G.R. No. L-5340 August 31, 1954
ANDRES ACHONDOA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARCELO ROTEA, JOAQUINA ROTEA, BEATRIZ ROTEA and PASTORA ROTEA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On March 20, 1933, defendants Joaquina, Beatriz, and Pastora Rotea (the latter two represented by Marcelo Rotea) sold a steam sugar cane mill and accessories to plaintiff Andres Achondoa for P1,800 via a public instrument. Prior to this sale, on February 18, 1932, Marcelo Rotea had assigned the same mill to his brother Jose Rotea in a private instrument. Achondoa’s mechanic took possession and began dismounting the mill. However, Laureano Flores, who allegedly bought the mill from Jose Rotea, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros to claim ownership and enjoin Achondoa from removing the mill. The trial court ruled in favor of Flores, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, declaring Achondoa the lawful owner as he was the first vendee to take possession, and dismissed Achondoa’s counterclaim for P32,000 in damages as speculative, noting he had been planting sugar cane since 1931, before purchasing the mill. Before this appellate decision was promulgated, Achondoa filed the present action on June 29, 1939, against the Rotea defendants to rescind the sale contract and recover the purchase price plus P51,000 in damages. After procedural events including a destroyed record during the war, reconstitution, and a new trial, the Court of First Instance of Occidental Misamis dismissed Achondoa’s complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the contract of sale between Achondoa and the Rotea defendants should be rescinded, and whether Achondoa is entitled to recover damages from them.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The sale by the defendants to Achondoa was made in good faith at his insistent request. The prior assignment to Jose Rotea was ineffective due to the objection of their father, Luis Rotea, a co-owner, and being a private instrument, it could not prevail over the subsequent sale by public document to Achondoa, who took possession. The defendants, as vendors in good faith, fulfilled their obligations by delivering possession and, when Achondoa’s possession was disturbed by Flores’ lawsuit, they engaged and paid for an attorney to defend Achondoa, provided evidence, and appealed the adverse trial court decision, securing a reversal in his favor. Achondoa’s failure to fully dismount and ship the mill was not due to any fault of the defendants. His claim for damages was without basis, as the Court of Appeals had already ruled his alleged damages were speculative, and he had been planting sugar cane since 1931, not in anticipation of acquiring the mill in 1933. The contract could not be rescinded as there were no legal grounds for resolution imputable to the defendants.