GR L 14539; (December, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14539
December 18, 1920
FELISA OSORIO and DANIEL TIRONA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. CHAS R. BENNET, district engineer of Cavite, and THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CAVITE, defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
Plaintiffs Felisa Osorio and Daniel Tirona are the registered owners of a fishery. In September 1916, the defendants occupied a portion of the land (13,000 square meters) to construct a provincial road. The plaintiffs alleged that they ceded the land subject to conditions: (1) the defendants would fill the road using mud excavated from the higher part of the fishery to level and enlarge it, and (2) the defendants would pay for the value of the fishery’s existing wall used as one side of the road, with the payment based on the cost of the new wall to be built by the defendants. The defendants failed to fully comply with these conditions. The plaintiffs filed an action to recover the value of the land taken, damages for another portion rendered useless, loss of fish due to a damaged dike, and unrealized profits. The trial court absolved the defendants, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the cession and recover indemnity due to the defendants’ failure to comply with the conditions of the cession.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The cession of land was a reciprocal obligation. Under Article 1124 of the Civil Code, the plaintiffs have the right to resolve (rescind) the obligation due to the defendants’ substantial non-compliance. The defendants’ claim that the occupied land was part of an old provincial road was not substantiated by the evidence. The Court fixed the value of the taken land at P0.04 per square meter (total P520), based on the plaintiff Tirona’s own prior assessment, not the claimed P1.00 per square meter. The plaintiffs are entitled to legal interest of 6% per annum from September 1916 as damages for lost profits. Claims for the value of the unexcavated mud and the escaped fish were denied. The remedy of resolution is alternative to specific performance; having chosen to rescind, the plaintiffs cannot simultaneously claim the cost of the unperformed excavation. The defendants were ordered to pay P520.40 with interest and were absolved from all other claims.