Sañga v. Zaballero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: By a public instrument dated March 11, 1930, Nieves E. Sañga sold two parcels of land to Segundo Zaballero and Filomena Santos for P32,000. The purchasers paid P10,000 upon registration and agreed to pay the balance by monthly installments of P600. The same instrument included a mortgage in favor of the vendor for P22,000. Procedural History: The vendees failed to make good some of the installments. The vendor initiated an action in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas for the foreclosure of the mortgage. The lower court rendered a judgment ordering the defendants to pay the overdue installments and future installments until the mortgage was fully satisfied, with a provision for public auction in case of non-payment. The Petition: The defendants appealed the decision, assigning errors related to the lower court's refusal to grant a reduction in the purchase price, the incorrect calculation of payments made, and the foreclosure of the mortgage despite the absence of an acceleration clause and the fact that the total indebtedness was not yet due.
Issue(s)
Whether the vendees are entitled to a reduction of the purchase price due to an alleged deficiency in the number of coconut trees on the land. Whether the lower court erred in its computation of the payments made by the defendants. Whether the mortgage could be foreclosed upon failure to pay some installments before the entire debt became due, in the absence of an express acceleration clause.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed with modification. The defendants are deemed to have paid P10,200 on the mortgage, leaving a balance of P11,800. The plaintiff is granted the right to ask for foreclosure for installments not due when the action was instituted but which have accrued during the pendency of the action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to a reduction of the purchase price: The Court held that the vendees are not entitled to a reduction of the purchase price based on the number of coconut trees. The vendees did not receive less land than they bargained for. The discrepancy in the estimated number of coconut trees does not warrant rescission, especially since both parties had equal opportunity to inspect the land. The Court emphasized that when the means of knowledge are readily available and equally accessible to both parties, a buyer cannot claim to have been deceived. Furthermore, any act by the buyer after discovering the alleged fraud or mutual mistake, which indicates an intention to proceed with the contract, constitutes an irrevocable election to abide by the contract. On the computation of payments made: The Court sustained the second assignment of error, acknowledging that the lower court erred in calculating the payments made by the vendees. While the trial judge declared the payments to be P8,750, the appellee conceded this to be an error and suggested P9,500. However, the appellants insisted on P10,200. The Court found that the arithmetical addition of the exhibits confirmed the appellants' figure. Given that the plaintiff's records were burned and her estimate was based on calculations, the Court decided to abide by the figures appearing in the receipts, concluding that the defendants had paid P10,200 on their debt, leaving a balance of P11,800. On the foreclosure of the mortgage: The Court overruled the third assignment of error with explanation. The Court cited Section 259 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs proceedings when a mortgage debt is payable in installments. The generally accepted rule, which is also adhered to in California from which the section was derived, is that default in any installment gives the mortgagee the right to foreclose for such installments without waiting for the maturity of the entire debt. The Court affirmed the trial court's action in ordering the foreclosure for the installments due. Furthermore, the Court sustained the provision for future contingencies, as Section 259 allows the court, upon motion, to order the sale of more property as more of the debt becomes due. The plaintiff has the right to present such a motion to the trial court.
Main Doctrine
Where a mortgage debt is payable in installments, default in the payment of any installment gives the mortgagee a right to foreclose as to such installments without waiting for the maturity of the whole debt, as provided by Section 259 of the Code of Civil Procedure.