G.R. No. L-11513, December 4, 1917
LAMBERTO SONGCO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE C. SELLNER, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
In December 1915, defendant George C. Sellner owned a farm adjacent to plaintiff Lamberto Songco’s farm in Floridablanca, Pampanga. Both properties had standing sugar cane ready for harvest. Sellner, intending to mill his cane at a nearby sugar central and secure a right of way over Songco’s land, purchased Songco’s uncut cane for P12,000, payable through three promissory notes of P4,000 each. Sellner paid two notes but refused to pay the third, prompting Songco to file an action for collection. Sellner defended by alleging that Songco fraudulently misrepresented the cane’s yield, estimating it would produce 3,000 piculs of sugar when it only yielded 2,017 piculs gross (net even less after milling tolls). Sellner also counterclaimed for damages due to an allegedly wrongful attachment sued out by Songco.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the promissory note’s genuineness and due execution were properly admitted in evidence despite Sellner’s general denial and allegation of fraud.
2. Whether Songco’s false representation as to the cane’s estimated yield constitutes actionable fraud warranting rescission of the contract or avoidance of the note.
3. Whether the lower court erred in its award of damages related to the attachment.

RULING:
1. On the promissory note’s admissibility: The Court held that a general denial under oath does not raise an issue as to a written instrument’s genuineness or due execution under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A specific denial is required. Sellner’s plea of fraudulent procurement actually admitted the note’s genuineness and due execution, as it sought avoidance on grounds extrinsic to execution. Thus, the trial court correctly admitted the note.

2. On the alleged fraudulent representation: The Court ruled that Songco’s estimate of the cane’s yield was a mere opinion, not an actionable misrepresentation of fact. While Songco’s estimate was exaggerated and disingenuous, Sellner had the opportunity to inspect the fields, measure the area (96.5 hectares), and assess the cane himself. Songco’s refusal to guarantee the estimate further signaled it was opinion, not warranty. The law distinguishes between seller’s “puffery” or trade talk and fraudulent assertions of fact; reliance on such opinions is at the buyer’s peril. Expert knowledge by one party does not automatically create an exception here, as Sellner could have conducted his own due diligence.

3. On damages for wrongful attachment: The lower court correctly awarded Sellner only the actual expenses incurred in dissolving the attachment, as other claimed damages (e.g., loss from forced sugar sale due to credit denial) were too remote and speculative. Punitive damages were also properly denied for lack of malice.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED, with costs against appellant Sellner.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.