Title
Suntay vs. Halili
Case
G.R. No. L-12810
Decision Date
Sep 29, 1961
Plaintiff sought nullity of lease and promissory notes, alleging illegality under election laws; trial court voided contracts, citing in pari delicto; Supreme Court remanded due to jurisdictional limits.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237277)

Legal Background

The case revolves around Federico Suntay's complaint, wherein he seeks a declaration of nullity of a lease contract and several promissory notes based on claims of lack of consideration and illegality under the Civil Code and the Revised Election Code. The specific provisions invoked include Articles 1352 and 1409 of the Civil Code.

Allegations by the Plaintiff

Suntay alleges that in the 1951 elections, he was a candidate for Provincial Governor of Bulacan. He asserts that Fortunato F. Halili, then Governor, provided financial support for his campaign in exchange for a lease contract over his fishponds. Specifically, Suntay contends that he executed the lease contract for an inflated rental amount of P32,000 purely as an assurance for Halili’s advance campaign contributions, while the actual rental value should have been P64,000, implying the entire arrangement was a façade for illegal campaign financing.

Defendants' Response

The defendants responded with a counterclaim, admitting some allegations but contesting the majority. They argue that Suntay initiated the financial help request, and that Halili’s assistance was made in friendship rather than as a violation of election laws. They also stated that the rentals being too high were accepted under the premise that it would help Suntay in his election campaign while arguing the agreement was legitimate.

Court Judgment

On May 23, 1957, the Court ruled that the contract was illegal as it was made in violation of the Revised Election Code, which prohibits public utility operators from contributing to election campaigns. The court found both parties to be in pari delicto—meaning they were equally at fault—and declared the contract and promissory notes null and void. The ruling emphasized that illegal transactions do not warrant recovery.

Appeals by Both Parties

Suntay appealed the finding, claiming there was no consideration paid and that he was owed P64,000 for the value of the fishponds used. Conversely, the defendants appealed the dismissal of their counterclaims and challenged the factual findings of the trial court, including the allegation of being fictitious parties to disguise the law violations. They also claimed entitlement to damages and legal fees due to the case initiated against them by Suntay.

Jurisdictional Issue

Given the financial st

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.