CHAVEZ V GONZALES

G.R No. 27454 April 30, 1970

Author: Bawar, Katrine Joyce M.

Doctrine:
The appealed judgment states that the "plaintiff delivered to the
defendant a portable typewriter for routine cleaning and servicing" ; that the
defendant was not able to finish the job after some time despite repeated
reminders made by the plaintiff" ; that the "defendant merely gave
assurances, but failed to comply with the same" ; and that "after getting
exasperated with the delay of the repair of the typewriter", the plaintiff went
to the house of the defendant and asked for its return, which was done.
Facts:
In the early part of July, 1963, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant,
who is a typewriter repairer, a portable typewriter for routine cleaning and
servicing. The defendant was not able to finish the job after some time
despite repeated reminders made by the plaintiff. The defendant asked from
the plaintiff the sum of P6.00 for the purchase of spare parts, The defendant
merely gave assurances, but failed to comply with the same. After getting
exasperated with the delay of the repair of the typewriter, the plaintiff went
to the house of the defendant and asked for the return of the typewriter. The
defendant delivered the typewriter in a wrapped package. On reaching home,
the plaintiff examined the typewriter returned to him by the defendant and
found out that the same was in shambles, with the interior cover and some
parts and screws missing. The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant formally
demanding the return of the missing parts, the interior cover and the sum of
P6.00. The following day, the defendant returned to the plaintiff some of the
missing parts, the interior cover and the P6.00.
The plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business
Machines, and the repair job cost him a total of P89.85, including labor and
materials and also commenced this action before the City Court of Manila,
demanding from the defendant the payment of P90.00 as actual and
compensatory damages, P100.00 for temperate damages, P500.00 for moral
damages, and P500.00 as attorney’s fees.
The defendant-appellee is likewise liable, under Article 1170 of the
Code, for the cost of the missing parts, in the amount of P31.10, for in his
obligation to repair the typewriter he was bound, but failed or neglected, to
return it in the same condition it was when he received it.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant is liable for the total cost of repair?
Yes. He is liable under Article 1167 of the Civil Code for this
contravention. For the cost of carrying out the obligation properly. In this
case, the cost of carrying out the obligation should be the cost of the labor or
service expended in repairing the typewriter.
Held:
The Judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the
plaintiff the sum of P31.10, and the costs of suit. The error of the court a quo
according to the plaintiff-appellant, Rosendo O. Chaves is that it awarded
only the value of the missing parts of the typewriter, instead of the whole
cost of labor and materials that went into the repair of the machine, as
provided for in Article 1167 of the Civil Code.
However, Gonzales claimed that he is not liable at all, not even for the
sum of P31.10, because his contract with plaintiff-appellant did not contain a
period. The inferences derivable from these findings of fact are that the
appellant and the appellee had a perfected contract for cleaning and
servicing a typewriter, intended that the defendant to finish it at some future
time although such time was not specified, and that such time had passed
without the work having been accomplished, for the defendant returned the
typewriter cannibalized and unrepaired, which in itself is a breach of his
obligation, without demanding that he should be given more time to finish
the job, or compensation for the work he had already done. The time for
compliance having evidently expired, and there being a breach of contract
by non-performance, it was academic for the plaintiff to have first petitioned
the court to fix a period for the performance of the contract before filing his
complaint in this case. Defendant cannot invoke Article 1197 of the Civil
Code for he virtually admitted non-performance by returning the typewriter
that he was obliged to repair in a non-working condition, with essential parts
missing. It is clear that the defendant-appellee contravened the tenor of his
obligation because he not only did not repair the typewriter but returned it
"in shambles", according to the appealed decision. The cost of the execution
of the obligation in this case should be the cost of the labor or service
expended in the repair of the typewriter, which is in the amount of P58.75,
because the obligation or contract was to repair it.
In addition, the defendant-appellee is likewise liable, under Article
1170 of the Code, for the cost of the missing parts, in the amount of P31.10,
for in his obligation to repair the typewriter he was bound, but failed or
neglected, to return it in the same condition it was when he received it. The
appealed judgment is hereby modified, by ordering the defendant-appellee to
pay, as he is hereby ordered to pay, the plaintiff-appellant the sum of P89.85,
with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint. Costs in all
instances against appellee Fructuoso Gonzales.
 Makati Tuscany Condominium v. Multi-Realty Development
Corporation
G.R. No. 185530 April, 2018
Author: Bawar, Katrine Joyce M.
Doctrine:
Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the CA,
reversing the RTC Decision dismissing the action for Reformation of
Contract with Damagesfiled by the Multi-Realty Incorporated (MDC)
against Makati Tuscany (MATUSCO)
Facts:
In 1974, Multi-Realty built Makati Tuscany, a 26-storey
condominium building located in Makati City. Multi-Realty, through its
president Henry Sy, Sr., executed and signed Makati Tuscany’s Master Deed
and Declaration of Restrictions (Master Deed), which was registered with
the Register of Deeds of Makati in 1977. Pursuant to RA No. 4726 or the
Condominium Act, Multi-Realty created and incorporated Makati Tuscany
Condominium Corporation (MATUSCO) sometime in 1977 to hold title
over and manage Makati Tuscany’s common areas. That same year, Multi-
Realty executed a Deed of Transfer of ownership of Makati Tuscany’s
common areas to MATUSCO. Multi-Realty filed a complaint for damages
and/or reformation of instrument with prayer for temporary restraining order
and/or preliminary injunction against MATUSCO before the Makati
Regional Trial Court. Multi-Realty alleged in its complaint that of the 106
parking slots designated in the Master Deed as part of the common areas,
only eight (8) slots were actually intended to be guest parking slots; thus, it
retained ownership of the remaining 98 parking slots. Multi-Realty claimed
that its ownership over the 98 parking slots was mistakenly not reflected in
the Master Deed.
Regional Trial Court dismissed Multi-Realty’s complaint, noting that
Multi-Realty itself prepared the Master Deed and Deed of Transfer. It also
emphasized that Multi-Realty’s prayer for the reformation of the Master
Deed could not be granted absent proof that MATUSCO acted fraudulently
or inequitably towards Multi-Realty. Finally, it ruled that Multi-Realty was
guilty of estoppel by deed. Both parties appealed to the Court of appeal In
dismissing Multi-Realty’s appeal, the CA held that an action for reformation
of an instrument must be brought within 10 years from the execution of the
contract. As to the dismissal of MATUSCO’s appeal, CA ruled that its claim
was based on a personal right to collect a sum of money, which had a
prescriptive period of four (4) years, and not based on a real right, with a
prescriptive period of 30 years.
Multi-Realty moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied. It
then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court granted Multi-Realty’s petition, set aside the assailed CA’s Decision,
and directed the latter to resolve Multi-Realty’s appeal. Thereafter, the CA
initially denied both appeals. On Multi-Realty’s motion for reconsideration,
however, CA reversed its Decision and directed the reformation of the
Master Deed and Deed of Transfer. MATUSCO moved for the
reconsideration of the Amended Decision, but its motion was denied. Hence,
MATUSCO filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a need to reform the Master Deed and the
Deed of Transfer
Held:
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of
Appeals April 28, 2008 Amended Decision and December 4, 2008
Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 44696 are AFFIRMED.
Reformation has the following elements: 1) there was a meeting of the
minds in a contract; 2) the instrument does not reflect the true intent of the
parties; and 3) the failureto reflect such intent is due to mistake, fraud,
inequitable conduct or accident. However, what is more difficult to ascertain
is the real intent of the parties. How is the real intent determined? Intent,
being a state of mind is determined by the acts before, during or after the
execution of the instrument. In this case, it is evident that the MDC
exercised dominion over the 98 parking lots even after the execution of
the deed. In fact, for two instances, MDC even sold some of the lots to
unit owners without any opposition from MATUSCO. These acts of
the parties are indicative of their true intent that the 98 parking lots
are not included in the Deed of Transfer.Moreover, the mistake in the
instrument is apparent. The court here gave more weight in the position
of the MDC that it was new to the industry. Its inexperience in these
situations made it vulnerable to mistakes. Considering their true intent, it
leads only to the lone conclusion that the inclusion of the parking lots
in the instrument is only by mistake.