G.R. No. L-3278 July 23, 1951
TEODORO TANDA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NARCISO N. ALDAYA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Teodoro Tanda filed an action for the resolution or rescission of a pacto de retro sale of real estate executed in January 1945. He alleged that the agreed price was P20,000 in Japanese war notes, but he received only P15,000, and that the defendant-appellee Narciso N. Aldaya committed fraud. The defendant countered that he had fully paid the P20,000, presenting a receipt (Exhibits 3 and 3-A) acknowledging payment of the balance of P13,500. The trial court found that the defendant had indeed paid the full price, that the receipts were genuine, and that no fraud occurred. The plaintiff appealed, raising assignments of error primarily related to procedural rulings rather than the merits of the trial court’s factual findings.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to have the disputed receipts placed in the clerk of court’s custody for safekeeping.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s first motion for a new trial, which challenged the court’s factual findings.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to suspend judgment based on a criminal complaint for forgery filed against the defendant after the civil decision.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s supplemental motion for a new trial, which argued the contract was void due to illicit consideration (alleged illegal devaluation of Japanese war notes).

RULING

1. No error in denying custody motion. The plaintiff’s ex parte motion to have the clerk retain the receipts was not sanctioned by the Rules of Court, which only allowed inspection and copying, not deprivation of the lawful owner’s possession. The denial was non-prejudicial, as the plaintiff could still inspect the documents, and they were later submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation without any shown tampering.
2. No error in denying first motion for new trial. The motion attacked the trial court’s factual findings, which are within the court’s discretion. The plaintiff’s remedy was to appeal the decision, not to reargue the evidence.
3. No error in denying motion to suspend judgment. Suspension of a civil judgment is not allowed under the Rules simply because a criminal complaint was filed against the winning party for introducing alleged false evidence. Such a rule would enable losing parties to obstruct judgments improperly.
4. No error in denying supplemental motion for new trial. The contract was not void. The parties were free to agree on the repurchase price in relation to the currency received. The plaintiff, a lawyer who drafted the deed, benefited from the agreed rate. The law does not relieve parties from unwise contracts entered into knowingly without fraud. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.