G.R. No. L-11994; July 26, 1960
Intestate Estate of CLEMENTE DEL CASTILLO, represented by the Administratrix LUISA A. VDA. DE DEL CASTILLO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On May 10, 1946, the Intestate Estate of Clemente del Castillo, acting through heir Atty. Sergio del Castillo, entered into a contract with defendant Rafael P. Guerrero, a lawyer and licensed surveyor. Guerrero bound himself to subdivide and make a parcellary survey of Lots Nos. 2171, 2172, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2182, and 2183 of the Bago Cadastre, Occidental Negros, for the aggregate sum of P800.00, payable in three installments. The subdivision surveys for the lots, except Lot No. 2283, were completed on June 20 and 25, 1946, and the subdivision plan was approved on April 24, 1947. On December 2, 1950, Guerrero filed a motion in the intestate proceedings for payment of the balance due. The court ordered the administratrix to pay Guerrero P380.00 on February 7, 1951, which was complied with on April 30, 1951. About three years later, on February 12, 1954, the Estate, represented by Atty. Sergio del Castillo, filed an action for damages, alleging Guerrero breached the contract by failing to subdivide Lot No. “2983” (erroneously mentioned in the complaint instead of Lot No. 2283) and to make the parcellary survey. The trial court dismissed both the complaint and Guerrero’s counterclaim for damages. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the contract did not include Lot No. 2983 and that Lot No. 2283 was the intended lot.
2. Whether the trial court erred in its presumption regarding the status of Lot No. 2983.
3. Whether the trial court erred in considering plaintiff’s delay in complaining as laches.
4. Whether the trial court erred in allowing parol evidence or the heirs (non-parties) to vary the terms of the written agreement.
5. Whether the trial court erred in holding that Guerrero’s failure to subdivide Lot No. 2283 and provide parcellary plans did not constitute a breach of contract entitling plaintiff to damages.
6. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing defendant’s counterclaim for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. On the first assignment of error (Lot 2983 vs. Lot 2283): The Court held this involved a question of fact. By filing a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, submitting a joint record on appeal, and failing to object to its approval, the plaintiff waived its right to raise factual questions and submitted to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, which in this case is limited to questions of law. The trial court’s finding that the contract covered Lot No. 2283, not Lot No. 2983, is thus conclusive.
2. On the second assignment of error (status of Lot 2983): In light of the disposition of the first error, this issue need not be passed upon.
3. & 4. On the third and fourth assignments of error (breach for not subdividing Lot 2283): The Court found no merit. Evidence indicated the lot was not subdivided at the behest of some heirs (though Atty. Del Castillo did not consent). The Court agreed with the trial judge that the heirs, except Atty. Del Castillo, were agreeable, as shown by their lack of interest in the case. Crucially, neither the heirs nor the administratrix opposed Guerrero’s 1950 motion for payment of the balance, no appeal was taken from the order granting it, and the order was complied with. This unappealed order, absent fraud, is determinative of the rights under the contract and binding on the plaintiff.
5. On the fifth assignment of error (breach for not making parcellary survey): The Court found no merit. The trial court correctly found that a parcellary survey in its common technical sense could not be made at the time because the fields were not yet planted with sugar cane or other crops (planting occurred around 1947, almost a year after the subdivision survey). Guerrero had informed the plaintiff of this inability and was not notified when the fields were later formed. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s long delay in complaining and the lack of interest from other heirs weakened its claim. The Court also noted the plaintiff’s initial claim for less than P2,000 damages, increased only after a jurisdictional challenge, which detracted from the suit’s merit.
6. On defendant’s appeal (dismissal of counterclaim): The Court affirmed the dismissal. The trial court correctly found that the mere filing of a civil action, without publicity, did not warrant damages for injury to Guerrero’s professional reputation. As a veteran lawyer, he would be familiar with judicial proceedings. His absolution from the complaint itself was a sufficient reward. The assessment of damages is discretionary under Article 2216 of the Civil Code, and the lower court exercised this discretion judiciously.
DISPOSITIVE:
The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.