Title
Tiu Siuco vs. Habana
Case
G.R. No. 21106
Decision Date
Feb 21, 1924
Contractor claimed P67,000 extra for building alterations, alleging novation. Court ruled no novation, awarded P20,000 for changes, dismissed counterclaims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 21106)

Contract Details

The written contract stipulated that the total price for the building was P54,000, payable in specified installments, with a completion period of eight months. Additionally, penalties were outlined for delays in completion, with the contractor responsible for the demolition of the existing structure on the site, using salvaged materials except for those deemed unsuitable.

Changes and Disputes

Throughout the construction, various modifications were requested by the defendant, including the demolition and reconstruction of parts of the building. After the building was occupied by the defendant, issues arose regarding the total amount owed to the plaintiff, leading to a dispute that escalated into legal proceedings. The plaintiff sought to recover an additional P67,000, beyond payments already made.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the contract had essentially been annulled due to the significant changes made during construction, which justified a claim based on quantum meruit. The trial court found that there were twelve modifications requested by the defendant, of which eleven were deemed substantial and actionable. It ruled that the total amount due to the plaintiff, after considering all payments made, was P53,600, which included compensation for these changes.

Defendant's Appeal

The defendant appealed, raising numerous objections regarding the trial court’s findings, including the basis on which judgments for additional work were calculated, the valuation of changes made, and the failure to award offsets for counterclaims related to loans and delays.

Court Analysis of Novation

The appellate court closely examined the concept of novation, which involves extinguishing an old obligation while creating a new one. The court noted that valid novation requires clear evidence of mutual agreement to extinguish the old contract, an essential aspect absent in this case. The court emphasized that changes alone do not constitute a clear abandonment or annulling of the original contract.

Ruling on the Appeal

Ultimately, the appellate court found insufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that a novation had occurred. It determined that while changes were made, these did not amount to abandoning the original contract, which remained binding. The appellate court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to payment predominantly based on the original contract value and the reasonable value of additional work, arriving at a modified judgment of P20,000 to be paid by the defendant.

Dissenting Opinion

A dissenting opinion challenged the majority’s valuation of the changes, emphasizi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.