped from questioning said authority of Judge Roura after they received the decision in question which happens to be adverse to them; (3) While it is true that Judge Reynaldo Roura was merely a Judge-on-detail at this Branch of the Court, he was in all respects the Presiding Judge with full authority to act on any pending incident submitted before this Court during his incumbency. When he returned to his Official Station at Macabebe, Pampanga, he did not lose his authority to decide or resolve such cases submitted to him for decision or resolution because he continued as Judge of the Regional Trial Court and is of co-equal rank with the undersigned Presiding Judge. The standing rule and supported by jurisprudence is that a Judge to whom a case is submitted for decision has the authority to decide the case notwithstanding his transfer to another branch or region of the same court (Sec. 9, Rule 135, Rule of Court). Coming now to the twin prayer for reconsideration of the Decision dated March 1, 1989 rendered in the instant case, resolution of which now pertains to the undersigned Presiding Judge, after a meticulous examination of the documentary evidence presented by the parties, she is convinced that the Decision of March 1, 1989 is supported by evidence and, therefore, should not be disturbed. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the "Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Annul Decision and Render Anew Decision by the Incumbent Presiding Judge" dated March 20, 1989 is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines, July 12, 1989. (Rollo, pp. 108-109) Petitioners thereupon interposed an appeal, but on December 16, 1991, the Court of Appeals (Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Abad Santos (P), JJ.) rendered its decision fully agreeing with the trial court. Hence, the instant petition which was filed on March 5, 1992. The last pleading, private respondents' Reply Memorandum, was filed on September 15, 1993. The case was, however, re-raffled to undersigned ponente only on August 28, 1996, due to the voluntary inhibition of the Justice to whom the case was last assigned. While we deem it necessary to introduce certain refinements in the disquisition of

respondent court in the affirmance of the trial court's decision, we definitely find the instant petition bereft of merit. The heart of the controversy which is the ultimate key in the resolution of the other issues in the case at bar is the precise determination of the legal significance of the document entitled "Receipt of Down Payment" which was offered in evidence by both parties. There is no dispute as to the fact that said document embodied the binding contract between Ramona Patricia Alcaraz on the one hand, and the heirs of Constancio P. Coronel on the other, pertaining to a particular house and lot covered by TCT No. 119627, as defined in Article 1305 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which reads as follows: Art. 1305. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. While, it is the position of private respondents that the "Receipt of Down Payment" embodied a perfected contract of sale, which perforce, they seek to enforce by means of an action for specific performance, petitioners on their part insist that what the document signified was a mere executory contract to sell, subject to certain suspensive conditions, and because of the absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz, who left for the United States of America, said contract could not possibly ripen into a contract absolute sale. Plainly, such variance in the contending parties' contentions is brought about by the way each interprets the terms and/or conditions set forth in said private instrument. Withal, based on whatever relevant and admissible evidence may be available on record, this, Court, as were the courts below, is now called upon to adjudge what the real intent of the parties was at the time the said document was executed. The Civil Code defines a contract of sale, thus: Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. Sale, by its very nature, is a consensual contract because it is perfected by mere consent. The essential elements of a contract of sale are the following: a) Consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; b) Determinate subject matter; and

c) Price certain in money or its equivalent. Under this definition, a Contract to Sell may not be considered as a Contract of Sale because the first essential element is lacking. In a contract to sell, the prospective seller explicity reserves the transfer of title to the prospective buyer, meaning, the prospective seller does not as yet agree or consent to transfer ownership of the property subject of the contract to sell until the happening of an event, which for present purposes we shall take as the full payment of the purchase price. What the seller agrees or obliges himself to do is to fulfill is promise to sell the subject property when the entire amount of the purchase price is delivered to him. In other words the full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of which prevents the obligation to sell from arising and thus, ownership is retained by the prospective seller without further remedies by the prospective buyer. In Roque vs. Lapuz (96 SCRA 741 [1980]), this Court had occasion to rule: Hence, We hold that the contract between the petitioner and the respondent was a contract to sell where the ownership or title is retained by the seller and is not to pass until the full payment of the price, such payment being a positive suspensive condition and failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but simply an event that prevented the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force. Stated positively, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the full payment of the purchase price, the prospective seller's obligation to sell the subject property by entering into a contract of sale with the prospective buyer becomes demandable as provided in Article 1479 of the Civil Code which states: Art. 1479. A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. A contract to sell may thus be defined as a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price. A contract to sell as defined hereinabove, may not even be considered as a conditional contract of sale where the seller may likewise reserve title to the property subject of the sale until the fulfillment of a suspensive condition,

because in a conditional contract of sale, the first element of consent is present, although it is conditioned upon the happening of a contingent event which may or may not occur. If the suspensive condition is not fulfilled, the perfection of the contract of sale is completely abated (cf. Homesite and housing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 777 [1984]). However, if the suspensive condition is fulfilled, the contract of sale is thereby perfected, such that if there had already been previous delivery of the property subject of the sale to the buyer, ownership thereto automatically transfers to the buyer by operation of law without any further act having to be performed by the seller. In a contract to sell, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition which is the full payment of the purchase price, ownership will not automatically transfer to the buyer although the property may have been previously delivered to him. The prospective seller still has to convey title to the prospective buyer by entering into a contract of absolute sale. It is essential to distinguish between a contract to sell and a conditional contract of sale specially in cases where the subject property is sold by the owner not to the party the seller contracted with, but to a third person, as in the case at bench. In a contract to sell, there being no previous sale of the property, a third person buying such property despite the fulfillment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be deemed a buyer in bad faith and the prospective buyer cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the property. There is no double sale in such case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration because there is no defect in the owner-seller's title per se, but the latter, of course, may be used for damages by the intending buyer. In a conditional contract of sale, however, upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition, the sale becomes absolute and this will definitely affect the seller's title thereto. In fact, if there had been previous delivery of the subject property, the seller's ownership or title to the property is automatically transferred to the buyer such that, the seller will no longer have any title to transfer to any third person. Applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code, such second buyer of the property who may have had actual or constructive knowledge of such defect in the seller's title, or at least was charged with the obligation to discover such defect, cannot be a registrant in good faith. Such second buyer cannot defeat the first buyer's title. In case a title is issued to the second buyer, the first buyer may seek reconveyance of the property subject of the sale. With the above postulates as guidelines, we now proceed to the task of deciphering the real nature of the contract entered into by petitioners and private respondents.

It is a canon in the interpretation of contracts that the words used therein should be given their natural and ordinary meaning unless a technical meaning was intended (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 586 [1992]). Thus, when petitioners declared in the said "Receipt of Down Payment" that they Received from Miss Ramona Patricia Alcaraz of 146 Timog, Quezon City, the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos purchase price of our inherited house and lot, covered by TCT No. 1199627 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, in the total amount of P1,240,000.00. without any reservation of title until full payment of the entire purchase price, the natural and ordinary idea conveyed is that they sold their property. When the "Receipt of Down Payment" is considered in its entirety, it becomes more manifest that there was a clear intent on the part of petitioners to transfer title to the buyer, but since the transfer certificate of title was still in the name of petitioner's father, they could not fully effect such transfer although the buyer was then willing and able to immediately pay the purchase price. Therefore, petitioners-sellers undertook upon receipt of the down payment from private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz, to cause the issuance of a new certificate of title in their names from that of their father, after which, they promised to present said title, now in their names, to the latter and to execute the deed of absolute sale whereupon, the latter shall, in turn, pay the entire balance of the purchase price. The agreement could not have been a contract to sell because the sellers herein made no express reservation of ownership or title to the subject parcel of land. Furthermore, the circumstance which prevented the parties from entering into an absolute contract of sale pertained to the sellers themselves (the certificate of title was not in their names) and not the full payment of the purchase price. Under the established facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may safely presume that, had the certificate of title been in the names of petitioners-sellers at that time, there would have been no reason why an absolute contract of sale could not have been executed and consummated right there and then. Moreover, unlike in a contract to sell, petitioners in the case at bar did not merely promise to sell the properly to private respondent upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition. On the contrary, having already agreed to sell the subject property, they undertook to have the certificate of title changed to their names and immediately thereafter, to execute the written deed of absolute sale. Thus, the parties did not merely enter into a contract to sell where the sellers, after compliance by the buyer with certain terms and conditions, promised to sell the property to the latter. What may be perceived from the respective undertakings of the parties to the contract is that petitioners had already agreed

to sell the house and lot they inherited from their father, completely willing to transfer full ownership of the subject house and lot to the buyer if the documents were then in order. It just happened, however, that the transfer certificate of title was then still in the name of their father. It was more expedient to first effect the change in the certificate of title so as to bear their names. That is why they undertook to cause the issuance of a new transfer of the certificate of title in their names upon receipt of the down payment in the amount of P50,000.00. As soon as the new certificate of title is issued in their names, petitioners were committed to immediately execute the deed of absolute sale. Only then will the obligation of the buyer to pay the remainder of the purchase price arise. There is no doubt that unlike in a contract to sell which is most commonly entered into so as to protect the seller against a buyer who intends to buy the property in installment by withholding ownership over the property until the buyer effects full payment therefor, in the contract entered into in the case at bar, the sellers were the one who were unable to enter into a contract of absolute sale by reason of the fact that the certificate of title to the property was still in the name of their father. It was the sellers in this case who, as it were, had the impediment which prevented, so to speak, the execution of an contract of absolute sale. What is clearly established by the plain language of the subject document is that when the said "Receipt of Down Payment" was prepared and signed by petitioners Romeo A. Coronel, et al., the parties had agreed to a conditional contract of sale, consummation of which is subject only to the successful transfer of the certificate of title from the name of petitioners' father, Constancio P. Coronel, to their names. The Court significantly notes this suspensive condition was, in fact, fulfilled on February 6, 1985 (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4"). Thus, on said date, the conditional contract of sale between petitioners and private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz became obligatory, the only act required for the consummation thereof being the delivery of the property by means of the execution of the deed of absolute sale in a public instrument, which petitioners unequivocally committed themselves to do as evidenced by the "Receipt of Down Payment." Article 1475, in correlation with Article 1181, both of the Civil Code, plainly applies to the case at bench. Thus, Art. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From the moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.

Art. 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. Since the condition contemplated by the parties which is the issuance of a certificate of title in petitioners' names was fulfilled on February 6, 1985, the respective obligations of the parties under the contract of sale became mutually demandable, that is, petitioners, as sellers, were obliged to present the transfer certificate of title already in their names to private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz, the buyer, and to immediately execute the deed of absolute sale, while the buyer on her part, was obliged to forthwith pay the balance of the purchase price amounting to P1,190,000.00. It is also significant to note that in the first paragraph in page 9 of their petition, petitioners conclusively admitted that: 3. The petitioners-sellers Coronel bound themselves "to effect the transfer in our names from our deceased father Constancio P. Coronel, the transfer certificate of title immediately upon receipt of the downpayment above-stated". The sale was still subject to this suspensive condition. (Emphasis supplied.) (Rollo, p. 16) Petitioners themselves recognized that they entered into a contract of sale subject to a suspensive condition. Only, they contend, continuing in the same paragraph, that: . . . Had petitioners-sellers not complied with this condition of first transferring the title to the property under their names, there could be no perfected contract of sale. (Emphasis supplied.) (Ibid.) not aware that they set their own trap for themselves, for Article 1186 of the Civil Code expressly provides that: Art. 1186. The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment. Besides, it should be stressed and emphasized that what is more controlling than these mere hypothetical arguments is the fact that the condition herein referred to was actually and indisputably fulfilled on February 6, 1985, when a new title was issued in the names of petitioners as evidenced by TCT No. 327403 (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4").

The inevitable conclusion is that on January 19, 1985, as evidenced by the document denominated as "Receipt of Down Payment" (Exh. "A"; Exh. "1"), the parties entered into a contract of sale subject only to the suspensive condition that the sellers shall effect the issuance of new certificate title from that of their father's name to their names and that, on February 6, 1985, this condition was fulfilled (Exh. "D"; Exh. "4"). We, therefore, hold that, in accordance with Article 1187 which pertinently provides Art. 1187. The effects of conditional obligation to give, once the condition has been fulfilled, shall retroact to the day of the constitution of the obligation . . . In obligation to do or not to do, the courts shall determine, in each case, the retroactive effect of the condition that has been complied with. the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the perfected contract of sale became mutually due and demandable as of the time of fulfillment or occurrence of the suspensive condition on February 6, 1985. As of that point in time, reciprocal obligations of both seller and buyer arose. Petitioners also argue there could been no perfected contract on January 19, 1985 because they were then not yet the absolute owners of the inherited property. We cannot sustain this argument. Article 774 of the Civil Code defines Succession as a mode of transferring ownership as follows: Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to be extent and value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others by his will or by operation of law. Petitioners-sellers in the case at bar being the sons and daughters of the decedent Constancio P. Coronel are compulsory heirs who were called to succession by operation of law. Thus, at the point their father drew his last breath, petitioners stepped into his shoes insofar as the subject property is concerned, such that any rights or obligations pertaining thereto became binding and enforceable upon them. It is expressly provided that rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent (Article 777, Civil Code; Cuison vs. Villanueva, 90 Phil. 850 [1952]).

Be it also noted that petitioners' claim that succession may not be declared unless the creditors have been paid is rendered moot by the fact that they were able to effect the transfer of the title to the property from the decedent's name to their names on February 6, 1985. Aside from this, petitioners are precluded from raising their supposed lack of capacity to enter into an agreement at that time and they cannot be allowed to now take a posture contrary to that which they took when they entered into the agreement with private respondent Ramona P. Alcaraz. The Civil Code expressly states that: Art. 1431. Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Having represented themselves as the true owners of the subject property at the time of sale, petitioners cannot claim now that they were not yet the absolute owners thereof at that time. Petitioners also contend that although there was in fact a perfected contract of sale between them and Ramona P. Alcaraz, the latter breached her reciprocal obligation when she rendered impossible the consummation thereof by going to the United States of America, without leaving her address, telephone number, and Special Power of Attorney (Paragraphs 14 and 15, Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim to the Amended Complaint, p. 2; Rollo, p. 43), for which reason, so petitioners conclude, they were correct in unilaterally rescinding rescinding the contract of sale. We do not agree with petitioners that there was a valid rescission of the contract of sale in the instant case. We note that these supposed grounds for petitioners' rescission, are mere allegations found only in their responsive pleadings, which by express provision of the rules, are deemed controverted even if no reply is filed by the plaintiffs (Sec. 11, Rule 6, Revised Rules of Court). The records are absolutely bereft of any supporting evidence to substantiate petitioners' allegations. We have stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence (Ng Cho Cio vs. Ng Diong, 110 Phil. 882 [1961]; Recaro vs. Embisan, 2 SCRA 598 [1961]. Mere allegation is not an evidence (Lagasca vs. De Vera, 79 Phil. 376 [1947]). Even assuming arguendo that Ramona P. Alcaraz was in the United States of America on February 6, 1985, we cannot justify petitioner-sellers' act of unilaterally and extradicially rescinding the contract of sale, there being no express stipulation authorizing the sellers to extarjudicially rescind the contract of sale. (cf. Dignos vs. CA, 158 SCRA 375 [1988]; Taguba vs. Vda. de Leon, 132

SCRA 722 [1984]) Moreover, petitioners are estopped from raising the alleged absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz because although the evidence on record shows that the sale was in the name of Ramona P. Alcaraz as the buyer, the sellers had been dealing with Concepcion D. Alcaraz, Ramona's mother, who had acted for and in behalf of her daughter, if not also in her own behalf. Indeed, the down payment was made by Concepcion D. Alcaraz with her own personal check (Exh. "B"; Exh. "2") for and in behalf of Ramona P. Alcaraz. There is no evidence showing that petitioners ever questioned Concepcion's authority to represent Ramona P. Alcaraz when they accepted her personal check. Neither did they raise any objection as regards payment being effected by a third person. Accordingly, as far as petitioners are concerned, the physical absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz is not a ground to rescind the contract of sale. Corollarily, Ramona P. Alcaraz cannot even be deemed to be in default, insofar as her obligation to pay the full purchase price is concerned. Petitioners who are precluded from setting up the defense of the physical absence of Ramona P. Alcaraz as above-explained offered no proof whatsoever to show that they actually presented the new transfer certificate of title in their names and signified their willingness and readiness to execute the deed of absolute sale in accordance with their agreement. Ramona's corresponding obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price in the amount of P1,190,000.00 (as buyer) never became due and demandable and, therefore, she cannot be deemed to have been in default. Article 1169 of the Civil Code defines when a party in a contract involving reciprocal obligations may be considered in default, to wit: Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something, incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. xxx xxx xxx In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfill his obligation, delay by the other begins. (Emphasis supplied.) There is thus neither factual nor legal basis to rescind the contract of sale between petitioners and respondents. With the foregoing conclusions, the sale to the other petitioner, Catalina B.

Mabanag, gave rise to a case of double sale where Article 1544 of the Civil Code will apply, to wit: Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should if be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The record of the case shows that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 25, 1985 as proof of the second contract of sale was registered with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City giving rise to the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of Catalina B. Mabanag on June 5, 1985. Thus, the second paragraph of Article 1544 shall apply. The above-cited provision on double sale presumes title or ownership to pass to the first buyer, the exceptions being: (a) when the second buyer, in good faith, registers the sale ahead of the first buyer, and (b) should there be no inscription by either of the two buyers, when the second buyer, in good faith, acquires possession of the property ahead of the first buyer. Unless, the second buyer satisfies these requirements, title or ownership will not transfer to him to the prejudice of the first buyer. In his commentaries on the Civil Code, an accepted authority on the subject, now a distinguished member of the Court, Justice Jose C. Vitug, explains: The governing principle is prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer's rights except when the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale (Olivares vs. Gonzales, 159 SCRA 33). Conversely, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, since knowledge taints his registration with bad faith (see also Astorga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 58530, 26 December 1984). In Cruz vs. Cabana (G.R. No. 56232, 22 June 1984, 129 SCRA 656), it has held that it is essential, to merit the protection of Art. 1544, second paragraph, that the second realty buyer must act in good faith in registering his deed of sale (citing Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 99, Crisostomo vs. CA, G.R. No. 95843, 02 September 1992).(J. Vitug Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 Edition, p. 604).

Petitioner point out that the notice of lis pendens in the case at bar was annoted on the title of the subject property only on February 22, 1985, whereas, the second sale between petitioners Coronels and petitioner Mabanag was supposedly perfected prior thereto or on February 18, 1985. The idea conveyed is that at the time petitioner Mabanag, the second buyer, bought the property under a clean title, she was unaware of any adverse claim or previous sale, for which reason she is buyer in good faith. We are not persuaded by such argument. In a case of double sale, what finds relevance and materiality is not whether or not the second buyer was a buyer in good faith but whether or not said second buyer registers such second sale in good faith, that is, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold. As clearly borne out by the evidence in this case, petitioner Mabanag could not have in good faith, registered the sale entered into on February 18, 1985 because as early as February 22, 1985, a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on the transfer certificate of title in the names of petitioners, whereas petitioner Mabanag registered the said sale sometime in April, 1985. At the time of registration, therefore, petitioner Mabanag knew that the same property had already been previously sold to private respondents, or, at least, she was charged with knowledge that a previous buyer is claiming title to the same property. Petitioner Mabanag cannot close her eyes to the defect in petitioners' title to the property at the time of the registration of the property. This Court had occasions to rule that: If a vendee in a double sale registers that sale after he has acquired knowledge that there was a previous sale of the same property to a third party or that another person claims said property in a pervious sale, the registration will constitute a registration in bad faith and will not confer upon him any right. (Salvoro vs. Tanega, 87 SCRA 349 [1978]; citing Palarca vs. Director of Land, 43 Phil. 146; Cagaoan vs. Cagaoan, 43 Phil. 554; Fernandez vs. Mercader, 43 Phil. 581.) Thus, the sale of the subject parcel of land between petitioners and Ramona P. Alcaraz, perfected on February 6, 1985, prior to that between petitioners and Catalina B. Mabanag on February 18, 1985, was correctly upheld by both the courts below. Although there may be ample indications that there was in fact an agency between Ramona as principal and Concepcion, her mother, as agent insofar as the subject contract of sale is concerned, the issue of whether or not Concepcion

was also acting in her own behalf as a co-buyer is not squarely raised in the instant petition, nor in such assumption disputed between mother and daughter. Thus, We will not touch this issue and no longer disturb the lower courts' ruling on this point. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the appealed judgment AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. L-69259 January 26, 1988 DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, and DELPHIN PACHECO, petitioners, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HYDRO PIPES PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: The petitioners question the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court which sustained the private respondent's contention that the deed of exchange whereby Delfin Pacheco and Pelagia Pacheco conveyed a parcel of land to Delpher Trades Corporation in exchange for 2,500 shares of stock was actually a deed of sale which violated a right of first refusal under a lease contract. Briefly, the facts of the case are summarized as follows: In 1974, Delfin Pacheco and his sister, Pelagia Pacheco, were the owners of 27,169 square meters of real estate Identified as Lot. No. 1095, Malinta Estate, in the Municipality of Polo (now Valenzuela), Province of Bulacan (now Metro Manila) which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4240 of the Bulacan land registry. On April 3, 1974, the said co-owners leased to Construction Components International Inc. the same property and providing that during the existence or after the term of this lease the lessor should he decide to sell the property leased shall first offer the same to the lessee and the letter has the priority to buy under similar conditions (Exhibits A to A-5) On August 3, 1974, lessee Construction Components International, Inc. assigned

its rights and obligations under the contract of lease in favor of Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc. with the signed conformity and consent of lessors Delfin Pacheco and Pelagia Pacheco (Exhs. B to B-6 inclusive) The contract of lease, as well as the assignment of lease were annotated at he back of the title, as per stipulation of the parties (Exhs. A to D-3 inclusive) On January 3, 1976, a deed of exchange was executed between lessors Delfin and Pelagia Pacheco and defendant Delpher Trades Corporation whereby the former conveyed to the latter the leased property (TCT No.T-4240) together with another parcel of land also located in Malinta Estate, Valenzuela, Metro Manila (TCT No. 4273) for 2,500 shares of stock of defendant corporation with a total value of P1,500,000.00 (Exhs. C to C-5, inclusive) (pp. 44-45, Rollo) On the ground that it was not given the first option to buy the leased property pursuant to the proviso in the lease agreement, respondent Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc., filed an amended complaint for reconveyance of Lot. No. 1095 in its favor under conditions similar to those whereby Delpher Trades Corporation acquired the property from Pelagia Pacheco and Delphin Pacheco. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: ACCORDINGLY, the judgment is hereby rendered declaring the valid existence of the plaintiffs preferential right to acquire the subject property (right of first refusal) and ordering the defendants and all persons deriving rights therefrom to convey the said property to plaintiff who may offer to acquire the same at the rate of P14.00 per square meter, more or less, for Lot 1095 whose area is 27,169 square meters only. Without pronouncement as to attorney's fees and costs. (Appendix I; Rec., pp. 246- 247). (Appellant's Brief, pp. 1-2; p. 134, Rollo) The lower court's decision was affirmed on appeal by the Intermediate Appellate Court. The defendants-appellants, now the petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari to review the appellate court's decision. We initially denied the petition but upon motion for reconsideration, we set aside the resolution denying the petition and gave it due course. The petitioners allege that: The denial of the petition will work great injustice to the petitioners, in that:

1. Respondent Hydro Pipes Philippines, Inc, ("private respondent") will acquire from petitioners a parcel of industrial land consisting of 27,169 square meters or 2.7 hectares (located right after the Valenzuela, Bulacan exit of the toll expressway) for only P14/sq. meter, or a total of P380,366, although the prevailing value thereof is approximately P300/sq. meter or P8.1 Million; 2. Private respondent is allowed to exercise its right of first refusal even if there is no "sale" or transfer of actual ownership interests by petitioners to third parties; and 3. Assuming arguendo that there has been a transfer of actual ownership interests, private respondent will acquire the land not under "similar conditions" by which it was transferred to petitioner Delpher Trades Corporation, as provided in the same contractual provision invoked by private respondent. (pp. 251-252, Rollo) The resolution of the case hinges on whether or not the "Deed of Exchange" of the properties executed by the Pachecos on the one hand and the Delpher Trades Corporation on the other was meant to be a contract of sale which, in effect, prejudiced the private respondent's right of first refusal over the leased property included in the "deed of exchange." Eduardo Neria, a certified public accountant and son-in-law of the late Pelagia Pacheco testified that Delpher Trades Corporation is a family corporation; that the corporation was organized by the children of the two spouses (spouses Pelagia Pacheco and Benjamin Hernandez and spouses Delfin Pacheco and Pilar Angeles) who owned in common the parcel of land leased to Hydro Pipes Philippines in order to perpetuate their control over the property through the corporation and to avoid taxes; that in order to accomplish this end, two pieces of real estate, including Lot No. 1095 which had been leased to Hydro Pipes Philippines, were transferred to the corporation; that the leased property was transferred to the corporation by virtue of a deed of exchange of property; that in exchange for these properties, Pelagia and Delfin acquired 2,500 unissued no par value shares of stock which are equivalent to a 55% majority in the corporation because the other owners only owned 2,000 shares; and that at the time of incorporation, he knew all about the contract of lease of Lot. No. 1095 to Hydro Pipes Philippines. In the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, they refer to this scheme as "estate planning." (p. 252, Rollo) Under this factual backdrop, the petitioners contend that there was actually no transfer of ownership of the subject parcel of land since the Pachecos remained in control of the property. Thus, the petitioners allege: "Considering that the beneficial ownership and control of petitioner corporation remained in the hands of the original co-owners, there was no transfer of actual ownership interests

over the land when the same was transferred to petitioner corporation in exchange for the latter's shares of stock. The transfer of ownership, if anything, was merely in form but not in substance. In reality, petitioner corporation is a mere alter ego or conduit of the Pacheco co-owners; hence the corporation and the co-owners should be deemed to be the same, there being in substance and in effect an Identity of interest." (p. 254, Rollo) The petitioners maintain that the Pachecos did not sell the property. They argue that there was no sale and that they exchanged the land for shares of stocks in their own corporation. "Hence, such transfer is not within the letter, or even spirit of the contract. There is a sale when ownership is transferred for a price certain in money or its equivalent (Art. 1468, Civil Code) while there is a barter or exchange when one thing is given in consideration of another thing (Art. 1638, Civil Code)." (pp. 254-255, Rollo) On the other hand, the private respondent argues that Delpher Trades Corporation is a corporate entity separate and distinct from the Pachecos. Thus, it contends that it cannot be said that Delpher Trades Corporation is the Pacheco's same alter ego or conduit; that petitioner Delfin Pacheco, having treated Delpher Trades Corporation as such a separate and distinct corporate entity, is not a party who may allege that this separate corporate existence should be disregarded. It maintains that there was actual transfer of ownership interests over the leased property when the same was transferred to Delpher Trades Corporation in exchange for the latter's shares of stock. We rule for the petitioners. After incorporation, one becomes a stockholder of a corporation by subscription or by purchasing stock directly from the corporation or from individual owners thereof (Salmon, Dexter & Co. v. Unson, 47 Phil, 649, citing Bole v. Fulton [1912], 233 Pa., 609). In the case at bar, in exchange for their properties, the Pachecos acquired 2,500 original unissued no par value shares of stocks of the Delpher Trades Corporation. Consequently, the Pachecos became stockholders of the corporation by subscription "The essence of the stock subscription is an agreement to take and pay for original unissued shares of a corporation, formed or to be formed." (Rohrlich 243, cited in Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1980 Edition, p. 430) It is significant that the Pachecos took no par value shares in exchange for their properties. A no-par value share does not purport to represent any stated proportionate interest in the capital stock measured by value, but only an aliquot part of the whole number of such shares of the issuing corporation. The holder of no-par shares may see from the certificate itself that he is only an aliquot sharer in the

assets of the corporation. But this character of proportionate interest is not hidden beneath a false appearance of a given sum in money, as in the case of par value shares. The capital stock of a corporation issuing only no-par value shares is not set forth by a stated amount of money, but instead is expressed to be divided into a stated number of shares, such as, 1,000 shares. This indicates that a shareholder of 100 such shares is an aliquot sharer in the assets of the corporation, no matter what value they may have, to the extent of 100/1,000 or 1/10. Thus, by removing the par value of shares, the attention of persons interested in the financial condition of a corporation is focused upon the value of assets and the amount of its debts. (Agbayani, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Commercial Laws of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1980 Edition, p. 107). Moreover, there was no attempt to state the true or current market value of the real estate. Land valued at P300.00 a square meter was turned over to the family's corporation for only P14.00 a square meter. It is to be stressed that by their ownership of the 2,500 no par shares of stock, the Pachecos have control of the corporation. Their equity capital is 55% as against 45% of the other stockholders, who also belong to the same family group. In effect, the Delpher Trades Corporation is a business conduit of the Pachecos. What they really did was to invest their properties and change the nature of their ownership from unincorporated to incorporated form by organizing Delpher Trades Corporation to take control of their properties and at the same time save on inheritance taxes. As explained by Eduardo Neria: xxx xxx xxx ATTY. LINSANGAN: Q Mr. Neria, from the point of view of taxation, is there any benefit to the spouses Hernandez and Pacheco in connection with their execution of a deed of exchange on the properties for no par value shares of the defendant corporation? A Yes, sir. COURT: Q What do you mean by "point of view"?

A To take advantage for both spouses and corporation in entering in the deed of exchange. ATTY. LINSANGAN: Q (What do you mean by "point of view"?) What are these benefits to the spouses of this deed of exchange? A Continuous control of the property, tax exemption benefits, and other inherent benefits in a corporation. Q What are these advantages to the said spouses from the point of view of taxation in entering in the deed of exchange? A Having fulfilled the conditions in the income tax law, providing for tax free exchange of property, they were able to execute the deed of exchange free from income tax and acquire a corporation. Q What provision in the income tax law are you referring to? A I refer to Section 35 of the National Internal Revenue Code under par. C-subpar. (2) Exceptions regarding the provision which I quote: "No gain or loss shall also be recognized if a person exchanges his property for stock in a corporation of which as a result of such exchange said person alone or together with others not exceeding four persons gains control of said corporation." Q Did you explain to the spouses this benefit at the time you executed the deed of exchange? A Yes, sir Q You also, testified during the last hearing that the decision to have no par value share in the defendant corporation was for the purpose of flexibility. Can you explain flexibility in connection with the ownership of the property in question? A There is flexibility in using no par value shares as the value is determined by the board of directors in increasing capitalization. The board can fix the value of the shares equivalent to the capital requirements of the corporation. Q Now also from the point of taxation, is there any flexibility in the holding by the corporation of the property in question? A Yes, since a corporation does not die it can continue to hold on to the property indefinitely for a period of at least 50 years. On the other hand, if the property is

held by the spouse the property will be tied up in succession proceedings and the consequential payments of estate and inheritance taxes when an owner dies. Q Now what advantage is this continuity in relation to ownership by a particular person of certain properties in respect to taxation? A The property is not subjected to taxes on succession as the corporation does not die. Q So the benefit you are talking about are inheritance taxes? A Yes, sir. (pp. 3-5, tsn., December 15, 1981) The records do not point to anything wrong or objectionable about this "estate planning" scheme resorted to by the Pachecos. "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise could be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." (Liddell & Co., Inc. v. The collector of Internal Revenue, 2 SCRA 632 citing Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 7 L. ed. 596). The "Deed of Exchange" of property between the Pachecos and Delpher Trades Corporation cannot be considered a contract of sale. There was no transfer of actual ownership interests by the Pachecos to a third party. The Pacheco family merely changed their ownership from one form to another. The ownership remained in the same hands. Hence, the private respondent has no basis for its claim of a light of first refusal under the lease contract. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED, The questioned decision and resolution of the then Intermediate Appellate Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The amended complaint in Civil Case No. 885-V-79 of the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan is DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 52267 January 24, 1996

ENGINEERING & MACHINERY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and PONCIANO L. ALMEDA, respondent.

DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: Is a contract for the fabrication and installation of a central air-conditioning system in a building, one of "sale" or "for a piece of work"? What is the prescriptive period for filing actions for breach of the terms of such contract? These are the legal questions brought before this Court in this Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, to set aside the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals2 in CA-G.R. No. 58276-R promulgated on November 28, 1978 (affirming in toto the decision3 dated April 15, 1974 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch II4 , in Civil Case No. 14712, which ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount needed to rectify the faults and deficiencies of the air-conditioning system installed by petitioner in private respondent's building, plus damages, attorney's fees and costs). By a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated November 13, 1995, this case was transferred to the Third. After deliberating on the various submissions of the parties, including the petition, record on appeal, private respondent's comment and briefs for the petitioner and the private respondent, the Court assigned the writing of this Decision to the undersigned, who took his oath as a member of the Court on October 10, 1995. The Facts Pursuant to the contract dated September 10, 1962 between petitioner and private respondent, the former undertook to fabricate, furnish and install the airconditioning system in the latter's building along Buendia Avenue, Makati in consideration of P210,000.00. Petitioner was to furnish the materials, labor, tools and all services required in order to so fabricate and install said system. The system was completed in 1963 and accepted by private respondent, who paid in full the contract price. On September 2, 1965, private respondent sold the building to the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC). The latter took possession of the building but on account of NIDC's noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the deed of sale, private respondent was able to secure judicial rescission thereof. The ownership of the building having been decreed back to private respondent, he re-acquired possession sometime in 1971. It was then that he learned from some NIDC, employees of the defects of the air-conditioning system of the building. Acting on this information, private respondent commissioned Engineer David R.

Sapico to render a technical evaluation of the system in relation to the contract with petitioner. In his report, Sapico enumerated the defects of the system and concluded that it was "not capable of maintaining the desired room temperature of 76F - 2F (Exhibit C)"5 . On the basis of this report, private respondent filed on May 8, 1971 an action for damages against petitioner with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 14712). The complaint alleged that the air-conditioning system installed by petitioner did not comply with the agreed plans and specifications. Hence, private respondent prayed for the amount of P210,000.00 representing the rectification cost, P100,000.00 as damages and P15,000.00 as attorney's fees. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the prescriptive period of six months had set in pursuant to Articles 1566 and 1567, in relation to Article 1571 of the Civil Code, regarding the responsibility of a vendor for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold. Private respondent countered that the contract dated September 10, 1962 was not a contract for sale but a contract for a piece of work under Article 1713 of the Civil Code. Thus, in accordance with Article 1144 (1) of the same Code, the complaint was timely brought within the ten-year prescriptive period. In its reply, petitioner argued that Article 1571 of the Civil Code providing for a six-month prescriptive period is applicable to a contract for a piece of work by virtue of Article 1714, which provides that such a contract shall be governed by the pertinent provisions on warranty of title and against hidden defects and the payment of price in a contract of sale6 . The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. In its answer to the complaint, petitioner reiterated its claim of prescription as an affirmative defense. It alleged that whatever defects might have been discovered in the air-conditioning system could have been caused by a variety of factors, including ordinary wear and tear and lack of proper and regular maintenance. It pointed out that during the oneyear period that private respondent withheld final payment, the system was subjected to "very rigid inspection and testing and corrections or modifications effected" by petitioner. It interposed a compulsory counterclaim suggesting that the complaint was filed "to offset the adverse effects" of the judgment in Civil Case No. 71494, Court of First Instance of Manila, involving the same parties, wherein private respondent was adjudged to pay petitioner the balance of the unpaid contract price for the air-conditioning system installed in another building of private respondent, amounting to P138,482.25. Thereafter, private respondent filed an ex-parte motion for preliminary

attachment on the strength of petitioner's own statement to the effect that it had sold its business and was no longer doing business in Manila. The trial court granted the motion and, upon private respondent's posting of a bond of F'50,000.00, ordered the issuance of a writ of attachment. In due course, the trial court rendered a decision finding that petitioner failed to install certain parts and accessories called for by the contract, and deviated from the plans of the system, thus reducing its operational effectiveness to the extent that 35 window-type units had to be installed in the building to achieve a fairly desirable room temperature. On the question of prescription, the trial court ruled that the complaint was filed within the ten-year court prescriptive period although the contract was one for a piece of work, because it involved the "installation of an air-conditioning system which the defendant itself manufactured, fabricated, designed and installed." Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, it instituted the instant petition. The Submissions of the Parties In the instant Petition, petitioner raised three issues. First, it contended that private respondent's acceptance of the work and his payment of the contract price extinguished any liability with respect to the defects in the air-conditioning system. Second, it claimed that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the defects in the installation were not apparent at the time of delivery and acceptance of the work considering that private respondent was not an expert who could recognize such defects. Third, it insisted that, assuming arguendo that there were indeed hidden defects, private respondent's complaint was barred by prescription under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, which provides for a six-month prescriptive period. Private respondent, on the other hand, averred that the issues raised by petitioner, like the question of whether there was an acceptance of the work by the owner and whether the hidden defects in the installation could have been discovered by simple inspection, involve questions of fact which have been passed upon by the appellate court. The Court's Ruling The Supreme Court reviews only errors of law in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45. It is not the function of this Court to re-examine the findings of fact of the appellate court unless said findings are not supported by the evidence on record or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts 7 of Appeals erred when it held that the defects in the installation were not apparent at the

time of delivery and acceptance of the work considering that private respondent was not an expert who could recognize such defects. Third. it insisted that, assuming arguendo that there were indeed hidden defects, private respondent's complaint was barred by prescription under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, which provides for a six-month prescriptive period. Private respondent, on the other hand, averred that the issues raised by petitioner, like the question of whether here was an acceptance of the work by the owner and whether the hidden defects in the installation could have been discovered by simple inspection, involve questions of fact which have been passed upon by the appellate court. The Court has consistently held that the factual findings of the trial court, as well as the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. Among the exceptional circumstances where a reassessment of facts found by the lower courts is allowed are when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; when the findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee. After a careful study of the case at bench, we find none of the above grounds present to justify the re-evaluation of the findings of fact made by the courts below.8 We see no valid reason to discard the factual conclusions of the appellate court. . . . (I)t is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties, particularly where, such as here, the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court on the matter coincide.9 (Emphasis supplied) Hence, the first two issues will not be resolved as they raise questions of fact. Thus, the only question left to be resolved is that of prescription. In their submissions, the parties argued lengthily on the nature of the contract entered into by them, viz., whether it was one of sale or for a piece of work. Article 1713 of the Civil Code defines a contract for a piece of work thus: By the contract for a piece of work the contractor binds himself to execute a piece of work for the employer, in consideration of a certain price or compensation. The contractor may either employ only his labor or skill, or also furnish the material.

A contract for a piece of work, labor and materials may be distinguished from a contract of sale by the inquiry as to whether the thing transferred is one not in existence and which would never have existed but for the order, of the person desiring it10 . In such case, the contract is one for a piece of work, not a sale. On the other hand, if the thing subject of the contract would have existed and been the subject of a sale to some other person even if the order had not been given, then the contract is one of sale11 . Thus, Mr. Justice Vitug12 explains that A contract for the delivery at a certain price of an article which the vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general market, whether the same is on hand at the time or not is a contract of sale, but if the goods are to be manufactured specially for the customer and upon his special order, and not for the general market, it is a contract for a piece of work (Art. 1467, Civil Code). The mere fact alone that certain articles are made upon previous orders of customers will not argue against the imposition of the sales tax if such articles are ordinarily manufactured by the taxpayer for sale to the public (Celestino Co. vs. Collector, 99 Phil. 841). To Tolentino, the distinction between the two contracts depends on the intention of the parties. Thus, if the parties intended that at some future date an object has to be delivered, without considering the work or labor of the party bound to deliver, the contract is one of sale. But if one of the parties accepts the undertaking on the basis of some plan, taking into account the work he will employ personally or through another, there is a contract for a piece of work13 . Clearly, the contract in question is one for a piece of work. It is not petitioner's line of business to manufacture air-conditioning systems to be sold "off-theshelf." Its business and particular field of expertise is the fabrication and installation of such systems as ordered by customers and in accordance with the particular plans and specifications provided by the customers. Naturally, the price or compensation for the system manufactured and installed will depend greatly on the particular plans and specifications agreed upon with the customers. The obligations of a contractor for a piece of work are set forth in Articles 1714 and 1715 of the Civil Code, which provide: Art. 1714. If the contractor agrees to produce the work from material furnished by him, he shall deliver the thing produced to the employer and transfer dominion over the thing. This contract shall be governed by the following articles as well as by the pertinent provisions on warranty of title and against hidden defects and the payment of price in a contract of sale.

Art. 1715. The contractor shall execute the work in such a manner that it has the qualities agreed upon and has no defects which destroy or lessen its value or fitness for its ordinary or stipulated use. Should the work be not of such quality, the employer may require that the contractor remove the defect or execute another work. If the contractor fails or refuses to comply with this obligation, the employer may have the defect removed or another work executed, at the contractor's cost. The provisions on warranty against hidden defects, referred to in Art. 1714 above-quoted, are found in Articles 1561 and 1566, which read as follows: Art. 1561. The vendor shall be responsible for warranty against the hidden defects which the thing sold may have, should they render it unfit for the use for which it is intended, or should they diminish its fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it or would have given a lower price for it; but said vendor shall not be answerable for patent defects or those which may be visible, or for those which are not visible if the vendee is an expert who, by reason of his trade or profession, should have known them. xxx xxx xxx

Art. 1566. The vendor is responsible to the vendee for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold, even though he was not aware thereof. This provision shall not apply if the contrary has been stipulated, and the vendor was not aware of the hidden faults or defects in the thing sold. The remedy against violations of the warranty against hidden defects is either to withdraw from the contract (redhibitory action) or to demand a proportionate reduction of the price (accion quanti manoris), with damages in either case14 . In Villostas vs. Court of Appeals15 , we held that, "while it is true that Article 1571 of the Civil Code provides for a prescriptive period of six months for a redhibitory action, a cursory reading of the ten preceding articles to which it refers will reveal that said rule may be applied only in case of implied warranties"; and where there is an express warranty in the contract, as in the case at bench, the prescriptive period is the one specified in the express warranty, and in the absence of such period, "the general rule on rescission of contract, which is four years (Article 1389, Civil Code) shall apply"16 . Consistent with the above discussion, it would appear that this suit is barred by prescription because the complaint was filed more than four years after the execution of the contract and the completion of the air-conditioning system.

However, a close scrutiny of the complaint filed in the trial court reveals that the original action is not really for enforcement of the warranties against hidden defects, but one for breach of the contract itself. It alleged17 that the petitioner, "in the installation of the air conditioning system did not comply with the specifications provided" in the written agreement between the parties, "and an evaluation of the air-conditioning system as installed by the defendant showed the following defects and violations of the specifications of the agreement, to wit: GROUND FLOOR: "A. RIGHT WING: Equipped with Worthington Compressor, Model 2VC4 directly driven by an Hp Elin electric motor 1750 rmp, 3 phase, 60 cycles, 220 volts, complete with starter evaporative condenser, circulating water pump, air handling unit air ducts. Defects Noted: 1. Deteriorated evaporative condenser panels, coils are full of scales and heavy corrosion is very evident. 2. Defective gauges of compressors; 3. No belt guard on motor; 4. Main switch has no cover; 5. Desired room temperature not attained; Aside from the above defects, the following were noted not installed although provided in the specifications. 1. Face by-pass damper of G.I. sheets No. 16. This damper regulates the flow of cooled air depending on room condition. 2. No fresh air intake provision were provided which is very necessary for efficient comfort cooling.. 3. No motor to regulate the face and by-pass damper. 4. Liquid level indicator for refrigerant not provided. 5. Suitable heat exchanger is not installed. This is an important component to increase refrigeration efficiency.

6. Modulating thermostat not provided. 7. Water treatment device for evaporative condenser was not provided. 8. Liquid receiver not provided by sight glass. B. LEFT WING: Worthington Compressor Model 2VC4 is installed complete with 15 Hp electric motor, 3 phase, 220 volts 60 cycles with starter. Defects Noted: Same as right wing. except No. 4, All other defects on right wing are common to the left wing. SECOND FLOOR: (Common up to EIGHT FLOORS) Compressors installed are MELCO with 7.5 Hp V-belt driven by 1800 RPM, -220 volts, 60 cycles, 3 phase, Thrige electric motor with starters. As stated in the specifications under, Section No. IV, the MELCO compressors do not satisfy the conditions stated therein due to the following: 1. MELCO Compressors are not provided with automatic capacity unloader. 2. Not provided with oil pressure safety control. 3. Particular compressors do not have provision for renewal sleeves. Out of the total 15 MELCO compressors installed to serve the 2nd floor up to 8th floors, only six (6) units are in operation and the rest were already replaced. Of the remaining six (6) units, several of them have been replaced with bigger crankshafts. NINTH FLOOR: Two (2) Worthington 2VC4 driven by 15 Hp, 3 phase, 220 volts, 60 cycles, 1750 rpm, Higgs motors with starters. Defects Noted are similar to ground floor. GENERAL REMARKS: Under Section III, Design conditions of specification for air conditioning work, and

taking into account "A" & "B" same, the present systems are not capable of maintaining the desired temperature of 76 = 2F (sic). The present tenant have installed 35 window type air conditioning units distributed among the different floor levels. Temperature measurements conducted on March 29. 1971, revealed that 78F room (sic) is only maintained due to the additional window type units. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence presented, held that, indeed, petitioner failed to install items and parts required in the contract and substituted some other items which were not in accordance with the specifications18 , thus: From all of the foregoing, the Court is persuaded to believe the plaintiff that not only had the defendant failed to install items and parts provided for in the specifications of the air-conditioning system be installed, like face and by-pass dampers and modulating thermostat and many others, but also that there are items, parts and accessories which were used and installed on the airconditioning system which were not in full accord with contract specifications. These omissions to install the equipments, parts and accessories called for in the specifications of the contract, as well as the deviations made in putting into the air-conditioning system equipments, parts and accessories not in full accord with the contract specification naturally resulted to adversely affect the operational effectiveness of the air-conditioning system which necessitated the installation of thirty-five window type of air-conditioning units distributed among the different floor levels in order to be able to obtain a fairly desirable room temperature for the tenants and actual occupants of the building. The Court opines and so holds that the failure of the defendant to follow the contract specifications and said omissions and deviations having resulted in the operational ineffectiveness of the system installed makes the defendant liable to the plaintiff in the amount necessary to rectify to put the air conditioning system in its proper operational condition to make it serve the purpose for which the plaintiff entered into the contract with the defendant. The respondent Court affirmed the trial court's decision thereby making the latter's findings also its own. Having concluded that the original complaint is one for damages arising from breach of a written contract - and not a suit to enforce warranties against hidden defects - we here - with declare that the governing law is Article 1715 (supra). However, inasmuch as this provision does not contain a specific prescriptive period, the general law on prescription, which is Article 1144 of the Civil Code, will apply. Said provision states, inter alia, that actions "upon a written contract" prescribe in ten (10) years. Since the governing contract was executed on September 10, 1962 and the complaint was filed on May 8, 1971, it is clear that

the action has not prescribed. What about petitioner's contention that "acceptance of the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any defect in the work"? This was answered by respondent Court19 as follows: As the breach of contract which gave rise to the instant case consisted in appellant's omission to install the equipments (sic), parts and accessories not in accordance with the plan and specifications provided for in the contract and the deviations made in putting into the air conditioning system parts and accessories not in accordance with the contract specifications, it is evident that the defect in the installation was not apparent at the time of the delivery and acceptance of the work, considering further that plaintiff is not an expert to recognize the same. From the very nature of things, it is impossible to determine by the simple inspection of air conditioning system installed in an 8-floor building whether it has been furnished and installed as per agreed specifications. Verily, the mere fact that the private respondent accepted the work does not, ipso facto, relieve the petitioner from liability for deviations from and violations of the written contract, as the law gives him ten (10) years within which to file an action based on breach thereof. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.