December 4, 1917
Ponente: Street, J.
FACTS:
·
George C. Sellner was the owner of a farm at
Floridablanca, Pampanga. Right beside his farm was another farm owned by
Lamberto Songco. On or about December 1915, both properties had a considerable
quantity of sugar cane ready to be cut.
·
The nearest sugar central where sugar canes
were milled was located in Dinalupijan. Sellner wanted his harvest to be milled
here, but the owners of the sugar central could not accommodate him. The said
sugar central, however, was going to mill Songco's cane.
·
Sellner offered to buy Songco's canes. He did
so in order to include the canes harvested from his own farm with that of
Songco's and have these milled at the aforecited sugar central. Part of the
deal was for Songco to grant Sellner a right of way to his farm.
·
Songco sold his potential harvest to Sellner
for P12,000. Songco estimated that the canes from his farm would produce 3,000
piculs of sugar. Sellner agreed to pay in three installments amounting to
P4,000 each.
·
Sellner was able to complete the two
installments. However, he refused to pay the third and final installment. This
prompted Songco to file an action against Sellner.
·
As a defense, Sellner denied the allegations
and posited that his deal with Songco was marred by fraudulent
misrepresentation. It turned out that instead of yielding 3,000 piculs of sugar
as estimated, the canes from Songco's farm only yielded 2,017 piculs, gross,
and after the toll for milling was deducted the net left to Sellner was very
much less. Sellner also said that Songco refused to warrant his estimate.
·
The lower court ruled in favor of Songco,
ordering Sellner to pay the final P400 installment. The court nonetheless
dismissed the attachment of some of Sellner's properties because, as proven in
court, Sellner was a wealthy man who had no reason to convey away Songco's
property. The court also ordered Songco to pay damages to Sellner equivalent to
the amount actually paid out by Sellner in procuring the dissolution of the
attachment. Hence, the instant petition by Songco..
RULING:
Whether or
not Songco was disingenuous and uncandid with his estimate of the yields of his
farm produce. – YES.
·
It was fairly shown by the evidence that
Songco knew at the time he made the representation in question that he was
greatly exaggerating the probable produce of his fields, and it was impossible
to believe that his estimate honestly reflected his true opinion. He knew what
these same fields had been producing over a long period of years; and he knew
that, judging from the customary yield, the harvest in 1915 would fall far
below the amount stated.
Whether or
not the contract of sale should be voided for fraud. – NO.
·
The law allows considerable latitude to
seller's statements, or dealer's talk. The refusal of Songco to warrant his
estimate should have admonished Sellner that the said estimate was put forth as
a mere opinion. Granted, a misinterpretation upon a mere matter of opinion is
not an actionable deceit, nor is it a sufficient ground for voiding a contract
as fraudulent.
·
By relying on Songco's estimate, Sellner bound
himself to the terms stipulated in their contract. Since Sellner did so at his
own peril, he must therefore take the consequences of his own imprudence. As
such, he must pay Songco the third and final installment worth P400.
Whether or
not Sellner's properties should be levied in favor of Songco. – NO.
·
As proven in court, Sellner was a wealthy man
("a man of large resources") with no interest in conveying away
Songco's property as alleged.
·
The SC affirmed the lower court's ruling
denying further award of damages (apart from what was already given) to
Sellner, who was arguing that when one of his creditors discovered that he was
made the subject of an attachment, he was forced to sell sugar at a much lower
rate, resulting in lesser income. The SC held that such damages were remote and
speculative.