SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 120724-25. May 21, 1998]

FERNANDO T. MATE, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CORT OF
A!!EAL" a#$ %NOCENC%O TAN, respondents.
D E C % " % O N
MART%NE&, J.'
In this petition for review, petitioner assails the Decision
[1]
of the Court of Appeals
dated Auust !", 1""# in CA$%&'& CV No& !(!!)$!*, which affir+ed with +odification
the decision of the trial court, the dispositive portion of which reads, to wit,
-./E'E0O'E, this Court finds the Deed of Sale with 'iht of 'epurchase
e1ecuted Octo2er *, 1"(* valid and 2indin 2etween plaintiff and defendant
3as vendor and vendee$a$retro respectivel456 that as the period to redee+ has
e1pired, ownership thereof was consolidated 24 operation of law, and the
'eister of Deeds is here24 ordered to 'E%IS7E' this decision consolidatin
the defendant8s ownership over the properties covered 24 7ransfer Certificate
of 7itle No& 7$"9$:1, coverin ;ot (6 Oriinal Certificate of 7itle No& N$<11
coverin ;ot )<:9, all of the 7aclo2an Cadastre, and issuin to defendant
Inocencio 7an his titles after cancellation of the titles presentl4 reistered in
plaintiff 0ernando 7& =ate8s na+e and that of his wife&
-7he plaintiff 0ernando =ate is further ordered to pa4 defendant the su+ of
ONE />ND'ED 0O'7? 7/O>SAND 3@1#9,999&995 @ESOS, for and as
attorne48s fees&
-.ith costs aainst the plaintiff 0ernando =ate&
-SO O'DE'ED&A
[!]
7he facts of this case, as su++ariBed in the petition, are reproduced hereunder,
-On Octo2er *, 1"(* Cosefina '& 'e4 3hereafter referred to as -CosieA for
short5 and private respondent went to the residence of petitioner at 7aclo2an
Cit4& Cosie who is a cousin of petitioner8s wife solicited his help to stave off
her and her fa+il48s prosecution 24 private respondent for violation of D&@& !!
on account of the ru22er checEs that she, her +other, sister and 2rother
issued to private respondent a+ountin to @#,#<!,9*:&99& She reFuested
petitioner to cede to private respondent his three 3<5 lots in 7aclo2an Cit4 in
order to placate hi+& On hearin Cosie8s proposal, he i++ediatel4 reGected it
as he owed private respondent nothin and he was under no o2liation to
conve4 to hi+ his properties& 0urther+ore, his lots were not for sale& Cosie
e1plained to hi+ that he was in no daner of losin his properties as he will
+erel4 e1ecute a si+ulated docu+ent transferrin the+ to private respondent
2ut the4 will 2e redee+ed 24 her with her own funds& After a lon discussion,
he areed to e1ecute a fictitious deed of sale with riht to repurchase coverin
his three 3<5 lots +entioned a2ove su2Gect to the followin conditions,
1& 7he a+ount to 2e stated in the docu+ent is @1,#99,999&99 with
interest thereon at )H a +onth6
!& 7he properties will 2e repurchased within si1 3*5 +onths or on or
2efore April #, 1"(:6
<& Althouh it would appear in the docu+ent that petitioner is the
vendor, it is Cosie who will provide the +one4 for the rede+ption
of the properties with her own funds6
#& 7itles to the properties will 2e delivered to private respondent 2ut
the sale will not 2e reistered in the 'eister of Deeds and
annotated on the titles&
-7o assure petitioner that Cosie will redee+ the aforesaid properties, she
issued to hi+ two 3!5 D@I checEs 2oth postdated Dece+2er 1), 1"(*& One
checE was for @1,#99,999&99 supposedl4 for the sellin price and the other
was for @#!9,999&99 correspondin to the interests for *
+onths& I++ediatel4 thereafter petitioner prepared the Deed of Sale with
'iht to 'epurchase 3E1h& A5 and after it has 2een sined and notariBed, it
was iven to private respondent toether with the titles of the properties and
the latter did not reister the transaction in the 'eister of Deeds as areed
upon&
-On Canuar4 1#, 1"(:, petitioner deposited the checE for @1,#99,999&99 3E1h& D5 in his
account at the >nited Coconut @lanters DanE and the other checE for@#!9,999&99 3E1h&
D5 in his account at =E7'ODANI preparator4 to the rede+ption of his
properties& /owever, 2oth of the+ were dishonored 24 the drawee 2anE for havin
2een drawn aainst a closed account& 'ealiBin that he was swindled, he sent Cosie a
telera+ a2out her checEs and when she failed to respond, he went to =anila to looE
for her 2ut she could not 2e found& So he returned to 7aclo2an Cit4 and filed Cri+inal
Cases Nos& (<19 and (<1! aainst her for violation of D&@& !! 2ut the cases were later
archived as the accused 3Cosie5 could not 2e found as she went into hidin& 7o protect
his interest, he filed Civil Case No& :<"* of the 'eional 7rial Court of ;e4te, Dranch VII,
entitled J0ernando 7& =ate vs& Cosefina '& 'e4 and Inocencio 7an8 for Annul+ent of
Contract with Da+aes& Defendant Cosefina '& 'e4 3Cosie5 was declared in default and
the case proceeded aainst private respondent& Dut durin the trial the '7C court
asEed private respondent to file an action for consolidation of ownership of the
properties su2Gect of the sale and pursuant thereto he filed Civil Case No& :)(: that was
consolidated with the case he filed earlier which were later decided Gointl4 24 the trial
court in favor of private respondent and was su2seFuentl4 appealed to respondent
Court that affir+ed it with +odification& 7hereupon, petitioner filed a +otion to
reconsider the decision 2ut it was denied& /ence, the instant petition for review&A
[<]
In this petition for review, the petitioner presents as the sole issue the validit4 of the
Deed of Sale with 'iht to 'epurchase& /e contends that it is null and void for lacE of
consideration 2ecause alleedl4 no +one4 chaned hands when he sined it and the
checEs that were issued for rede+ption of the properties involved in the sale have 2een
dishonored 24 the drawee 2anE for havin 2een drawn aainst a closed account&
[#]
7he contention is without +erit&
7here was a consideration& 7he respondent court aptl4 o2served that $
-In preparin and e1ecutin the deed of sale with riht of repurchase and in
deliverin to 7an the land titles, appellant actuall4 acco++odated Cosefina so
she would not 2e chared cri+inall4 24 7an& 7o ensure that he could
repurchase his lots, appellant ot a checE of @1,#99,999&99 fro+ her& Also, 24
allowin his titles to 2e in possession of 7an for a period of si1 +onths,
appellant secured fro+ her another checE for @#!9,999&99& .ith this
arrane+ent, appellant was convinced he had a ood 2arain& >nfortunatel4
his e1pectation cru+2led& 0or this traic incident, not onl4 Cosefina, 2ut also
7an, accordin to appellant +ust 2e answera2le&
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-It is plain that consideration e1isted at the ti+e of the e1ecution of the deed of sale with
riht of repurchase& It is not onl4 appellant8s Eindness to Cosefina, 2ein his cousin, 2ut
also his receipt of @#!9,999&99 fro+ her which i+pelled hi+ to e1ecute such contract&A
[)]
0urther+ore, while petitioner did not receive the @1&# =illion purchase price fro+
respondent 7an, he had in his possession a postdated checE of Cosie 'e4 in an
eFuivalent a+ount precisel4 to repurchase the two lots on or 2efore the si1th +onth&
As ad+itted 24 petitioner, 24 virtue of the sale with pacto de retro, Cosie 'e4 ave
hi+, as vendor-a-retro, a postdated checE in the a+ount of @1&# =illion, which
represented the repurchase price of the two 3!5 lots& Aside fro+ the @1&# =illion checE,
Cosie ave another postdated checE to petitioner in the a+ount of @#!9,999&99,
ostensi2l4 as interest for si1 3*5 +onths 2ut which apparentl4 was his fee for havin
e1ecuted the pacto de retro docu+ent& Cosie thus assu+ed the responsi2ilit4 of pa4in
the repurchase price on 2ehalf of petitioner to private respondent&
>nfortunatel4, the two checEs issued 24 Cosie 'e4 were worthless& Doth were
dishonored upon present+ent 24 petitioner with the drawee 2anEs& /owever, there is
a2solutel4 no 2asis for petitioner to file a co+plaint aainst private respondent 7an and
Cosie 'e4 to annul the pacto de retro sale on the round of lacE of consideration,
invoEin his failure to encash the two checEs& @etitioner8s cause of action was to file
cri+inal actions aainst Cosie 'e4 under D&@& !!, which he did& 7he filin of the cri+inal
cases was a tacit ad+ission 24 petitioner that there was a consideration of the pacto de
retro sale&
@etitioner further clai+s that the pacto de retro sale was su2Gect to the condition that
in the event the checEs iven 24 Cosie 'e4es to hi+ for the repurchase of the propert4
were dishonored, then the docu+ent shall 2e declared null and void for lacE of
consideration&
.e are not persuaded&
@rivate respondent 7an was alread4 poised to file cri+inal cases aainst Cosie 'e4
and her fa+il4& It would not 2e loical for respondent 7an to aree to the conditions
alleedl4 i+posed 24 petitioner& @etitioner Enew that he was 2ound 24 the deed of sale
with riht to repurchase, as evidenced 24 his filin cri+inal cases aainst Cosie 'e4
when the two checEs 2ounced&
7he respondent court further +ade the candid 2ut true o2servation that,
-If there is an42od4 to 2la+e for his predica+ent, it is appellant hi+self& /e is
a law4er& /e was the one who prepared the contract& /e Enew what he was
enterin into& Surel4, he +ust have 2een aware of the risE involved& .hen
Cosefina8s checEs 2ounced, he should have repurchased his lots with his own
+one4& Instead, he sued not onl4 Cosefina 2ut also 7an for annul+ent of
contract on the round of lacE of consideration and false pretenses on their
part&A
@etitioner then postulates that -it is not only illegal but immoral to require him to
repurchase his own properties with his own money when he did not derive any benefit
from the transaction&A 7hus, he invoEes the case of Singson vs. Isabela Sawmill, 88
SCR !"", !#", where the Court said that $where one or two innocent persons must
suffer, that person who gave occasion for the damages to be caused must bear
consequences.% @etitioner8s reliance on this doctrine is +isplaced& /e is not an
innocent person& As a +atter of fact, he ave occasion for the da+ae caused 24 virtue
of the deed of sale with riht to repurchase which he prepared and sined& 7hus, there
is the eFuita2le +a1i+ that between two innocent parties, the one who made it possible
for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.
[*]
@etitioner further insinuates that private respondent deceived hi+ into sinin the
deed of sale with riht to repurchase& 7his is not 2orne out 24 the evidence nor 24
petitioner8s own statement of facts which we heretofore reproduced& As aptl4 o2served
24 the respondent court $&e are at a loss why herein appellant ascribes false pretenses
to 'an who merely signed the contract.A
[:]
Contrar4 to petitioner8s pretension, respondent
7an did not e+plo4 an4 devious sche+e to +aEe the for+er sin the deed of sale& It is
to 2e noted that 7an waived his riht to collect fro+ Cosefina 'e4 24 virtue of the pacto
de retro sale& In turn, Cosefina ave petitioner a postdated checE in the a+ount of @1&#
=illion to ensure that the latter would not lose his two lots& @etitioner, a law4er, should
have Enown that the transaction was frauht with risEs since Cosefina 'e4 and fa+il4
had a checEered histor4 of issuin worthless checEs& Dut had petitioner not areed to
the arrane+ent, respondent 7an would not have areed to waive prosecution of
Cosefina 'e4&
Apparentl4, it was petitioner8s reed for a hue profit that i+pelled hi+ to accede to
the sche+e of Cosefina 'e4 even if he Enew it was a danerous undertaEin& .hen he
drafted the pacto de retro docu+ent, he threw caution to the winds forettin that
prudence +iht have 2een the 2etter course of action& .e can onl4 s4+pathiBe with
petitioner8s predica+ent& /owever, a contract is a contract& Once areed upon, and
provided all the essential ele+ents are present, it is valid and 2indin 2etween the
parties&
@etitioner has no one to 2la+e 2ut hi+self for his +isfortune&
(HEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated Auust !", 1""# is
here24 A00I'=ED& 7he petition for review is here24 DENIED D>E CO>'SE for lacE
of +erit&
"O ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), *elo, +uno, and *endo,a, --., concur.
[1]
@enned 24 Associate Custice Anelina S& %utierreB 37welfth Division5 and concurred in 24 Associate
Custices Cai+e =& ;antin and Conchita Carpio =orales6 pp& !*$<1, Rollo&
[!]
'7C Decision, pp& 1:$1(, 'ecords&
[<]
pp& ):$*9, Rollo&
[#]
@etitioner8s =e+orandu+6 p& *9, Rollo&
[)]
p& <9, Rollo&
[*]
Dacaltos Coal =ines vs& Court of Appeals, !#) SC'A #*9&
[:]
p& <9, Rollo&