Angeles vs Dizon

Isabel Padilla Y. Angeles vs. Luciano C. Dizon

Digest 

G.R. No. L-8026             April 20, 1956

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

Facts:

·         Year 1948, Isabel Padilla Y Angeles purchased a parcel of land in Sampaloc, Manila, said to contain an area of 233.9 sq. m., covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12243 for P18,000.

·         That the Parcel of land was resurveyed and was found to only contain 182.9 sq.m.

·         That the plaintiff after finding the values disparity, asked the vendor to either consider the sale void, and for the defendant to return the purchased price of 18,000 and get back the land, or else refund to her about P4,000, the proportionate reduction of the purchase price due to difference in area.

·         That after the first judgment where it rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the defendant filed an appeal and later withdraw the appeal and filed a motion to comply with the judgment stating that he had chosen the first alternative declaring the deed of sale rescinded and cancelled, and ordering him to return the purchase price of 18,000. Which then the trial court by order of June 5, 1951, granted defendant’s motion.

·         That after failing to secure a reconsideration of said order, plaintiff filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari against the trial Judge to review and set aside the order of June 5, 1951, as well as denying its reconsideration, which on July 21, 1951, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition of certiorari. Then plaintiff appealed the resolution of dismissal to the Supreme Court but by resolution of Tribunal the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

·         That on September 6, 1951, plaintiff filed a manifestation of waiver of her rights in the decision rendered in her favor by the trial court, on the basis of Article 4, paragraph 2 of the old Civil Code. Which states:

“Rights granted by law may be waived, provided such waiver be not contrary to public interest or public order, or prejudicial to a third person.”

Issue:

·         Whether or not the plaintiff has the right to waive her rights on the decision rendered in her favor by the trial court.

Held:

The orders appealed from particularly that of June 5, 1951, are hereby affirmed, with costs. On the stand that:

                The very law she invokes provides that rights may be waived unless such waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. When, acting upon her complaint which was asked for two alternative remedies in which he(defendant) chose one to comply, upon the action he acquired a right recognized by law, and he would be prejudiced by a subsequent waiver on the part of the plaintiff of her right acquired under the decision.

                From another point of view, the complaint filed by the plaintiff may be regarded as an offer by her thru the court, when the defendant expressed to the court his willingness, readiness and ability to comply with the said decision, particularly the part or alternative ordered in it, that may be considered as a formal acceptance of the offer made by the plaintiff; and thereafter the plaintiff cannot back out, and withdrew her offer. Acceptance of an offer gives the offeree a right to compel the offeror to comply with the offer.

When after hearing, the trial court by its decision granted that part of the prayer contained in the complaint to have the deed of sale declared null or rescinded on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation as to the area of the land, and when that decision became final, the deed of sale was for all legal purposes declared rescinded and there was nothing that the plaintiff could do about it, especially after the defendant had accepted that judicial declaration of rescission and had offered to comply with his obligation to return the purchase price