Case Digest (G.R. No. 21106)
Facts:
Tiu Siuco v. Simeon Habana, G.R. No. 21106, February 21, 1924, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellee, Tiu Siuco, a contractor and builder in Iloilo, entered into a written contract on October 6, 1920 with defendant Simeon Habana for the construction of a specified building on a lot in the cadaster of Jaro. The contract fixed the plans, specifications, materials, and a contract price of P54,000, to be paid in specified installments; it required completion within eight months, provided a P10 daily penalty for delay, gave the owner the right to employ an inspector, and expressly required that the existing strong-material house on the lot be torn down and its sound materials reused except rotten parts. The contractor (plaintiff) agreed to furnish labor and materials at his own expense.
During construction the defendant requested numerous changes and alterations; certain completed portions were ordered torn down and rebuilt to conform to the defendant’s wishes. The building was substantially completed, defendant took possession, and it is admitted the defendant paid P54,000 plus an additional P4,000 (total P58,000 admitted in the complaint; later the parties treated P58,404 as paid). The plaintiff presented a claim after possession; negotiations failed and plaintiff sued to recover an alleged unpaid balance. Although the contract remained in writing, plaintiff’s theory at trial was that the cumulative effect of changes amounted to a novation of the original contract so that he could recover on a quantum meruit for the remodeled building’s reasonable value (he alleged the remodeled value was P125,000 and sought P67,000 above the payments already made).
Federico Montinola was substituted as the real party in interest defendant. The amended answer admitted the contract and certain changes, alleged agreement to pay reasonable value for those changes, asserted that from January 6, 1922 there was delay and that the building was never fully completed, and interposed counterclaims (including an alleged loan of P4,404 and claims for penalties and contractor’s percentage). After trial the trial court found for plaintiff and awarded P53,600 with interest from December 28, 1921, absolving defendant of his counterclaims.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning multiple errors including that the trial court improperly based its judgment on an estimated value of the house rather than the express contract price plus reasonable value of extras, and disputing various itemized awards. The Supreme Court granted ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the written contract novated (extinguished) by the parties’ conduct so as to permit plaintiff to recover on a quantum meruit?
- If there was no novation, what recovery, if any, was plaintiff entitled to for changes, alterations and extra work?
- Were defendant’s counterclaims (including the alleged loan of P4,404, the claimed 5% contractor’s fee, and dela...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)