SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240904. July 12, 2021.]
SPOUSES RENE AND FILIPINA CUYCO, petitioners, v.GARCIA INTERNATIONAL ART GALLERY, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240904 (Spouses Rene and Filipina Cuyco v. Garcia International Art Gallery, Inc.). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated September 15, 2016 and Resolution 3 dated July 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104398, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated September 7, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 218, in Civil Case No. Q-08-62654. 4
ANTECEDENTS
Between December 2006 and January 2007, Garcia International Art Gallery, Inc. (respondent) delivered various furniture, fixtures, and lightings to Spouses Rene and Filipina Cuyco's (petitioners) house, each covered by a "Demo Delivery Receipt." Petitioners returned some of these items, and retained a few that they liked. Respondent alleged that the items retained were agreed to be paid in two installments. For such purpose, two Metrobank checks were issued amounting to P4,000,000.00 and P3,571,000.00, which were dishonored upon presentment for payment. Upon demand, petitioners were able to pay P1,000,000.00, but the rest of the obligation remained unpaid. Hence, on May 27, 2008, the respondent filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioners for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the retained furniture, fixtures, and lightings, amounting to P6,583,575.00. 5
Petitioners narrated a different story. They averred that the items were delivered to their house for demonstration purposes only, and those retained were supposed to be replaced by new ones to be imported from Spain and Austria. They further alleged that the two checks were for the payment of the items to be imported, which were never delivered; and the P1,000,000.00 that they paid was likewise not for the "demo items," but for the separate purchase of a Mariner Television Cab and Mariner Chandeliers. 6
In the course of the proceedings, petitioners filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction for the removal of the items from their house and was granted in a Resolution dated May 16, 2011. 7 After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated September 17, 2014, ruling that:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court rules in favor of [respondent] and against [petitioners]. Judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Ordering [petitioners] to pay [respondent] the amount of Six Million Five Hundred [E]ighty-[T]hree [T]housand [F]ive [H]undred [S]eventy[-F]ive [P]esos ([P]6,583,575.00) Pesos [sic] with interest at 6% per annum from 29 May 2008 until the finality of this Decision and 12% per annum thereafter until full payment[;] EcTCAD
2. Ordering [petitioners] to pay [respondent] the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]300,000.00) for reasonable attorney's fees;
3. Dismissing [petitioners'] counterclaim for lack of merit; and [sic] with costs against [petitioners;] and
4. Ordering [respondent] to deliver to [petitioners] the pieces of furniture and home decors upon [petitioners'] payment of the balance of the purchase price with interest.
SO ORDERED. 8 (Emphasis in the original.)
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC with modification only as to the interest imposed and the attorney's fees as follows:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, the 07 September 2014 Decision rendered by the Branch 218, RTC of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-08-62654 is AFFIRMED subject to the modification that [petitioners] are directed to pay the balance of Six Million Five Hundred Eighty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy[-]Five Pesos ([P]6,583,575.00), with interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, computed from 27 May 2008 to 30 June 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from 01 July 2013 until full satisfaction of the judgment award. The award of attorney's fees is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.9 (Emphases in the original.)
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in the CA Resolution 10 dated July 13, 2018. Hence, this Petition, wherein petitioners insist that the items were delivered for demonstration purposes only; the checks were issued for the payment of new items yet to be imported; and the P1,000,000.00 payment was for other specific items purchased. Petitioners maintain there was no perfected contract of sale as there was no meeting of the minds of the parties upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.
ISSUE
Whether there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties, giving rise to petitioners' liability on the unpaid purchase price.
RULING
The Petition lacks merit.
The determination of whether the delivered items were for demonstration purposes only; whether the checks were issued for payment of the retained items; and whether the P1,000,000.00 was paid as partial payment for the retained items, are purely factual matters that will require us to re-examine the evidence on record. In short, petitioners would have us review once again the factual determinations of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. We have consistently ruled that under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and correcting only errors of law, not of fact; the only power of the Court being to determine if the legal conclusions drawn from the factual findings are correct. The Court is not expected or required to examine or refute the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, 11 unless the case falls under any of the jurisprudentially recognized exceptions 12 to this rule. Here, we see no reason to depart from the factual findings and conclusion of the RTC and the CA as they are fully substantiated by the evidence on record.
The very essence of a contract of sale, as can be gleaned from Article 1458 13 of the New Civil Code, is the transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised. It is classified as a consensual contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent, and no particular form is required for its validity. Article 1475 14 of the New Civil Code states that upon the perfection of the contract, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, i.e., the buyer may compel transfer of ownership and the seller may require the payment of the thing sold. 15
In this case, bearing in mind the contract's consensual nature, a contract of sale had been perfected at the precise moment in which petitioners retained some of the delivered items to their liking, and agreed to pay the amount of those items appearing on the delivery receipts as evidenced by their issuance of two checks. 16 As correctly found by the courts a quo, although the items were initially delivered for demonstration purposes, the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties reveal that there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties after delivery of the items. 17 Notably, there is nothing on record that would support petitioners' assertion that the checks were issued for the payment of items yet to be imported, and not for those items that remained in their house. The Letter dated December 6, 2007, addressed to respondent explicitly show petitioners' liability to pay the retained items, viz.:
We want to thank your company for the trust you extended to us in having your furniture and fixtures be displayed in our house, but we regret to inform you that we cannot give you the partial payment by the end of this year [2007] as we promised. We have been calling your company through MS. BARBARA ANN GIL for so many times, offering you two (2) options so that this problem will be settled once and for all.
First option is that we will give you all the documents of our condominium unit in Century Imperial Palace Suites located at corners Timog Avenue and Tomas Morato Avenue in Quezon City at [sic] partial payment. Documents such as the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), Tax Declaration, yearly Real Property Tax payments, etc., will be turned over to your company. Remaining balance will be paid until middle of next year, 2008.
Second option is that for your company to pull out all the furniture and fixtures displayed in our house. We guarantee you that all of these items are not yet used or damaged, as we have not yet transferred and occupied the house, as we are afraid to use the furniture because we have not paid your company yet. Your people have gone to our house and have seen that the furniture are [sic] all covered with clean cloth to prevent them from dust and discoloration. The furniture are [sic] still brand new like the day you delivered them. This we guarantee your company, and we are telling the truth. 18 (Emphases in the original and a new one supplied.)
Petitioners' intention is further revealed by their Letter-Reply dated December 27, 2007 to respondent's demand letter, thus: HSAcaE
The two (2) Metrobank checks my clients issued and handed in your favor in late 2006 or January, 2007 were never intended for payment or the purchased [sic] price for the furnitures [sic] as you are very well aware of. The checks postdated more than 6 months and 12 months respectively from issue were, as you represented, are mere securities for the furnitures[sic] and chandelier(s) so as, in case of damages suffered while in my client's possession (like fire, robbery [,] or any such similar nature), such would be compensated by amounts covered by the checks to the extent of the damaged[sic]it[sic]may have suffered.
Another factor worth your consideration were the several occasions that your firm has to pull out some of them and replaced with other furnitures [sic] and such has been going on for sometime [sic]. Also, when cracks appeared or paints fades [sic] while on demo at my client's house, they were also pulled out for repair. These alone disclosed that your transaction with my client were [sic] not one of sale as determination and evaluation are still being considered necessitating the constant replacement with other furnitures [sic]. 19 (Emphasis in the original omitted and a new one supplied.)
We agree with the CA's observation that, as can be inferred from this Letter-Reply, there was no agreement between the parties that there were items to be imported from Spain and Austria. 20 Instead, as petitioners themselves admitted, the checks were issued for the damages that the items may suffer while in their possession, which is inconsistent with their claim in the present case. The constant replacement of the retained items is incompatible with petitioners' claim that no sale was agreed upon with regard to the retained items; otherwise, such replacement would not have been necessary if those items were for demonstration purposes only and to be replaced by new ones imported from Spain and Austria.
The payment of P1,000,000.00 simply reinforces the conclusion that the parties agreed to the sale of the retained items. The CA did not err in finding that the evidence on record does not support petitioners' claim that this amount was paid for the purchase of items (a Mariner Television Cab and Mariner Chandeliers), separate from those subject of this case. The Official Receipt on record, acknowledging the payment of P1,000,000.00, does not identify the purchased items as described by petitioners. Rather, the receipt stated that the amount was given as "partial payment for various furniture and lighting fixtures," 21 consistent with the respondent's claim. The CA explained:
To further prove [petitioners'] stance that the items delivered were for demonstration purposes only, they claim that the One Million Pesos ([P]1,000,000.00) they paid to [respondent] was in consideration of the separate purchase of Mariner Television Cab and Mariner Chandeliers. As proof, they make reference to Sales Invoice Nos. S1-11445, S1-11446[,] and S1-11447[,] which allegedly indicate in the "left upper side portion" the description of the items purchased.
The Court is not convinced.
The sales invoices referred to are not listed as exhibits in the Formal Offer of Evidence submitted by [petitioners]. What exists in the records is the Official Receipt issued by [respondent] in the amount of One Million Pesos ([P]1,000,000.00) as "partial payment for various furniture and lighting fixtures." Although the sales invoice numbers enumerated by [petitioners] appear on the upper left side portion of the receipt, the items purchased were not specifically described as [petitioners] claim. Instead, as earlier stated, the receipt described the purpose of the payment as "partial payment for various furniture and lighting fixtures." This only bolsters [respondent's] assertion that the amount of One Million Pesos ([P]1,000,000.00) was given as partial payment of delivered items. 22 (Citations omitted.)
In all, basic is the rule that each party must prove their own affirmative allegation; one who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at the trial such amount of evidence required by law to obtain a favorable judgment, which in civil cases, is by a preponderance of the evidence. 23 In this case, as uniformly found by the RTC and CA, preponderant evidence sufficiently supports the respondent's claim that a contract of sale was perfected between the parties, giving rise to the respondent's obligation to return the items sold to petitioners, and petitioners' corresponding obligation to pay their price. We also find no reason to deviate from the interest imposed by the CA, consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence in Nacar v. Gallery Frames. 24
FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 15, 2016 and Resolution dated July 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104398 are AFFIRMED. HESIcT
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Inting, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 25 June 2021; and Lopez, J.Y. J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-45.
2.Id. at 56-74. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (Now a Member of the Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
3.Id. at 51-54.
4.Id. at 73-74.
5.Id. at 57.
6.Id. at 23 and 34.
7.Id. at 58.
8.Id. at 58-59.
9.Id. at 73-74.
10.Id. at 51-54.
11.Soriano, Jr. v. Soriano, 558 Phil. 627, 646 (2007).
12. (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises[,] or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd[,] or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record; id. at 646-647.
13. Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.
xxx xxx xxx
14. Art. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.
15.ACE Foods, Inc. v. Micro Pacific Technologies Co., Ltd., 723 Phil. 742, 751 (2013).
16. This was testified to by petitioners' own witness during cross-examination, id. at 64.
17.Rollo, p. 63.
18.Id. at 65-66.
19.Id. at 66.
20.Id. at 67.
21.Id. at 69.
22.Id.
23.ACE Foods, Inc. v. Micro Pacific Technologies Co., Ltd., supra note 15.
24. 1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
xxx xxx xxx
And, in addition to the above, judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, 2013, shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be implemented applying the rate of interest fixed therein, 716 Phil. 267, 281-282 (2013).