G.R. No. L-7955; May 30, 1958
JOAQUIN LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA, respondent.

FACTS

On August 26, 1943, respondent Enrique P. Ochoa executed a mortgage in favor of petitioner Joaquin Lopez over a piece of land in Manila to secure a loan of P15,000 in Japanese military notes. The contract stipulated a strict two-year term for repayment, prohibiting both early payment by the debtor and early demand for payment by the creditor. On March 1, 1944, Ochoa paid P375 as interest. On June 12, 1944, Ochoa paid P5,000 in Japanese war notes on account of the principal, for which Lopez issued a receipt. On August 25, 1944, Ochoa paid P323.62 on account of interest. On October 2, 1944, Ochoa tendered payment for the balance of the indebtedness with interest, but Lopez refused to accept it, citing the mortgage terms. Ochoa then filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila, depositing P10,631.50 in court. The case record was destroyed during the liberation of Manila. On January 30, 1950, Ochoa commenced a new action seeking a declaration that his tender and consignation constituted complete payment and for cancellation of the mortgage. Lopez countered, arguing the consignation was invalid and seeking judgment for the unpaid P10,000 with interest, attorney’s fees, and foreclosure. The trial court ruled in favor of Lopez, finding the consignation invalid as the debt was not yet due and upholding the contract terms. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment, reducing all awarded amounts to their equivalent in actual Philippine currency at a 15-to-1 ratio, ruling that Lopez’s acceptance of the P5,000 partial payment on June 12, 1944, constituted a waiver of the two-year term.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the acceptance of partial payment as a waiver of the two-year term, despite the defense of waiver not being explicitly set up in the trial court.
2. Whether there was sufficient proof of the partial P5,000 payment.
3. Whether the Ballantyne scale of values could be applied even if not set up as a defense.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in using June 1944, instead of August 1943 (the mortgage date), as the basis for revaluation under the Ballantyne scale.

RULING

1. No. The Court of Appeals did not err. While the respondent’s reply in the trial court used the term “estopped,” waiver and estoppel are frequently used as convertible terms, especially where the waiver is implied from conduct. The doctrine of waiver is based on equitable principles preventing a party from taking inconsistent positions to the injury of another.
2. No. The Court of Appeals’ finding that the partial payment was made is a factual determination supported by the receipt signed by Lopez. This factual finding is conclusive and cannot be reviewed.
3. No. The Ballantyne scale of values is a matter of judicial notice, having been applied in several previous Supreme Court cases and forming part of jurisprudence. Therefore, it can be considered even if not specifically pleaded as a defense.
4. No. The Court of Appeals correctly used June 1944 as the basis for revaluation. By accepting the partial payment on June 12, 1944, Lopez waived the two-year term, making the obligation payable from June 13, 1944, during the Japanese occupation. Subsequent attempts by Ochoa to pay the full obligation around that time were refused by Lopez. Hence, revaluation based on the relative value of Japanese military notes in June 1944 (15 to 1) was proper, not the date of the mortgage contract.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.