Facts:

• The case involves a breach of contract dispute between the Intestate Estate of Clemente del Castillo, represented by Luisa A. Vda. de Del Castillo (plaintiff-appellant), and Rafael P. Guerrero (defendant-appellant).
• On May 10, 1946, the estate, through Atty. Sergio del Castillo, contracted Guerrero to subdivide and perform a parcellary survey of several lots in Bago Cadastre, Occidental Negros, for P800.00.
• Payment was structured in three installments: P270.00 upon signing, P270.00 upon survey completion, and P260.00 upon plan approval by the Bureau of Lands.
• Subdivision surveys, excluding Lot No. 2283, were completed in June 1946, and the plan was approved in April 1947.
• On December 2, 1950, Guerrero filed for the payment of the balance due, which was granted and paid by April 30, 1951.
• On February 12, 1954, the estate filed a complaint for damages, alleging Guerrero's failure to subdivide Lot No. "2983" and perform the parcellary survey.
• The lower court dismissed both the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's counterclaim for damages.
• Both parties appealed the decision.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing both the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's counte...(Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Waiver of Right to Raise Questions of Fact:

   • The plaintiff waived the right to raise questions of fact by appealing to the Supreme Court and submitting a joint record on appeal without objecting to the lower court's order.
   • This indicated the plaintiff's intent to submit to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is limited to questions of law.

2. Contract Interpretation:

   • The Court upheld the lower court's finding that the contract explicitly mentioned Lot No. 2283, not Lot No. 2983.
   • The plaintiff is barred from challenging this factual conclusion, making the status of Lot No. 2983 irrelevant.

3. Breach of Contract:

   • The Court agreed that the heirs were agreeable to not subdividing Lot No. 2283, as shown by their lack of opposition to Guerrero's motion for payment and the absence of an appeal against the order.
   • The order for payment, which was not appealed, determined the rights arising from the contract and was binding on the parties.

4. Parcellary Survey:

   • The Court found no merit in the plaintiff's claim that Guerrero's failure to perform the parcellary survey constituted a breach of contract.
   • Evidence showed that a parcellary survey could not be conducted wi...continue reading