GR 137171; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137171 ; July 14, 2006
MARIA Z. KHO, petitioner, vs. FEDERICO BIRON, SR., respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Maria Z. Kho entered into a contract of lease with respondent Federico Biron, Sr., over a 30-hectare portion of his land for a fixed annual rental of P120,000.00 from 1985 to 1991. After more than four years, petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance, refund of overpayment, and damages. She alleged that a geodetic survey revealed respondent delivered only 23.26 hectares, short by 6.74 hectares, and demanded delivery of the deficiency and a refund of P106,240.00 for the overpayment.
Respondent countered that the parties had agreed to modify the original contract. He asserted that petitioner, finding the designated 30-hectare portion partly undeveloped, suggested and agreed to occupy instead adjoining developed lots he owned to complete the area. Respondent claimed petitioner occupied these adjacent lots, totaling approximately 30 hectares, and paid the full annual rental until 1988. He also contended that petitioner’s suit was motivated by his refusal to grant her a lease extension.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint for specific performance and refund.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic centered on petitioner’s failure to substantiate her claim and the credibility of respondent’s evidence of a modified agreement. A party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it. Petitioner’s claim of short delivery remained a bare allegation, unsupported by convincing evidence. In contrast, respondent presented a credible account of post-contract modifications, which petitioner did not effectively dispute.
The Court found petitioner’s conduct inconsistent with her claims. She entered and improved not only the primary lot but also the respondent’s adjoining lots not mentioned in the original contract. She also violated the lease terms by paying reduced rentals from 1989 onward. These circumstances supported respondent’s position that the parties had agreed to substitute the leased area with different parcels, totaling the agreed approximation. Consequently, petitioner could not demand specific performance on the original terms, having herself sought and benefitted from the modification. Her failure to prove her case and her own contractual breaches justified the dismissal of her complaint.