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. After the period expired without repurchase, Fenis sold the same land to Maria Viloria on January 13, 1944. On August 21, 1944, Viloria sold the property, along with another parcel, to defendant Melencio Manansala by way of a pacto de retro sale with a one-year repurchase period. Upon expiration of that period, Manansala registered an affidavit consolidating his title on August 1, 1946. On September 28, 1947, Viloria sold the same property by absolute sale 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 property by absolute sale to the same group (Casiño, Valdez, and the plaintiffs) for P1,500, with a stipulation warranting the title free from liens and encumbrances and promising to answer for eviction. This deed was recorded under Act No. 3344 . Llanes later included Manansala, Valdez, and the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs, resulting in the attachment and sale of Valdez’s properties to cover damages and costs totaling P709.20. On March 23, 1956, the plaintiffs filed this case against Manansala to recover damages for breach of warranty against eviction. The lower court found that the warranty stipulation was merely pro forma, as the plaintiffs’ primary purpose in buying from Manansala was to register their prior deed from Viloria, and they knew the property 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 obligation as one arising from rescission of sale.

ISSUE

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

RULING

No. The defendant-appellant is not liable for breach of warranty against eviction or for rescission of the sale. The vendor’s liability for warranty against eviction is waivable under Article 1475 of the Old Civil Code (applicable at the time of the contract). 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 same land from Viloria and the property was already subject to litigation when they purchased it from Manansala. Under Article 1477 of the Old Civil Code (identical to Article 1554 of the New Civil Code), if the vendee waives the warranty with knowledge of the danger of eviction and assumes its consequences, the vendor is completely exempt from liability. Thus, Manansala is not obliged to restore the price. Furthermore, rescission is not available because the plaintiffs, having been totally evicted, cannot restore the property to the vendor, and they assumed the risk of eviction. The plaintiffs’ claim for additional damages under Article 1555 of the New Civil Code is untenable, as they did not appeal the lower court’s decision and cannot seek modification. The decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed.