G.R. No. L-21935. February 22, 1978. PILAR T. BAUTISTA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE MA. MAXINO, LORETO CAPINPIN DE MAXINO, FRANCISCO G. GUBALLA, and BEATRIZ MANALAYSAY DE GUBALLA, defendants, JOSE MA. MAXINO and LORETO CAPINPIN DE MAXINO, defendants-appellants.
FACTS

On March 19, 1956, defendants-appellants Jose Ma. Maxino and Loreto Capinpin de Maxino sold a hacienda and fishponds to plaintiff-appellee Pilar T. Bautista for P70,000.00, with Bautista assuming an existing mortgage debt to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC). On May 17, 1958, Bautista sold the same property to the San Jose Development Company, represented by Francisco G. Guballa, for P80,000.00, payable in installments. On the same date, the Maxinos executed a “Waiver of Rights” relinquishing claims against Bautista from a related promissory note. Unbeknownst to Bautista, on August 7, 1958, the Maxinos also executed a deed of sale for the same property directly to the spouses Francisco G. Guballa and Beatriz Manalaysay de Guballa. When Guballa defaulted on his balance of P30,000.00 owed to Bautista, she filed a collection suit. She impleaded the Maxinos as defendants, alleging they conspired with the Guballas to defraud her through the execution of the second sale (Exhibit C), despite the Maxinos no longer owning the property.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the counterclaim of the Maxino spouses for various damages against Bautista.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the counterclaim, finding all claims for damages without legal basis. First, the claim for an additional P80,000.00 purchase price based on a promissory note was extinguished by the Maxinos’ own “Waiver of Rights.” Second, expenses allegedly incurred to prevent RFC foreclosure were unnecessary as ownership and the obligation had already been transferred to Bautista. Third, reimbursement for laborers’ wages paid by the Maxinos was unjustified as the debt accrued prior to the sale to Bautista and was not assumed by her. Fourth, the claim for the value of fruits gathered by Bautista failed because enjoying fruits is an attribute of ownership, and there was no proof of fraudulent enrichment, especially since she paid a substantial cash price. Finally, the claim for damages due to malicious suit was rejected. The Court found Bautista’s act of impleading the Maxinos was not malicious. Her suspicion of conspiracy was understandable given that the Maxinos, who had negotiated the sale to Guballa, later executed a direct deed of sale for property they no longer owned, at a time when Guballa was already in default to her. This sequence lent credence to her good-faith suspicion, negating any finding of spite or ill motive required for an award of damages. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.