G.R. No. L-14714; April 30, 1960
ARISTON ANDAYA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. DR. MELENCIO MANANSALA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On June 13, 1934, Isidro Fenis sold a parcel of land to Eustaquia Llanes with a right of repurchase within five years. Fenis failed to repurchase and later sold the same land to Maria Viloria on January 13, 1944. On August 21, 1944, Viloria sold the land, along with another parcel, to defendant Melencio Manansala by way of a pacto de retro sale with a one-year repurchase period. After the period lapsed, Manansala consolidated his title on August 1, 1946, by registering an affidavit with the Register of Deeds. On September 28, 1947, Viloria sold the same land absolutely to Ciriaco Casiño, Fidela Valdez, and plaintiff spouses Ariston Andaya and Micaela Cabrito for P4,800. On October 18, 1947, Eustaquia Llanes filed Civil Case No. 399 to quiet title and recover possession from Casiño. On June 9, 1948, Manansala sold the land absolutely to the same group (Casiño, Valdez, and the Andaya spouses) for P1,500, with a deed containing a warranty against eviction. This deed was registered under Act No. 3344 . Llanes later included Manansala, Valdez, and the Andaya spouses as defendants in Civil Case No. 399. Judgment was rendered in favor of Llanes, and upon finality, a writ of execution was issued against Casiño, Valdez, and the Andaya spouses, resulting in the attachment and sale of Valdez’s properties to cover damages and costs totaling P709.20. On March 23, 1956, the Andaya spouses sued Manansala for damages due to breach of warranty against eviction. The lower court found that the warranty stipulation was merely pro forma, as the plaintiffs had already purchased the land from Viloria and bought it again from Manansala only to register their prior deed, knowing the land was under litigation. The court held Manansala not liable for breach of warranty but ordered him to return P750 (half the purchase price) with interest, treating the sale as rescinded.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant-appellant Melencio Manansala is liable to the plaintiffs-appellees for breach of warranty against eviction or for rescission of the sale.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the complaint. The vendor’s liability for warranty against eviction is waivable under Article 1477 of the Old Civil Code (applicable to the 1948 sale). The lower court found that the parties understood the warranty stipulation was pro forma, and the plaintiffs knew of the danger of eviction and assumed its consequences, as they had previously bought the land from Viloria and were already defendants in Llanes’s suit when they purchased from Manansala. Thus, the plaintiffs effectively waived the warranty. Under Article 1477, if the vendee waives the warranty with knowledge of the danger of eviction and assumes its consequences, the vendor is completely exempt from liability. The Court also held that rescission is not applicable because: (1) rescission requires the vendee to return what was received, which is impossible here due to total eviction; and (2) the plaintiffs assumed the risk of eviction. Additionally, the plaintiffs, not having appealed, cannot seek modification or additional damages. Costs were awarded against the appellees.