Title
Robles vs. Hermanos
Case
G.R. No. 26173
Decision Date
Jul 13, 1927
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, mandating compensation for hacienda improvements and breach of contract damages, affirming the admissibility of oral evidence for collateral agreements and the buyer's liability for received goods.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 26173)

Facts:

  • The case Zacarias Robles vs. Lizarraga Hermanos was filed in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.
  • Zacarias Robles (plaintiff) sought compensation from Lizarraga Hermanos (defendant), a mercantile partnership.
  • The dispute arose from improvements made by Robles on the hacienda "Nahalinan" and the value of farming equipment he supplied.
  • The hacienda was originally owned by Zacarias Robles and his wife, Anastacia de la Rama.
  • After the death of Zacarias Robles, Sr., Anastacia became the administratrix and leased the hacienda to their son, Zacarias Robles, for six years at an annual rent of P2,000.
  • The lease stipulated that any permanent improvements would be at the lessee's expense without right to indemnity at the lease's end.
  • Zacarias Robles made significant improvements and incurred substantial costs.
  • Following Anastacia's death in 1916, her heirs sold the property to Lizarraga Hermanos.
  • During negotiations, it was proposed that Zacarias surrender the last two years of his lease in exchange for compensation for improvements and purchase of personal property.
  • The written contract executed on November 16, 1917, did not include these terms.
  • Disputes arose regarding compensation, leading to the trial court ruling in favor of Zacarias Robles, awarding him P14,194.42.
  • Lizarraga Hermanos appealed the decision.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The trial court did not err in admitting oral evidence of a contract different from the written contract of sale.
  • The oral agreement regarding compensation for improvements and personal property was enforceable.
  • The stipulation for appraisal did not create a suspensive condition that rendered the oral agreement ineffective.
  • The defendant is obligated to indemnify the pla...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the oral agreement was independent of the written contract of sale.
  • While written contracts typically supersede prior oral agreements, exceptions exist for collateral agreements that do not contradict written terms.
  • Evidence, including ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.