Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 73573. May 23, 1991.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
324
xxx
“From the bank’s evidence, it is difficult to believe that the
plaintiffs who are personally known to the president and manager
herself, and from whom she had to hire trucks, would not have
made any move or offer to redeem the property within the
redemption period. The presumption is that they exercised
ordinary care of their concerns (Sc. 5 (d), Rule 131, Rules of Court,
Cabigao vs. Lim, 50 Phil. 844). If indeed, the plaintiffs made no
such offer during the redemption period, the defendant bank
should have presented evidence rebutting the plaintiffs’ evidence.
But it did not. While the plaintiff testified that the tender was
made to Mr. Salgado, loan clerk, and Mr. Madrid, Acting Manager
of the Bank and also board members Dr. Jing Zarate and Mr.
Rosario, none of them were presented to rebut plaintiffs’ evidence.
Hence, the presumption that if their testimony were produced, it
would be adverse to the defendant bank under Sec. 5(e) Rule
326
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001617daa0e52cf67b2f1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
2/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 197
327
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001617daa0e52cf67b2f1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
2/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 197
_______________
328
“-I-
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001617daa0e52cf67b2f1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
2/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 197
-II-
-III-
-IV-
-V-
-VI-
329
-VII-
-VIII-
-IX-
xxx
“The bank has assigned eight (8) errors in the decision but the
determinants are the first and the second. But before going into
their merits We must take note of the failure of the appellees to
file their
_______________
330
brief. Appellees did not file any motion for reconsideration. It has
to be stated there that, generally, appellee’s failure to file brief is
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001617daa0e52cf67b2f1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
2/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 197
331
_______________
332
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001617daa0e52cf67b2f1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
2/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 197
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001617daa0e52cf67b2f1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
2/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 197
price.
The second paragraph of Article 1479 of the Civil Code
ex
pressly provides:
x x x x x x x x x
“An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate
thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the
promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price.”
Thus
8
in Rural Bank of Parañaque Inc. vs. Remolado, et al.,
a commitment by the bank to resell a property, within a
specified period, although accepted by the party in whose
favor it was made, was considered an option not supported
by a consideration distinct from the price and, therefore,
not binding upon the promissor. Pursuant to Southwestern
Sugar and9 Molasses Co. vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific
Company, it was void.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED, with
costs against the Petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Petition dismissed.
——o0o——
_______________
334
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001617daa0e52cf67b2f1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
2/10/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 197
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001617daa0e52cf67b2f1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12