Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5180 August 31, 1953
CONSEJO INFANTE, petitioner,
vs.
JOSE CUNANAN, JUAN MIJARES !" T#E COURT OF APPEALS, SECON$
$I%ISION, respondents.
Yuseco, Abdon & Yuseco for petitioner.
Jose E. Erfe and Maria Luisa Gomez for respondents.
&AUTISTA ANGELO, J.'
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Court of appeals afrin! the "ud!eent of
the court of ori!in which orders the defendant to pa# the plainti$s the su of P%,&'' with
le!al interest thereon fro (ebruar# %,)*+* and the costs of action.
Conse"o ,nfante, defendant herein, was the owner of two parcels of land, to!ether with a
house built thereon, situated in the Cit# of Manila and covered b# Transfer Certi-cate of Title
No. .)/0.. 1n or before Noveber 2', )*+0, she contracted the services of 3ose Cunanan
and 3uan Mi"ares, plainti$ herein, to sell the above4entioned propert# for a price of P2','''
sub"ect to the condition that the purchaser would assue the ort!a!e e5istin! thereon in
the favor of the Rehabilitation (inance Corporation. 6he a!reed to pa# the a coission of
& per cent on the purchase price plus whatever overprice the# a# obtain for the propert#.
Plainti$s found one Pio 6. Noche who was willin! to bu# the propert# under the ters a!reed
upon with defendant, but when the# introduced hi to defendant, the latter infored the
that she was no lon!er interested in sellin! the propert# and succeeded in a7in! the si!n
a docuent statin! therein that the written authorit# she had !iven the was alread# can4
celled. 8owever, on 9eceber %', )*+0, defendant dealt directl# with Pio 6. Noche sellin! to
hi the propert# for P2),'''. :pon learnin! this transaction, plainti$s deanded fro
defendant the pa#ent of their coission, but she refused and so the# brou!ht the present
action.
9efendant aditted havin! contracted the services of the plainti$s to sell her propert# as set
forth in the coplaint, but stated that she a!reed to pa# the a coission of P),%'' onl#
on condition that the# bu# her a propert# soewhere in Taft Avenue to where she i!ht
transfer after sellin! her propert#. 9efendant avers that while plainti$s too7 steps to sell her
propert# as a!reed upon, the# sold the propert# at Taft Avenue to another part# and because
of this failure it was a!reed that the authorit# she had !iven the be cancelled.
The lower court found that the preponderance of evidence was in favor of the plainti$s and
rendered "ud!eent sentensin! the defendant to pa# the plainti$ the su of P%,&'' with
le!al interest thereon fro (ebruar# %,)*+* plus the costs of action. This decision was
afred in toto b# the Court of Appeals.
There is no dispute that respondents were authori;ed b# petitioner to sell her propert# for the
su of P2',''' with the understandin! that the# will be !iven a coission of & percent plus
whatever overprice the# a# obtain for the propert#. Petitioner, however, contends that
authorit# has alread# been withdrawn on Noveber 2', )*+0 when, b# the voluntar# act of
respondents, the# e5ecuted a docuent statin! that said authorit# shall be considered
cancelled and without an# e$ect, so that when petitioner sold the propert# to Pio 6. Noche on
9eceber %', )*+0, she was alread# free fro her coitent with respondents and,
therefore, was not in dut# bound to pa# the an# coission for the transaction..
,f the facts were as claied b# petitioner, there is in4deed no doubt that she would have no
obli!ation to pa# respondents the coission which was proised the under the ori!inal
authorit# because, under the old Civil Code, her ri!ht to withdraw such authorit# is
reco!ni;ed. A principal a# withdraw the authorit# !iven to an a!ent at will. <Article )/22.=
But this fact is disputed. Thus, respondents clai that while the# a!reed to cancel the written
authorit# !iven to the, the# did so erel# upon the verbal assurance !iven b# petitioner
that, should the propert# be sold to their own buyer, Pio 6. Noche, the# would be !iven the
coission a!reed upon. True, this verbal assurance does not appear in the written
cancellation, E5hibit ), and, on the other hand, it is disputed b# petitioner, but respondents
were allowed to present oral evidence to prove it, and this is now assi!ned as error in this
petition for review.
The plea that oral evidence should not have been allowed to prove the alle!ed verbal
assurance is well ta7en it appearin! that the written authorit# !iven to respondents has been
cancelled in a written stateent. The rule on this atter is that >?hen the ters of an
a!reeent have been reduced to writin!, it is to be considered as containin! all those ters,
and, therefore, there can be, between parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of
the ters of the a!reeent other than the contents of the writin!.> <6ection %%, Rule )%2,
Rules of Court.= The onl# e5ceptions to this rule are@ ><a=?here a ista7e or iperfection of
the writin!, or its failure to e5press the true intent and a!reeent of the parties, or the
validit# of the a!reeent is put in issue b# the pleadin!s>A and ><b= ?here there is an intrinsic
abi!uit# in the writin!.> <Ibid.) There is no doubt that the point raised does not coe under
an# of the cases e5cepted, for there is nothin! therein that has been put in issue b#
respondents in their coplaint. The ters of the docuent, E5hibit ), see to be clear and
the# do not contain an# reservation which a# in an# wa# run counter to the clear intention
of the parties.
But even disre!ardin! the oral evidence adduced b# respondents in contravention of the
parole evidence rule, we are, however, of the opinion that there is enou!h "usti-cation for the
conclusion reached b# the lower court as well as b# the Court of Appeals to the e$ect that
respondents are entitled to the coission ori!inall# a!reed upon. ,t is a fact found b# the
Court of Appeals that after petitioner had !iven the written authorit# to respondents to sell
her land for the su of P2',''', respondents found a bu#er in the person of one Pio 6. Noche
who was willin! to bu# the propert# under the ters a!reed upon, and this atter was
iediatel# brou!ht to the 7nowled!e of petitioner. But the latter, perhaps b# wa# of
strate!e, advised respondents that she was no lon!er interested in the deal and was able to
prevail upon the to si!n a docuent a!reein! to the cancellation of the written authorit#.
That petitioner had chan!ed her ind even if respondents had found a bu#er who was willin!
to close the deal, is a atter that would not !ive rise to a le!al conseBuence if respondents
a!ree to call o$ the transaction in deference to the reBuest of the petitioner. But the situation
varies if one of the parties ta7es advanta!e of the benevolence of the other and acts in a
anner that would proote his own sel-sh interest. This act is unfair as would aount to bad
faith. This act cannot be sanctioned without ac4cordin! to the part# pre"udiced the reward
which is due hi. This is the situation in which respondents were placed b# petitioner.
Petitioner too7 advanta!e of the services rendered b# respondents, but believin! that she
could evade pa#ent of their coission, she ade use of a ruse b# inducin! the to si!n
the deed of cancellation E5hibit ). This act of subversion cannot be sanctioned and cannot
serve as basis for petitioner to escape pa#ent of the coission a!reed upon.
?herefore, the decision appealed fro is hereb# afred, with costs a!ainst petitioner.
aras, !.J., ab"o, #en$zon, adi""a, %uason, Monte&mayor, 'eyes, and Ju$o, JJ., concur.