GR L 13230; (November, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13230; November 23, 1959
DEMETRIO BUNAYOG, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SIXTO CHIONG, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On September 6, 1956, plaintiff Demetrio Bunayog filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental against defendant Sixto Chiong. The complaint prayed for the consolidation of ownership over a property, alleging that the defendant failed to redeem it under their agreed pacto de retro sale. The plaintiff also sought damages and attorney’s fees. In his answer, the defendant admitted selling the property to the plaintiff with an option to repurchase within a stipulated period and acknowledged his failure to exercise that right. However, he denied violating any condition of the contract that would entitle the plaintiff to damages. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings regarding the consolidation of ownership, suggesting that the claim for damages could be set for hearing if deemed tenable. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that while ownership consolidation was undisputed, the damages claim was contested and required a hearing. On January 12, 1957, the trial court rendered judgment, consolidating ownership in favor of the plaintiff but denying the claim for damages as untenable, without awarding costs. The plaintiff appealed, contending that the trial court erred in not finding a violation of the contract due to the failure to redeem and in not awarding damages.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant’s failure to redeem the property under the pacto de retro sale constitutes a violation of the contract that entitles the plaintiff to damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the appeal lacked merit. The Court examined the contract terms and the complaint’s allegations, noting that the defendant only bound himself to pay damages, court fees, and attorney’s fees if he violated any stipulated conditions. The failure to redeem the property was not a violation of the contract but a right the defendant could waive. Such failure did not give rise to damages. The Court also noted that the plaintiff’s brief referenced facts suggesting bad faith by the defendant (e.g., selling property he knew he did not own), but these facts were not alleged in the complaint and could not be considered on appeal. The order was affirmed without costs.