G.R. No. L-1116, November 2, 1903
TELESFORO DE DIOS CHUA SOCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARIANO VELOSO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
In 1897, plaintiff Telesforo de Dios Chua Soco entered into a verbal contract with Don Buenaventura Veloso to construct the roof of a warehouse for $5.50 per square meter, supplying all materials and labor. Work commenced in November 1897 but was interrupted in April 1898 due to the insurrection. The plaintiff left Cebu and returned in May 1899. In the interim, Don Buenaventura Veloso died (in June 1897), and his brother, defendant Mariano Veloso, who succeeded to the rights over the building, had resumed construction using another contractor shortly before the plaintiff’s return, refusing the plaintiff’s intervention. In 1902, the plaintiff filed an action to recover 9,000 pesos, representing costs of materials (galvanized iron, timber, others), labor, and anticipated profits. The trial court awarded the plaintiff 2,655 pesos. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the defendant used the plaintiff’s galvanized iron and timber materials left at the construction site.

3. Whether the trial court correctly computed the amounts recoverable for labor and materials.
4. Whether the defendant’s objections to the admissibility of certain evidence are meritorious.

RULING:
1. On the Materials: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant used his galvanized iron and timber. The evidence indicated the materials were likely lost due to the insurrection, and testimony showed the defendant used materials belonging to the original owner, Buenaventura Veloso, and his new contractor. The claim for these materials was properly disallowed.

3. On Computation of Recovery: The Court found the trial court correctly allowed recovery for the plaintiff’s labor and half the cost of timber supplied. However, it identified a computational error wherein two specific items ($50 and $37.50) were erroneously deducted twice. The judgment was modified by adding 87.50 pesos to the original award of 2,655 pesos.
4. On Evidentiary Issues: The Court rejected the defendant’s assignments of error regarding the admissibility of the plaintiff’s testimony about conversations with the deceased Buenaventura Veloso (for lack of timely objection at trial) and the enforceability of the verbal contract (settled by prior jurisprudence). The Court also found the plaintiff’s objections to certain testimony by the defendant’s witnesses to be without merit or non-prejudicial.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court is MODIFIED by adding 87.50 pesos to the plaintiff’s award, resulting in a total of 2,742.50 pesos. As modified, the judgment is AFFIRMED. No costs are awarded to either party.