FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 85494, May 07, 1991 ]CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI v. CA +
CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI AND/OR NIRMLA V. RAMNANI AND MOTI G. RAMNANI, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI, SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI AND OVERSEAS HOLDING CO. LTD., RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 85496. MAY 7, 1991]
SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI AND SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. PARTNERSHIP, AND OVERSEAS HOLDING CO., LTD., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI v. CA +
CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI AND/OR NIRMLA V. RAMNANI AND MOTI G. RAMNANI, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI, SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI AND OVERSEAS HOLDING CO. LTD., RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 85496. MAY 7, 1991]
SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI AND SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. PARTNERSHIP, AND OVERSEAS HOLDING CO., LTD., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
GANCAYCO, J.:
This case involves the bitter quarrel of two brothers over two (2) parcels of land and its improvements now worth a fortune. The bone of contention is the apparently conflicting factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court, the
resolution of which will materially affect the result of the contest.
The following facts are not disputed.
Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of the full blood. Ishwar and his spouse Sonya had their main business based in New York. Realizing the difficulty of managing their investments in the Philippines they executed a general power of attorney on January 24, 1966 appointing Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact, empowering them to manage and conduct their business concern in the Philippines.[1]
On February 1, 1966 and on May 16, 1966, Choithram, in his capacity as aforesaid attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, entered into two agreements for the purchase of two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from Ortigas & Company, Ltd. Partnership (Ortigas for short) with a total area of approximately 10,048 square meters.[2] Per agreement, Choithram paid the down payment and installments on the lot with his personal checks. A building was constructed thereon by Choithram in 1966 and this was occupied and rented by Jethmal Industries and a wardrobe shop called Eppie's Creation. Three other buildings were built thereon by Choithram through a loan of P100,000.00 obtained from the Merchants Bank as well as the income derived from the first building. The buildings were leased out by Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. Two of these buildings were later burned.
Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses relative to these properties during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed and refused to render such accounting. As a consequence, on February 4, 1971, Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney. Choithram and Ortigas were duly notified of such revocation on April 1, 1971 and May 24, 1971, respectively.[3] Said notice was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1971[4] and was published in the April 2, 1971, issue of The Manila Times for the information, of the general public.[5]
Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, transferred all rights and interests of Ishwar and Sonya in favor of his daughter-in-law, Nirmla Ramnani, on February 19, 1973. Her husband is Moti, son of Choithram. Upon complete payment of the lots, Ortigas executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla.[6] Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal were issued in her favor.
Thus, on October 6, 1982, Ishwar and Sonya (spouses Ishwar for short) filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Choithram and/or Spouses Nirmla and Moti (Choithram, et al. for brevity) and Ortigas for reconveyance of said properties or payment of its value and damages. An amended complaint for damages was thereafter filed by said spouses.
After the issues were joined and the trial on the merits, a decision was rendered by the trial court on December 3, 1985 dismissing the complaint and counterclaim. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by spouses Ishwar was denied on March 3, 1986.
An appeal therefrom was interposed by spouses Ishwar to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision was promulgated on March 14, 1988, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:
Choithram, et al. thereafter filed a petition for review of said judgment of the appellate court alleging the following grounds:
Another crucial issue is the claim of Choithram that because he was then a British citizen, as a temporary arrangement, he arranged the purchase of the properties in the name of Ishwar who was an American citizen and who was then qualified to purchase property in the Philippines under the then Parity Amendment. The trial court believed this account but it was debunked by the appellate court.
As to the issue of whether or not spouses Ishwar actually sent US$150,000.00 to Choithram precisely to be used in the real estate business, the trial court made the following disquisition -
True it is that there is no receipt whatever in the possession of Ishwar to evidence the same, but it is not unusual among brothers and close family members to entrust money and valuables to each other without any formalities or receipt due to the special relationship of trust between them.
And another proof thereof is the fact that Ishwar, out of frustration when Choithram failed to account for the realty business despite his demands, revoked the general power of attorney he extended to Choithram and Navalrai. Thereafter, Choithram wrote a letter to Ishwar pleading that the power of attorney be renewed or another authority to the same effect be extended, which reads as follows:
1. Choithram asked for the issuance of another power of attorney in their favor so they can continue to represent Ishwar as Ortigas has sued them for unpaid installments. It also appears therefrom that Ortigas learned of the revocation of the power of attorney so the request to issue another.
2. Choithram reassured Ishwar to have confidence in him as he was not after money, and that he was not interested in Ishwar's money.
3. To demonstrate that he can be relied upon, he said that he could have ante-dated the sales agreement of the Ortigas lots before the issuance of the powers of attorney and acquired the same in his name, if he wanted to, but he did not do so.
4. He said he had not received a single penny for expenses from Dada (their elder brother Navalrai). Thus, confirming that if he was not given money by Ishwar to buy the Ortigas lots, he could not have consummated the sale.
5. It is important to note that in said letter Choithram never claimed ownership of the property in question. He affirmed the fact that he bought the same as mere agent and in behalf of Ishwar. Neither did he mention the alleged temporary arrangement whereby Ishwar, being an American citizen, shall appear to be the buyer of the said property, but that after Choithram acquires Philippine citizenship, its ownership shall be transferred to Choitram.
This brings us to this temporary arrangement theory of Choithram.
The appellate court disposed of this matter in this wise -
Then, acting as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, Choithram purchased two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from Ortigas in 1966. With the balance of the money of Ishwar, Choithram erected a building on said lot. Subsequently, with a loan obtained from a bank and the income of the said property, Choithram constructed three other buildings thereon. He managed the business and collected the rentals. Due to their relationship of confidence it was only in 1970 when Ishwar demanded for an accounting from Choithram. And even as Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney on February 4, 1971, of which Choithram was duly notified, Choithram wrote to Ishwar on June 25, 1971 requesting that he execute a new power of attorney in their favor.[16] When Ishwar did not respond thereto, Choithram nevertheless proceeded as such attorney-in-fact to assign all the rights and interest of Ishwar to his daughter-in-law Nirmla in 1973 without the knowledge and consent of Ishwar. Ortigas in turn executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla after full payment of the purchase price of the lots.
In the prefatory statement of their petition, Choithram pictured Ishwar to be so motivated by greed and ungratefulness, who squandered the family business in New York, who had to turn to his wife for support, accustomed to living in ostentation and who resorted to blackmail in filing several criminal and civil suits against them. These statements find no support and should be stricken from the records. Indeed, they are irrelevant to the proceeding.
Moreover, assuming Ishwar is of such a low character as Choithram proposes to make this Court to believe, why is it that of all persons, under his temporary arrangement theory, Choithram opted to entrust the purchase of valuable real estate and built four buildings thereon all in the name of Ishwar? Is it not an unconscious emergence of the truth that this otherwise wayward brother of theirs was on the contrary able to raise enough capital through the generosity of his father-in-law for the purchase of the very properties in question? As the appellate court aptly observed if truly this temporary arrangement story is the only motivation, why Ishwar of all people? Why not the own son of Choithram, Haresh, who is also an American citizen and who was already 18 years old at the time of purchase in 1966? The Court agrees with the observation that this theory is an after-thought which Surfaced only when Choithram, Nirmla and Moti filed their answer.
When Ishwar asked for an accounting in 1970 and revoked the general power of attorney in 1971, Choithram had a total change of heart. He decided to claim the property as his. He caused the transfer of the rights and interest of Ishwar to Nirmla. On his representation, Ortigas executed the deeds of sale of the properties in favor of Nirmla. Choithram obviously surmised Ishwar cannot stake a valid claim over the property by so doing.
Clearly, this transfer to Nirmla is fictitious and, as admitted by Choithram, was intended only to place the property in her name until Choithram acquires Philippine citizenship.[17] What appears certain is that it appears to be a scheme of Choithram to place the property beyond the reach of Ishwar should he successfully claim the same. Thus, it must be struck down.
Worse still, on September 27,1990 spouses Ishwar filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and to require Choithram, et al. to submit certain documents, inviting the attention of this Court to the following:
a) Donation by Choithram of his 2,500 shares of stock in General Garments Corporation in favor of his children on December 29, 1989;[18]
b) Sale on August 2, 1990 by Choithram of his 100 shares in Biflex (Phils.), Inc., in favor of his children;[19] and
c) Mortgage on June 20, 1989 by Nirmla through her attorney-in-fact, Choithram, of the properties subject of this litigation, for the amount of $3 Million in favor of Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd., (Overseas for brevity), a corporation which appears to be organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Cayman Islands, with a capital of only $100.00 divided into 100 shares of $1.00 each, and with address at P.O. Box 1790, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.[20]
An opposition thereto was filed by Choithram, et al. but no documents were produced. A manifestation and reply to the opposition was filed by spouses Ishwar.
All these acts of Choithram, et al. appear to be fraudulent attempts to remove these properties to the detriment of spouses Ishwar should the (the) latter prevail in this litigation.
On December 10, 1990 the court issued a resolution that substantially reads as follows:
On January 22, 1991, Choitram, et al., filed a motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction alleging that there is no basis therefor as in the amended complaint what is sought is actual damages and not a reconveyance of the property, that there is no reason for its issuance, and that acts already executed cannot be enjoined. They also offered to file a counter-bond to dissolve the writ.
A comment/opposition thereto was filed by spouses Ishwar that there is basis for the injunction as the alleged mortgage of the property is simulated and the other donations of the shares of Choithram to his children are fraudulent schemes to negate any judgment the Court may render for petitioners.
No comment or answer was filed by Overseas despite due notice, thus it is and must be considered to be in default and to have lost the right to contest the representations of spouses Ishwar to declare the aforesaid alleged mortgage null and void.
This purported mortgage of the subject properties in litigation appears to be fraudulent and simulated. The stated amount of $3 Million for which it was mortgaged is much more than the value of the mortgaged properties and its improvements. The alleged mortgagee-company (Overseas) was organized only on June 26, 1989 but the mortgage was executed much earlier, on June 20, 1989, that is six (6) days before Overseas was organized. Overseas is a "shelf" company worth only $100.00.[25] In the manifestation of spouses Ishwar dated April 1, 1991, the Court was informed that this matter was brought to the attention of the Central Bank (CB) for investigation, and that in a letter of March 20, 1991, the CB informed counsel for spouses Ishwar that said alleged foreign loan of Choithram, et al. from Overseas has not been previously approved/registered with the CB.[26]
Obviously, this is another ploy of Choithram, et al. to place these properties beyond the reach of spouses Ishwear should they obtain a favorable judgment in this case. The Court finds and so declares that this alleged mortgage should be as it is hereby declared null and void.
All these contemporaneous and subsequent acts of Choitram, et al., betray the weakness of their cause so they had to take all steps, even as the case was already pending in Court, to render ineffective any judgment that may be rendered against them.
The problem is compounded in that respondent Ortigas is caught in the web of this bitter fight. It had all the time been dealing with Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. However, evidence had been adduced that notice in writing had been served not only on Choithram, but also on Ortigas, of the revocation of Choithram's power of attorney by Ishwar's lawyer, on May 24, 1971.[27] A publication of said notice was made in the April 2, 1971 issue of The Manila Times for the information of the general public.[28] Such notice of revocation in a newspaper of general circulation is sufficient warning to third persons including Ortigas.[29] A notice of revocation was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1971.[30]
Indeed in the letter of Choithram to Ishwar of June 25, 1971, Choithram was pleading that Ishwar execute another power of attorney to be shown to Ortigas who apparently learned of the revocation of Choithram's power of attorney.[31] Despite said notices, Ortigas nevertheless acceded to the representation of Choithram, as alleged attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, to assign the rights of petitioner Ishwar to Nirmla. While the primary blame should be laid at the doorstep of Choithram, Ortigas is not entirely without fault. It should have required Choithram to secure another power of attorney from Ishwar. For recklessly believing the pretension of Choithram that his power of attorney was still good, it must, therefore, share in the latter's liability to Ishwar.
In the original complaint, the spouses Ishwar asked for a reconveyance of the properties and/or payment of its present value and damages.[32] In the amended complaint they asked, among others, for actual damages of not less than the present value of the real properties in litigation, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, costs of the suit and further prayed for "such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.[33] The amended complaint contain the following positive allegations:
The allegations of the amended complaint above reproduced clearly spelled out that the transfer of the property to Nirmla was fraudulent and that it should be considered to be held in trust by Nirmla for spouses Ishwar. As above-discussed, this allegation is well-taken and the transfer of the property to Nirmla should be considered to have created an implied trust by Nirmla as trustee of the property for the benefit of spouses Ishwar."[35]
The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction filed by Choithram, et al. should be denied. Its issuance by this Court is proper and warranted under the circumstances of the case. Under Section 3(c), Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after commencement of the action and before judgment when it is established:
The purpose of the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the litigation and to protect the rights of the spouses Ishwar respecting the subject of the action during the pendency of the suit,[36] and not to obstruct the administration of justice or prejudice the adverse party.[37] In this case for damages, should Choithram, et al. continue to commit acts of disposition of the properties subject of the litigation, an award of damages to spouses Ishwar would thereby be rendered ineffectual and meaningless.[38]
Consequently, if only to protect the interest of spouses Ishwar, the Court hereby finds and holds that the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment filed by spouses Ishwar should be granted covering the properties subject of this litigation.
Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides that at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, in, among others, the following cases:
Nevertheless, under the peculiar circumstances of this case and despite the fact that Choithram, et al., have committed acts which demonstrate their bad faith and scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar and Sonya of their rightful share in the properties in litigation, the Court cannot ignore the fact that Choithram must have been motivated by a strong conviction that as the industrial partner in the acquisition of said assets he has as much claim to said properties as Ishwar, the capitalist partner in the joint venture.
The scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of $150,000.00 for the business. They entrusted the money to Choithram to invest in a profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this purpose they appointed Choithram as their attorney-in-fact.
Choithram in turn decided to invest in the real estate business. He bought the two (2) parcels of land in question from Ortigas as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. Instead of paying for the lots in cash, he paid in installments and used the balance of the capital entrusted to him, plus a loan, to build two buildings. Although the buildings were burned later, Choithram was able to build two other buildings on the property. He rented them out and collected the rentals. Through the industry and genius of Choithram, Ishwar's property was developed and improved into what it is now - a valuable asset worth millions of pesos. As of the last estimate in 1985, while the case was pending before the trial court, the market value of the properties is no less than, P22,304,000.00[39] It should be worth much more today.
We have a situation where two brothers engaged in a business venture. One furnished the capital, the other contributed his industry and talent. Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint investment and efforts. Perhaps this Solomonic solution may pave the way towards their reconciliation. Both would stand to gain. No one would end up the loser. After all, blood is thicker than water.
However, the Court cannot just close its eyes to the devious machinations and schemes that Choithram employed in attempting to dispose of, if not dissipate, the properties to deprive spouses Ishwar of any possible means to recover any award the Court may grant in their favor. Since Choithram, et al. acted with evident bad faith and malice, they should pay moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees to spouses Ishwar.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 85494 is DENIED, while the petition in G.R. No. 85496 is hereby given due course and GRANTED. The judgment of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1988 is hereby modified as follows:
5. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, are also jointly and severally liable to pay respondents Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani the amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages, P200,000.00 as exemplary damages and attorney's fees equal to 10% of the total award to said respondents spouses.
6. The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction dated December 10, 1990 filed by petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, is hereby DENIED and the said injunction is hereby made permanent. Let a writ of attachment be issued and levied against the properties and improvements subject of this litigation to secure the payment of the above awards to spouses Ishwar and Sonya.
7. The mortgage constituted on the subject property dated June 20, 1989 by petitioners Choithram and Nirmla, both surnamed Ramnani in favor of respondent Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd. (in G.R. No. 85496) for the amount of $3 M is hereby declared null and void. The Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, is directed to cancel the annotation of said mortgage on the titles of the properties in question.
8. Should respondent Ortigas Co., Ltd. Partnership pay the awards to Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani under this judgment, it shall be entitled to reimbursement from petitioner's Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani.
9. The above awards shall bear legal rate of interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the time this judgment becomes final until they are fully paid by petitioners Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani and Ortigas, Co., Ltd. Partnership. Said petitioners Choithram, et al. and respondent Ortigas shall also pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
[1] Exhibit A.
[2] Exhibits B and C.
[3] Exhibit 3.
[4] Exhibit H.
[5] Exhibit F.
[6] Exhibits and J.
[7] Pages 80 to 82, Rollo of G.R. No. 85496; pages 55 to 57, G.R. No. 85494; Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Nocon was the ponente, concurred in separate opinions by Justices Ricardo P. Tensuan and Manuel C. Herrera. Justices Felipe B. Kalalo and Venancio D. Aldecoa, Jr., both dissented in separate opinions and voted to affirm the decision of the trial court.
[8] The five justices wrote separate opinions.
[9] Pages 15 and 16, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
[10] Pages 23 to 24, Rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
[11] Pages 117 to 119, Rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
[12] Pages 41 to 45, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
[13] Exhibit R-1; underscoring supplied.
[14] See Exhibits R to R-3.
[15] Pages 45 to 50, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494; underscoring supplied.
[16] Exhibits R to R-3.
[17] TSN, July 18, 1985, page 12; and July 19, 1985, pages 8 to 9.
[18] Annex A to Urgent Motion, etc; pages 438 to 450, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
[19] Annex B, supra; page 451, supra.
[20] Annex C, supra; pages 452 to 456, supra.
[21] Pages 438 to 442, rollo, G.R. No. 85496; pages 413 to 417, rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
[22] Page 450, rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
[23] Annexes C, C-1 and C-2 to Manifestation and Complaint of petitioners Ishwar & Sonya filed on January 26, 1991.
[24] Annex D to Manifestation, etc.
[25] Annex A to Reply to Opposition filed by petitioners on December 7, 1990; Pages 383 to 384, Rollo; See also Manifestation of petitioners, December 11, 1990, pages 438 to 443 rollo, G.R. 85494.
[26] See pages to of Rollo.
[27] Exhibit B.
[28] Exhibit F.
[29] Article 1922, Civil Code.
[30] Exhibit H.
[31] Exhibit R-1; supra.
[32] Annex C to Petition in G.R. No. 85494; pages 88 to 92, rollo.
[33] Annex D, supra; Pages 93 to 97, Rollo.
[34] Supra, pages 95 to 96, Rollo; underscoring supplied.
[35] Annex C to Petition in G.R. No. 85494; pages 88 to 92, Rollo.
[36] Calo vs. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445 (1946); De los Reyes v. Elepaño, G.R. L-5282, May 29, 1959; De la Cruz vs. Tan Torres, G.R. L-14925, April 30, 1960.
[37] Yu Tiong Tay vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 597(1947).
[38] Calo vs. Rolda, supra.
[39] Exhibits T to T-14.
The following facts are not disputed.
Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of the full blood. Ishwar and his spouse Sonya had their main business based in New York. Realizing the difficulty of managing their investments in the Philippines they executed a general power of attorney on January 24, 1966 appointing Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys-in-fact, empowering them to manage and conduct their business concern in the Philippines.[1]
On February 1, 1966 and on May 16, 1966, Choithram, in his capacity as aforesaid attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, entered into two agreements for the purchase of two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from Ortigas & Company, Ltd. Partnership (Ortigas for short) with a total area of approximately 10,048 square meters.[2] Per agreement, Choithram paid the down payment and installments on the lot with his personal checks. A building was constructed thereon by Choithram in 1966 and this was occupied and rented by Jethmal Industries and a wardrobe shop called Eppie's Creation. Three other buildings were built thereon by Choithram through a loan of P100,000.00 obtained from the Merchants Bank as well as the income derived from the first building. The buildings were leased out by Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. Two of these buildings were later burned.
Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses relative to these properties during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed and refused to render such accounting. As a consequence, on February 4, 1971, Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney. Choithram and Ortigas were duly notified of such revocation on April 1, 1971 and May 24, 1971, respectively.[3] Said notice was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1971[4] and was published in the April 2, 1971, issue of The Manila Times for the information, of the general public.[5]
Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, transferred all rights and interests of Ishwar and Sonya in favor of his daughter-in-law, Nirmla Ramnani, on February 19, 1973. Her husband is Moti, son of Choithram. Upon complete payment of the lots, Ortigas executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla.[6] Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal were issued in her favor.
Thus, on October 6, 1982, Ishwar and Sonya (spouses Ishwar for short) filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Choithram and/or Spouses Nirmla and Moti (Choithram, et al. for brevity) and Ortigas for reconveyance of said properties or payment of its value and damages. An amended complaint for damages was thereafter filed by said spouses.
After the issues were joined and the trial on the merits, a decision was rendered by the trial court on December 3, 1985 dismissing the complaint and counterclaim. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by spouses Ishwar was denied on March 3, 1986.
An appeal therefrom was interposed by spouses Ishwar to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision was promulgated on March 14, 1988, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing and setting aside the appealed decision of the lower court dated December 3, 1985 and the Order dated March 3, 1986 which denied plaintiffs-appellants' Motion for Reconsideration from aforesaid decision. A new decision is hereby rendered sentencing defendants-appellees Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani, and Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiffs-appellants the following:Acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by Choithram, et al. and Ortigas, the appellate court promulgated an amended decision on October 17, 1988 granting the motion for reconsideration of Ortigas by affirming the dismissal of the case by the lower court as against Ortigas but denying the motion for reconsideration of Choithram, et al.[8]
1. Actual or compensatory damages to the extent of the fair market value of the properties in question and all improvements thereon covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 403150 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 403152 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal, prevailing at the time of the satisfaction of the judgment but in no case shall such damages be less than the value of said properties as appraised by Asian Appraisal, Inc. in its Appraisal Report dated August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive).
2. All rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for the use and occupancy of the properties in question and all improvements thereon consisting of buildings, and to be computed as follows:
a) On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to 1973, inclusive, based on the 1967 to 1973 monthly rentals paid by Eppie's Creation;and thereafter commencing 1982, to account for and turn over the rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for the use and occupancy of the properties and all improvements totalling 10,048 sq. m., based on the rate per square meter prevailing in 1981 as indicated annually cumulative up to 1984. Then, commencing 1985 and up to the satisfaction of the judgment, rentals shall be computed at ten percent (10%) annually of the fair market values of the properties as appraised by the Asian Appraisal, Inc. in August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive.)
b) Also on Building C above, occupied by Jethmal Industries and Lavine from 1974 to 1978, the rental incomes based on then rates prevailing as shown under Exhibit 'P'; and from 1979 to 1981, based on then prevailing rates as indicated under Exhibit 'Q';
c) On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental incomes based upon then prevailing rates shown under Exhibit 'P', and from 1979 to 1981, based on prevailing rates per Exhibit 'Q';
d) On the two-Bays Buildings occupied by Sigma-Mariwasa from 1972 to 1978, the rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit 'P', and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit 'Q',
3. Moral damages in the sum of P200,000.00;
4. Exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00;
5. Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the award herein made;
6. Legal interest on the total amount awarded computed from first demand in 1967 and until the full amount is paid and satisfied; and
7. The cost of suit."[7]
Choithram, et al. thereafter filed a petition for review of said judgment of the appellate court alleging the following grounds:
"1. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in making a factual finding not supported by and contrary to the evidence presented at the Trial Court.Similarly, spouses Ishwar filed a petition for review of said amended decision of the appellate court exculpating Ortigas of liability based on the following assigned errors-
2. The Court of Appeals acted in excess of jurisdiction in awarding damages based on the value of the real properties in question where the cause of action of private respondents is recovery of a sum of money.
ARGUMENTS
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION IN MAKING A FACTUAL FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT ISHWAR REMITTED THE AMOUNT OF US$150,000.00 TO PETITIONER CHOITHRAM IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF SUCH REMITTANCE.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND MANIFEST PARTIALITY IN DISREGARDING THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS BASED ON THE DIRECT DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY CHOITHRAM IN THE TRIAL COURT ESTABLISHING THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED WITH PERSONAL FUNDS OF PETITIONER CHOITHRAM AND NOT WITH MONEY ALLEGEDLY REMITTED BY RESPONDENT ISHWAR.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN AWARDING DAMAGES BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE FRUITS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON."[9]
The center of controversy is the testimony of Ishwar that during the latter part of 1965, he sent the amount of US$150,000.00 to Choithram in two bank drafts of US$65,000.00 and US$85,000.00 for the purpose of investing the same in real estate in the Philippines. The trial court considered this lone testimony unworthy of faith and credit. On the other hand, the appellate court found that the trial court misapprehended the facts in complete disregard of the evidence, documentary and testimonial."l
THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR AND HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT -
A) B) C) D) E) F)
II
THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING WHEN IT HELD IN THE QUESTIONED AMENDED DECISION OF 17 NOVEMBER 1988 (ANNEX A) THAT RESPONDENT ORTIGAS & CO., LTD., IS NOT JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND NIRMLA RAMNANI IN SPITE OF ITS ORIGINAL DECISION OF 14 MARCH 1988 THAT ORTIGAS "WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THE REVOCATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF CHOITHRAM RAMNANI."[10]
Another crucial issue is the claim of Choithram that because he was then a British citizen, as a temporary arrangement, he arranged the purchase of the properties in the name of Ishwar who was an American citizen and who was then qualified to purchase property in the Philippines under the then Parity Amendment. The trial court believed this account but it was debunked by the appellate court.
As to the issue of whether or not spouses Ishwar actually sent US$150,000.00 to Choithram precisely to be used in the real estate business, the trial court made the following disquisition -
"After a careful, considered and conscientious examination of the evidence adduced in the case at bar, plaintiff Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani's main evidence, which centers on the alleged payment by sending through registered mail from New York two (2) US$ drafts of $85,000.00 and $65,000.00 in the latter part of 1965 (TSN 28 Feb. 1984, p.10-11). The sending of these moneys were before the execution of that General Power of Attorney, which was dated in New York, on January 24, 1966. Because of these alleged remittances of US$150,000.00 and the subsequent acquisition of the properties in question, plaintiffs averred that they constituted a trust in favor of defendant Choithram Jethmal Ramnani. This Court can be in full agreement if the plaintiffs were only able to prove preponderantly these remittances. The entire record of this case is bereft of even a shred of proof to that effect. It is completely barren. His uncorroborated testimony that he remitted these amounts in the 'later part of 1965' does not engender enough faith and credence. Inadequacy of details of such remittance on the two (2) US dollar drafts in such big amounts is completely not positive, credible, probable and entirely not in accord with human experience. This is a classic situation, plaintiffs not exhibiting any commercial document or any document and/or paper as regard to these alleged remittances. Plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani is not an ordinary businessman in the strict sense of the word. Remember his main business is based in New York, and he should know better how to send these alleged remittances. Worst, plaintiffs did not present even a scum of proof, that defendant Choithram Ramnani received the alleged two US dollar drafts. Significantly, he does not know even the bank where these two (2) US dollar drafts were purchased. Indeed, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani's lone testimony is unworthy of faith and credit and, therefore, deserves scant consideration, and since the plaintiffs' theory is built or based on such testimony, their cause of action collapses or falls with it.On the other hand, the appellate court, in giving credence to the version of Ishwar, had this to say -
Further, the rate of exchange that time in 1966 was P4.00 to $1.00. The alleged two US dollar drafts amounted to $150,000.00 or about P600,000.00. Assuming the cash price of the two (2) lots was only P530,000.00 (ALTHOUGH he said: 'Based on my knowledge I have no evidence,' when asked if he even knows the cash price of the two lots). If he were really the true and bonafide investor and purchaser for profit as he asserted, he could have paid the price in full in cash directly and obtained the title in his name and not thru 'Contracts To Sell' in installments paying interest and thru an attorney-in-fact (TSN of May 2, 1984, pp. 10-11) and, again, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani told this Court that he does not know whether or not his late father-in-law borrowed the two US dollar drafts from the Swiss Bank or whether or not his late father-in-law had any debit memo from the Swiss Bank (TSN of May 2, 1984, pp. 9-10).[11]
"While it is true, that generally the findings of fact of the trial court are binding upon the appellate courts, said rule admits of exceptions such as when (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inferences made is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts and when the court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee (Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 63 SCRA 33; Philippine American Life Assurance Co. vs. Santamaria, 31 SCRA 798; Aldaba vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 189).The evidence on record shows that the trial court acted under a misapprehension of facts and the inferences made on the evidence palpably a mistake.
The trial court's observation that 'the entire records of the case is bereft of even a shred of proof' that plaintiffs-apellants is have remitted to defendant-appellee Choithram Ramnani the amount of US$150,000.00 for investment in real estate in the Philippines, is not borne by the evidence on record and shows the trial court's misaprehension of the facts if not a complete disregard of the evidence, both documentary and testimonial.Plaintiff-appellant Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani testifying in his own behalf, declared that during the latter part of 1965, he sent the amount of US$150,000.00 to his brother Choithram in two bank drafts of US$65,000.00 and US$85,000.00 for the purpose of investing the same in real estate in the Philippines. His testimony is as follows:
On cross-examination, the witness reiterated the remittance of the money to his brother Choithram, which was sent to him by his father-in-law, Rochiram L. Mulchandoni from Switzerland, a man of immense wealth, which even defendants-appellees' witness Navalrai Ramnani admits to be so (tsn., p. 16, S. Oct. 13, 1985). Thus, on cross-examination, Ishwar testified as follows:
'ATTY. MARAPAO: 'ATTY. CRUZ: 'COURT: 'A. 'ATTY. MARAPAO: 'Q. 'A. 'Q. 'A. 'Q. 'A. . . . . . . . . . 'ATTY. CRUZ: 'Q. 'A. 'Q. 'A. 'Q. 'ATTY. MARAPAO: 'COURT: 'A. 'Q. 'A. 'Q. 'A.
The Court agrees. The environmental circumstances of this case buttress the claim of Ishwar that he did entrust the amount of US$150,000.00 to his brother, Choithram, which the latter invested in the real property business subject of this litigation in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar.
'Q. 'A. 'Q. 'A. 'Q. 'A.
This positive and affirmative testimony of plaintiff-appellant that he sent the two (2) bank drafts totalling US$150,000.00 to his brother, is proof of said remittance. Such positive testimony has greater probative force than defendant-appellee's denial of receipt of said bank drafts, for a witness who testifies affirmatively that something did happen should be believed for it is unlikely that a witness will remember what never happened (Underhill's Cr. Guidance, 5th Ed., Vol. I, pp. 10-11).
That is not all. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff-appellant Ishwar Ramnani executed a General Power of Attorney (Exhibit 'A') dated January 24, 1966 appointing his brothers, defendants-appellees Navalrai and Choithram as attornev-in-fact empowering the latter to conduct and manage plaintiffs-appellants' business affairs in the Philippines and specifically -
'No. 14. To acquire, purchase for us, real estates and improvements for the purpose of real estate business anywhere in the Philippines and to develop, subdivide, improve and to resell to buying public (individual, firm or corporation); to enter in any contract of sale in our behalf and to enter mortgages between the vendees and the herein grantors that may be needed to finance the real estate business being undertaken.'Pursuant thereto, on February 1, 1966 and May 16, 1966, Choithram Jethmal Ramani entered into Agreements (Exhibits 'B' and 'C') with the other defendant, Ortigas and Company, Ltd., for the purchase of two (2) parcels of land situated at Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, with said defendant-appellee signing the Agreements in his capacity as Attorney-in-fact of Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani.
Again, on January 5, 1972, almost seven (7) years after Ishwar sent the US$150,000.00 in 1965, Choithram Ramnani, as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar entered into a Contract of Lease with Sigma-Mariwasa (Exhibit 'P') thereby re-affirming the ownership of Ishwar over the disputed property and the trust relationship between the latter as principal and Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar.
All of these facts indicate that if plaintiff-appellant Ishwar had not earlier sent the US$150,000.00 to his brother, Choithram, there would be no purpose for him to execute a power of attorney appointing his brothers as his attorney-in-fact in buying real estate in the Philippines.
As against Choithram's denial that he did not receive the US$150,000.00 remitted by lshwar and that the power of Attorney, as well as the Agreements entered into with Ortigas & Co., were only temporary arrangements, Ishwar's testimony that he did send the bank drafts to Choithram and was received by the latter, is the more credible version since it is natural, reasonable and probable. It is in accord with the common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men (Gardner vs. Wentors, 18 Iowa 533). And in determining where the superior weight of the evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider the probability or improbability of the testimony of the witness (Sec. 1, Rule 133, Rules of Court).
Contrary, therefore, to the trial court's sweeping observation that 'the entire records of the case is bereft of even a shred of proof' that Choithram received the alleged bank drafts amounting to US$150,000.00, we have not only testimonial evidence but also documentary and circumstantial evidence proving said remittance of the money and the fiduciary relationship between the former and Ishwar."[12]
True it is that there is no receipt whatever in the possession of Ishwar to evidence the same, but it is not unusual among brothers and close family members to entrust money and valuables to each other without any formalities or receipt due to the special relationship of trust between them.
And another proof thereof is the fact that Ishwar, out of frustration when Choithram failed to account for the realty business despite his demands, revoked the general power of attorney he extended to Choithram and Navalrai. Thereafter, Choithram wrote a letter to Ishwar pleading that the power of attorney be renewed or another authority to the same effect be extended, which reads as follows:
From the foregoing letter what could be gleaned is that -"June 25, 1971
MR. ISHWAR JETHMAL
NEW YORK
(1) Send power of Atty. immediately, because the case has been postponed for two weeks. The same way as it has been send before in favour of both names. Send it immediately otherwise everything will be lost unnecessarily, and then it will take us in litigation. Now that we have gone ahead with a case and would like to end it immediately otherwise squatters will take the entire land. Therefore, send it immediately.
(2) Ortigas also has sued us because we are holding the installments, because they have refused to give a rebate of P5.00 per meter which they have to give us as per contract. They have filed the law suit that since we have not paid the installment they should get back the land. The hearing of this case is in the month of July. Therefore, please send the power immediately. In one case DADA (Elder Brother) will represent and in another one, I shall.
(3) In case if you do not want to give power then make one letter in favor of Dada and the other one in my favor showing that in any litigation we can represent you and your wife, and whatever the court decide it will be acceptable by me. You can ask any lawyer, he will be able to prepare these letters. After that you can have these letters ratify before P.I. Consulate. It should be dated April 15, 1971.
(4) Try to send the power because it will be more useful. Make it in any manner whatever way you have confident in it. But please send it immediately.
You have cancelled the power. Therefore, you have lost your reputation everywhere. What can I further write you about it. I have told everybody that due to certain reasons I have written you to do this, that is why you have done this. This way your reputation have been kept intact. Otherwise if I want to do something about it, I can show you that in spite of the power you have cancelled you can not do anything. You can keep this letter because my conscience is clear. I do not have anything in my mind.
I should not be writing you this, but because my conscience is clear do you know that if I had predated papers what could you have done? Or do you know that I have many paper signed by you and if I had done anything or do then what can you do about it? It is not necessary to write further about this. It does not matter if you have cancelled the power. At that time if I had predated and done something about it what could you have done? You do not know me. I am not after money. I can earn money anytime. It has been ten months since I have not received a single penny for expenses from Dada (elder brother). Why there are no expenses? We can not draw a single penny from knitting (factory). Well I am not going to write you further, nor there is any need for it. This much I am writing you because of the way you have conducted yourself. But remember, whenever I have the money I will not keep it myself. Right now I have not got anything at all.
I am not going to write any further.
Keep your business clean with Naru. Otherwise he will discontinue because he likes to keep his business very clean."[13]
The said letter was in Sindhi language. It was translated to English by the First Secretary of the Embassy of Pakistan, which translation was verified correct by the Chairman, Department of Sindhi, University of Karachi.[14]
1. Choithram asked for the issuance of another power of attorney in their favor so they can continue to represent Ishwar as Ortigas has sued them for unpaid installments. It also appears therefrom that Ortigas learned of the revocation of the power of attorney so the request to issue another.
2. Choithram reassured Ishwar to have confidence in him as he was not after money, and that he was not interested in Ishwar's money.
3. To demonstrate that he can be relied upon, he said that he could have ante-dated the sales agreement of the Ortigas lots before the issuance of the powers of attorney and acquired the same in his name, if he wanted to, but he did not do so.
4. He said he had not received a single penny for expenses from Dada (their elder brother Navalrai). Thus, confirming that if he was not given money by Ishwar to buy the Ortigas lots, he could not have consummated the sale.
5. It is important to note that in said letter Choithram never claimed ownership of the property in question. He affirmed the fact that he bought the same as mere agent and in behalf of Ishwar. Neither did he mention the alleged temporary arrangement whereby Ishwar, being an American citizen, shall appear to be the buyer of the said property, but that after Choithram acquires Philippine citizenship, its ownership shall be transferred to Choitram.
This brings us to this temporary arrangement theory of Choithram.
The appellate court disposed of this matter in this wise -
"Choithram's claim that he purchased the two parcels of land for himself in 1966 but placed it in the name of his younger brother, Ishwar, who is an American citizen, as a 'temporary arrangement,' because as a British subject he is disqualified under the 1935 Constitution to acquire real property in the Philippines, which is not so with respect to American citizens in view of the Ordinance Appended to the Constitution granting them parity rights, there is nothing in the records showing that Ishwar ever agreed to such a temporary arrangement.The foregoing findings of facts of the Court of Appeals which are supported by the evidence is conclusive on this Court. The Court finds that Ishwar entrusted US$150,000.00 to Choithram in 1965 for investment in the realty business. Soon thereafter, a general power of attorney was executed by Ishwar in favor of both Navalrai and Choithram. If it is true that the purpose only is to enable Choithram to purchase realty temporarily in the name of Ishwar, why the inclusion of their elder brother Navalrai as an attorney-in-fact?
During the entire period from 1965, when the US$150,000.00 was transmitted to Choithram, and until Ishwar filed a complaint against him in 1982, or over 16 years, Choithram never mentioned of temporary arrangement nor can he present any memorandum or writing evidencing such temporary arrangement, prompting plaintiff-appellant to observe:
'The properties in question which are located in a prime industrial site in Ugong, Pasig, Metro Manila have a present fair market value of no less than P22,364,000.00 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive), and yet for such valuable pieces of property, Choithram who now belatedly claims that he purchased the same for himself did not document in writing or in a memorandum the alleged temporary arrangement with Ishwar' (pp. 4-41, Appellant's Brief).Such verbal allegation of a temporary arrangement is simply improbable and inconsistent. It has repeatedly been held that important contracts made without evidence are highly improbable.
The improbability of such temporary arrangement is brought to fore when we consider that Choithram has a son (Haresh Jethmal Ramnani) who is an American citizen under whose name the properties in question could be registered, both during the time the contracts to sell were executed and at the time absolute title over the same was to be delivered. At the time the Agreements were entered into with defendant Ortigas & Co. in 1966, Haresh, was already 18 years old and consequently, Choithrem could have executed the deeds in trust for his minor son. But, he did not do this. Three (3) years, thereafter, or in 1968 after Haresh had attained the age of 21, Choithram should have terminated the temporary arrangement with Ishwar, which according to him would be effective only pending the acquisition of citizenship papers. Again, he did not do anything.
'Evidence to be believed, said Vice Chancellor Van Fleet of New Jersey, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself - such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance.' (Daggers vs. Van Dyek, 37 M.J. Eq. 130, 132).Another factor that can be counted against the temporary arrangement excuse is that upon the revocation on February 4, 1971 of the Power of Attorney dated January 24, 1966 in favor of Navalrai and Choithram by Ishwar, Choithram wrote (tsn, p. 21, S. July 19, 1985) a letter dated June 25, 1971 (Exhibits R, R-1, R-2 and R-3) imploring Ishwar to execute a new power of attorney in their favor. That if he did not want to give power, then Ishwar could make a letter in favor of Dada and another in his favor so that in any litigation involving the properties in question, both of them could represent Ishwar and his wife. Choithram tried to convince Ishwar to issue the power of attorney in whatever manner he may want. In said letter no mention was made said at all of any temporary arrangement.
On the contrary, said letter recognize(s) the existence of principal and attorney-in-fact relationship between Ishwar and himself. Choithram wrote: 'x x x do you know that if I had predated papers what could you have done? Or do you know that I have many papers signed by you and if I had done anything or do then what can you do about it?' Choithram was saying that he could have repudiated the trust and ran away with the properties of Ishwar by predating documents and Ishwar would be entirely helpless. He was bitter as a result of Ishwar's revocation of the power of attorney but no mention was made of any temporary arrangement or a claim of ownership over the properties in question nor was he able to present any memorandum or document to prove the existence of such temporary arrangement.
Choithram is also estopped in pais or by deed from claiming an interest over the properties in question adverse to that of Ishwar. Section 3(a) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states that whenever 'a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and act upon such belief, he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify it.' While estoppel by deed is a bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it (31 C.J.S. 195; 19 Am. Jur. 603).
Thus, defendants-appellees are not permitted to repudiate their admissions and representations or to assert any right or title in derogation of the deeds or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the (1) power of attorney dated January 24, 1966 (Exhibit A); (2) the Agreements of February 1, 1966 and May 16, 1966 (Exhibits B and C); and (3) the Contract of Lease dated January 5, 1972 (Exhibit P).
'. . . The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of estoppel springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is designed to aid the law in the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result. It has been applied by this court wherever and whenever special circumstances of a case so demands' (Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 357, 368 [1979]).It was only after the services of counsel has been obtained that Choitram alleged for the first time in his Answer [that the General Power of Attorney (Annex A) with the Contracts to Sell (Annexes B and C) were made only for the sole purpose of assuring defendants' acquisition and ownership of the lots described thereon in due time under the law; that said instruments do not reflect the true intention of the parties' (par. 2, Answer dated May 30, 1983), seventeen (17) long years from the time he received the money transmitted to him by his brother, Ishwar.
Moreover, Choithram's 'temporary arrangement,' by which he claimed purchasing the two (2) parcels in question in 1966 and placing them in the name of Ishwar who is an American citizen, to circumvent the disqualification provision of aliens acquiring real properties in the Philippines under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, as Choithram was then a British subject, show a palpable disregard of the law of the land and to sustain the supposed 'temporary arrangement' with Ishwar would be sanctioning the perpetration of an illegal act and culpable violation of the Constitution.
Defendants-appellees likewise violated the Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth Act 108 as amended), which provides in Section 1 thereof, that:
'In all cases in which any constitutional or legal provision requires Philippine or any other specific citizenship as a requisite for the exercise or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege, . . . . . . any alien or foreigner profiting thereby, shall be punished . . . by imprisonment . . . and of a fine of not less than the value of the right, franchise or privileges, which is enjoyed or acquired in violation of the provisions hereof . . .'Having come to court with unclean hands, Choithram must not be permitted to foist his 'temporary arrangement' scheme as a defense before this court. Being in delicto, he does not have any right whatsoever from being shielded from his own wrongdoing, which is not so with respect to Ishwar, who was not a party to such an arrangement.
The falsity of Choithram's defense is further aggravated by the material inconsistencies and contradictions in his testimony. While on January 23, 1985 he testified that he purchased the land in question on his own behalf (tsn, p. 4, S. Jan. 23, 1985), in the July 18, 1985 hearing, forgetting probably what he stated before, Choithram testified that he was only an attorney-in-fact of Ishwar (tsn, p. 5, S. July 18, 1985). Also in the hearing of January 23, 1985, Choithram declared that nobody rented the building that was constructed on the parcels of land in question (tsn, pp. 5 and 6), only to admit in the hearing of October 30, 1985, that he was in fact renting the building for P12,000.00 per annum (tsn, p. 3). Again, in the hearing of July 19, 1985, Choithram testified that he had no knowledge of the revocation of the Power of Attorney (tsn, pp. 20-21), only to backtrack when confronted with the letter of June 25, 1971 (Exhibits R to R-3), which he admitted to be in 'his own writing,' indicating knowledge of the revocation of the Power of Attorney.
These inconsistencies are not minor but go into the entire credibility of the testimony of Choithram and the rule is that contradictions on a very crucial point by a witness, renders his testimony incredible (People vs. Rafallo, 80 Phil. 22). Not only this, the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus omnibus is fully applicable as far as the testimony of Choithram is concerned. The cardinal rule, which has served in all ages, and has been applied to all conditions of men, is that a witness willfully falsifying the truth in one particular, when upon oath, ought never to be believed upon the strength of his own testimony, whatever he may assert (U.S. vs. Osgood, 27 Feb. Case No. 15971-a, p. 364); Gonzales vs. Mauricio, 52 Phil. 728), for what ground of judicial relief can there be left when the party has shown such gross insensibility to the difference between right and wrong, between truth and falsehood? (The Santisima Trinidad, 7 Wheat, 283, 5 U.S. [L. ed.] 454).
True, that Choithram's testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of his brother, Navalrai, but the same would not be of much help to Choithram. Not only is Navalrai an interested and biased witness, having admitted his close relationship with Choithram and that whenever he or Choithram had problems, they ran to each other (tsn, pp. 17-18, S. Sept. 20, 1985), Navalrai has a pecuniary interest in the success of Choithram in the case in question. Both he and Choithram are business partners in Jethmal and Sons and/or Jethmal Industries, wherein he owns 60% of the company and Choithram, 40% (p. 62, Appellant's Brief). Since the acquisition of the properties in question in 1966, Navalrai was occupying 1,200 square meters thereof as a factory site plus the fact that his son (Navalrai's) was occupying the apartment on top of the factory with his family rent free except the amount of P1,000.00 a month to pay for taxes on said properties (tsn, p. 17, S. Oct. 3, 1985).
Inherent contradictions also marked Navalrai's testimony. While the latter was very meticulous in keeping a receipt for the P10,000.00 that he paid Ishwar as settlement in Jethmal Industries, yet in the alleged payment of P100,000.00 to Ishwar, no receipt or voucher was ever issued by him (tsn, p. 17, S. Oct. 3, 1983)."[15]
We concur.
Then, acting as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, Choithram purchased two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from Ortigas in 1966. With the balance of the money of Ishwar, Choithram erected a building on said lot. Subsequently, with a loan obtained from a bank and the income of the said property, Choithram constructed three other buildings thereon. He managed the business and collected the rentals. Due to their relationship of confidence it was only in 1970 when Ishwar demanded for an accounting from Choithram. And even as Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney on February 4, 1971, of which Choithram was duly notified, Choithram wrote to Ishwar on June 25, 1971 requesting that he execute a new power of attorney in their favor.[16] When Ishwar did not respond thereto, Choithram nevertheless proceeded as such attorney-in-fact to assign all the rights and interest of Ishwar to his daughter-in-law Nirmla in 1973 without the knowledge and consent of Ishwar. Ortigas in turn executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla after full payment of the purchase price of the lots.
In the prefatory statement of their petition, Choithram pictured Ishwar to be so motivated by greed and ungratefulness, who squandered the family business in New York, who had to turn to his wife for support, accustomed to living in ostentation and who resorted to blackmail in filing several criminal and civil suits against them. These statements find no support and should be stricken from the records. Indeed, they are irrelevant to the proceeding.
Moreover, assuming Ishwar is of such a low character as Choithram proposes to make this Court to believe, why is it that of all persons, under his temporary arrangement theory, Choithram opted to entrust the purchase of valuable real estate and built four buildings thereon all in the name of Ishwar? Is it not an unconscious emergence of the truth that this otherwise wayward brother of theirs was on the contrary able to raise enough capital through the generosity of his father-in-law for the purchase of the very properties in question? As the appellate court aptly observed if truly this temporary arrangement story is the only motivation, why Ishwar of all people? Why not the own son of Choithram, Haresh, who is also an American citizen and who was already 18 years old at the time of purchase in 1966? The Court agrees with the observation that this theory is an after-thought which Surfaced only when Choithram, Nirmla and Moti filed their answer.
When Ishwar asked for an accounting in 1970 and revoked the general power of attorney in 1971, Choithram had a total change of heart. He decided to claim the property as his. He caused the transfer of the rights and interest of Ishwar to Nirmla. On his representation, Ortigas executed the deeds of sale of the properties in favor of Nirmla. Choithram obviously surmised Ishwar cannot stake a valid claim over the property by so doing.
Clearly, this transfer to Nirmla is fictitious and, as admitted by Choithram, was intended only to place the property in her name until Choithram acquires Philippine citizenship.[17] What appears certain is that it appears to be a scheme of Choithram to place the property beyond the reach of Ishwar should he successfully claim the same. Thus, it must be struck down.
Worse still, on September 27,1990 spouses Ishwar filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and to require Choithram, et al. to submit certain documents, inviting the attention of this Court to the following:
a) Donation by Choithram of his 2,500 shares of stock in General Garments Corporation in favor of his children on December 29, 1989;[18]
b) Sale on August 2, 1990 by Choithram of his 100 shares in Biflex (Phils.), Inc., in favor of his children;[19] and
c) Mortgage on June 20, 1989 by Nirmla through her attorney-in-fact, Choithram, of the properties subject of this litigation, for the amount of $3 Million in favor of Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd., (Overseas for brevity), a corporation which appears to be organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Cayman Islands, with a capital of only $100.00 divided into 100 shares of $1.00 each, and with address at P.O. Box 1790, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.[20]
An opposition thereto was filed by Choithram, et al. but no documents were produced. A manifestation and reply to the opposition was filed by spouses Ishwar.
All these acts of Choithram, et al. appear to be fraudulent attempts to remove these properties to the detriment of spouses Ishwar should the (the) latter prevail in this litigation.
On December 10, 1990 the court issued a resolution that substantially reads as follows:
"Considering the allegations of petitioners Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani and Sonya Ramnani that respondents Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti G. Ramnani have fraudulently executed a simulated mortgage of the properties subject of this litigation dated June 20, 1989, in favor of Overseas Holding Co., Ltd. which appears to be a corporation organized in Cayman Islands, for the amount of $3,000,000.00, which much more than the value of the properties in litigation; that said alleged mortgagee appears to be a "shell" corporation with a capital of only $100.00; and that this alleged transaction appears to be intended to defraud petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani of any favorable judgment that this Court may render in this case;The required injunction bond in the amount of P100,000.00 was filed by the spouses Ishwar which was approved by the Court. The above resolution of the Court was published in the Manila Bulletin issue of December 17, 1990 at the expense of said spouses.[22] On December 19, 1990 the said resolution and petition for review with annexes in G.R. Nos. 85494 and 85496 were transmitted to respondent Overseas, Grand Cayman Islands at its address c/o Cayman Overseas Trust Co. Ltd., through the United Parcel Services Bill of Lading,[23] and it was actually delivered to said company on January 23, 1991.[24]
Wherefore the Court Resolved to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining and prohibiting said respondents Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti G. Ramnani and the Overseas Holding Co., Ltd. from encumbering, selling or otherwise disposing of the properties and improvements subject of this litigation until further orders of the Court. Petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani are hereby required to post a bond of P100,000.00 to answer for any damages said respondents may suffer by way of this injunction if the Court finally decides the said petitioners are not entitled thereto.
The Overseas Holding Co., Lt. with address at P.O. Box 1790 Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, is hereby IMPLEADED as a respondent in these cases, and is hereby required to SUBMIT its comment on the Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Motion for Production of Documents, the Manifestation and the Reply to the Opposition filed by said petitioners, within Sixty (60) days after service by publication on it in accordance with the provisions of Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, at the expense of petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani.
Let copies of this resolution be served on the Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, and the Provincial Assessor of Pasig, Rizal, both in Metro Manila, for its annotation on the Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. 403150 and 403152 registered in the name of respondent Nirmla V. Ramnani, and on the tax declarations of the said properties and its improvements subject of this litigation."[21]
On January 22, 1991, Choitram, et al., filed a motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction alleging that there is no basis therefor as in the amended complaint what is sought is actual damages and not a reconveyance of the property, that there is no reason for its issuance, and that acts already executed cannot be enjoined. They also offered to file a counter-bond to dissolve the writ.
A comment/opposition thereto was filed by spouses Ishwar that there is basis for the injunction as the alleged mortgage of the property is simulated and the other donations of the shares of Choithram to his children are fraudulent schemes to negate any judgment the Court may render for petitioners.
No comment or answer was filed by Overseas despite due notice, thus it is and must be considered to be in default and to have lost the right to contest the representations of spouses Ishwar to declare the aforesaid alleged mortgage null and void.
This purported mortgage of the subject properties in litigation appears to be fraudulent and simulated. The stated amount of $3 Million for which it was mortgaged is much more than the value of the mortgaged properties and its improvements. The alleged mortgagee-company (Overseas) was organized only on June 26, 1989 but the mortgage was executed much earlier, on June 20, 1989, that is six (6) days before Overseas was organized. Overseas is a "shelf" company worth only $100.00.[25] In the manifestation of spouses Ishwar dated April 1, 1991, the Court was informed that this matter was brought to the attention of the Central Bank (CB) for investigation, and that in a letter of March 20, 1991, the CB informed counsel for spouses Ishwar that said alleged foreign loan of Choithram, et al. from Overseas has not been previously approved/registered with the CB.[26]
Obviously, this is another ploy of Choithram, et al. to place these properties beyond the reach of spouses Ishwear should they obtain a favorable judgment in this case. The Court finds and so declares that this alleged mortgage should be as it is hereby declared null and void.
All these contemporaneous and subsequent acts of Choitram, et al., betray the weakness of their cause so they had to take all steps, even as the case was already pending in Court, to render ineffective any judgment that may be rendered against them.
The problem is compounded in that respondent Ortigas is caught in the web of this bitter fight. It had all the time been dealing with Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. However, evidence had been adduced that notice in writing had been served not only on Choithram, but also on Ortigas, of the revocation of Choithram's power of attorney by Ishwar's lawyer, on May 24, 1971.[27] A publication of said notice was made in the April 2, 1971 issue of The Manila Times for the information of the general public.[28] Such notice of revocation in a newspaper of general circulation is sufficient warning to third persons including Ortigas.[29] A notice of revocation was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1971.[30]
Indeed in the letter of Choithram to Ishwar of June 25, 1971, Choithram was pleading that Ishwar execute another power of attorney to be shown to Ortigas who apparently learned of the revocation of Choithram's power of attorney.[31] Despite said notices, Ortigas nevertheless acceded to the representation of Choithram, as alleged attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, to assign the rights of petitioner Ishwar to Nirmla. While the primary blame should be laid at the doorstep of Choithram, Ortigas is not entirely without fault. It should have required Choithram to secure another power of attorney from Ishwar. For recklessly believing the pretension of Choithram that his power of attorney was still good, it must, therefore, share in the latter's liability to Ishwar.
In the original complaint, the spouses Ishwar asked for a reconveyance of the properties and/or payment of its present value and damages.[32] In the amended complaint they asked, among others, for actual damages of not less than the present value of the real properties in litigation, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, costs of the suit and further prayed for "such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.[33] The amended complaint contain the following positive allegations:
"7. Defendant Choithram Ramnani, in evident bad faith and despite due notice of the revocation of the General Power of Attorney, Annex "D" hereof, caused the transfer of the rights over the said parcels of land to his daughter-in-law, defendant Nirmla Ramnani in connivance with defendant Ortigas & Co., the latter having agreed to the said transfer despite receiving a letter from plaintiffs' lawyer informing them of the said revocation; copy of the letter is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex "H";In said amended complaint, spouses Ishwar, among others, pray for payment of actual damages in an amount no less than the value of the properties in litigation instead of a reconveyance as sought in the original complaint. Apparently they opted not to insist on a reconveyance as they are American citizens as alleged in the amended complaint.
8. Defendant Nirmla Ramnani having acquired the aforesaid property by fraud is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of plaintiff and is obliged to return the same to the latter;
9. Several efforts were made to settle the matter within the family but defendants (Choithrm Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani, and Moti Ramnani) refused and up to now fail and still refuse to cooperate and respond to the samed; thus, the present case;
10. In addition to having been deprived of their rights over the properties (describe in par. 3 hereof), plaintiffs, by reason of defendants' fraudulent act, suffered actual damages by way of lost rental on the property which defendants (Choithram, Ramnania, Nirmla Ramnani, and Moti Ramhani) have collected for themselves; "[34]
The allegations of the amended complaint above reproduced clearly spelled out that the transfer of the property to Nirmla was fraudulent and that it should be considered to be held in trust by Nirmla for spouses Ishwar. As above-discussed, this allegation is well-taken and the transfer of the property to Nirmla should be considered to have created an implied trust by Nirmla as trustee of the property for the benefit of spouses Ishwar."[35]
The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction filed by Choithram, et al. should be denied. Its issuance by this Court is proper and warranted under the circumstances of the case. Under Section 3(c), Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after commencement of the action and before judgment when it is established:
"(c) that the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of plaintiff's rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual."As above extensively discussed, Choithram, et al. have committed and threaten to commit further acts of disposition of the properties in litigation as well as the other assets of Choithram, apparently designed to render ineffective any judgment the Court may render favorable to spouses Ishwar.
The purpose of the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the litigation and to protect the rights of the spouses Ishwar respecting the subject of the action during the pendency of the suit,[36] and not to obstruct the administration of justice or prejudice the adverse party.[37] In this case for damages, should Choithram, et al. continue to commit acts of disposition of the properties subject of the litigation, an award of damages to spouses Ishwar would thereby be rendered ineffectual and meaningless.[38]
Consequently, if only to protect the interest of spouses Ishwar, the Court hereby finds and holds that the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment filed by spouses Ishwar should be granted covering the properties subject of this litigation.
Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides that at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, in, among others, the following cases:
"(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in concealing or disposing of the property for the taking, detention or conversion of which the action is brought;Verily, the acts of Choithram, et al. of disposing the properties subject of the litigation disclose a scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar so they may not be able to recover at all, given a judgment in their favor, thus requiring the issuance of the writ of attachment in this instance.
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; x x x."
Nevertheless, under the peculiar circumstances of this case and despite the fact that Choithram, et al., have committed acts which demonstrate their bad faith and scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar and Sonya of their rightful share in the properties in litigation, the Court cannot ignore the fact that Choithram must have been motivated by a strong conviction that as the industrial partner in the acquisition of said assets he has as much claim to said properties as Ishwar, the capitalist partner in the joint venture.
The scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of $150,000.00 for the business. They entrusted the money to Choithram to invest in a profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this purpose they appointed Choithram as their attorney-in-fact.
Choithram in turn decided to invest in the real estate business. He bought the two (2) parcels of land in question from Ortigas as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. Instead of paying for the lots in cash, he paid in installments and used the balance of the capital entrusted to him, plus a loan, to build two buildings. Although the buildings were burned later, Choithram was able to build two other buildings on the property. He rented them out and collected the rentals. Through the industry and genius of Choithram, Ishwar's property was developed and improved into what it is now - a valuable asset worth millions of pesos. As of the last estimate in 1985, while the case was pending before the trial court, the market value of the properties is no less than, P22,304,000.00[39] It should be worth much more today.
We have a situation where two brothers engaged in a business venture. One furnished the capital, the other contributed his industry and talent. Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint investment and efforts. Perhaps this Solomonic solution may pave the way towards their reconciliation. Both would stand to gain. No one would end up the loser. After all, blood is thicker than water.
However, the Court cannot just close its eyes to the devious machinations and schemes that Choithram employed in attempting to dispose of, if not dissipate, the properties to deprive spouses Ishwar of any possible means to recover any award the Court may grant in their favor. Since Choithram, et al. acted with evident bad faith and malice, they should pay moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees to spouses Ishwar.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 85494 is DENIED, while the petition in G.R. No. 85496 is hereby given due course and GRANTED. The judgment of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1988 is hereby modified as follows:
1. Dividing equally between respondents spouses Ishwar, on the one hand, and petitioner Choithram Ramnani, on the other, (in G.R. No. 85494) the two parcels of land subject of this litigation, including all the improvements thereon, presently covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the Registry of Deeds, as well as the rental income of the property from 1967 to the present.4. To determine the market value of the properties at the time of the satisfaction of this judgment and the total rental incomes thereof, the trial court is hereby directed to hold a hearing with deliberate dispatch for this purpose only and to have the judgment immediately executed after such determination.
2. Petitioner Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani and respondent Ortigas and Company, Limited Partnership (in G.R. No. 85496) are ordered solidarily to pay in cash the value of said one-half (1/2) share in the said land and improvements pertaining to respondents spouses is Ishwar and Sonya at their fair market value at the time of the satisfaction of this judgment but in no case less than their value as appraised by the Asian Appraisal, Inc. in its Appraisal Report dated August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive).
3. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti Ramnani and respondent Ortigas & Co., Ltd. Partnership shall also be jointly and severally liable to pay to said respondents spouses Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani one-half (1/2) of the total rental income of said properties and improvements from 1967 up to the date of satisfaction of the judgment to be computed as follows:
"a. On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to 1973, inclusive, based on the 1967 to 1973 monthly rentals paid by Eppie's Creation;and thereafter commencing 1982, to account for and turn over the rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for the use and occupancy of the properties and all improvements totalling 10,048 sq. m., based on the rate per square meter prevailing in 1981 as indicated annually cumulative up to 1984. Then, commencing 1985 and up to the satisfaction of the judgment, rentals shall be computed at ten percent (10%) annually of the fair market values of the properties as appraised by the Asian Appraisals, Inc. in August 1985. (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive.)"
"b. Also on Building C above, occupied by Jethmal Industries and Lavine from 1974 to 1978, the rental incomes based on then rates prevailing as shown under Exhibit 'P'; and from 1979 to 1981, based on then prevailing rates as indicated under Exhibit 'Q';
"c. On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental incomes based upon then prevailing rates shown under Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1981, based on prevailing rates per Exhibit 'Q';
"d. On the two-Bays Buildings occupied by Sigma-Mariwasa from 1972 to 1978, the rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit 'P', and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on the Lease Contract, Exhibit 'Q'.
5. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, are also jointly and severally liable to pay respondents Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani the amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages, P200,000.00 as exemplary damages and attorney's fees equal to 10% of the total award to said respondents spouses.
6. The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction dated December 10, 1990 filed by petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, is hereby DENIED and the said injunction is hereby made permanent. Let a writ of attachment be issued and levied against the properties and improvements subject of this litigation to secure the payment of the above awards to spouses Ishwar and Sonya.
7. The mortgage constituted on the subject property dated June 20, 1989 by petitioners Choithram and Nirmla, both surnamed Ramnani in favor of respondent Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd. (in G.R. No. 85496) for the amount of $3 M is hereby declared null and void. The Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, is directed to cancel the annotation of said mortgage on the titles of the properties in question.
8. Should respondent Ortigas Co., Ltd. Partnership pay the awards to Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani under this judgment, it shall be entitled to reimbursement from petitioner's Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani.
9. The above awards shall bear legal rate of interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the time this judgment becomes final until they are fully paid by petitioners Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani and Ortigas, Co., Ltd. Partnership. Said petitioners Choithram, et al. and respondent Ortigas shall also pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
[1] Exhibit A.
[2] Exhibits B and C.
[3] Exhibit 3.
[4] Exhibit H.
[5] Exhibit F.
[6] Exhibits and J.
[7] Pages 80 to 82, Rollo of G.R. No. 85496; pages 55 to 57, G.R. No. 85494; Associate Justice Rodolfo A. Nocon was the ponente, concurred in separate opinions by Justices Ricardo P. Tensuan and Manuel C. Herrera. Justices Felipe B. Kalalo and Venancio D. Aldecoa, Jr., both dissented in separate opinions and voted to affirm the decision of the trial court.
[8] The five justices wrote separate opinions.
[9] Pages 15 and 16, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
[10] Pages 23 to 24, Rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
[11] Pages 117 to 119, Rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
[12] Pages 41 to 45, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
[13] Exhibit R-1; underscoring supplied.
[14] See Exhibits R to R-3.
[15] Pages 45 to 50, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494; underscoring supplied.
[16] Exhibits R to R-3.
[17] TSN, July 18, 1985, page 12; and July 19, 1985, pages 8 to 9.
[18] Annex A to Urgent Motion, etc; pages 438 to 450, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
[19] Annex B, supra; page 451, supra.
[20] Annex C, supra; pages 452 to 456, supra.
[21] Pages 438 to 442, rollo, G.R. No. 85496; pages 413 to 417, rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
[22] Page 450, rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
[23] Annexes C, C-1 and C-2 to Manifestation and Complaint of petitioners Ishwar & Sonya filed on January 26, 1991.
[24] Annex D to Manifestation, etc.
[25] Annex A to Reply to Opposition filed by petitioners on December 7, 1990; Pages 383 to 384, Rollo; See also Manifestation of petitioners, December 11, 1990, pages 438 to 443 rollo, G.R. 85494.
[26] See pages to of Rollo.
[27] Exhibit B.
[28] Exhibit F.
[29] Article 1922, Civil Code.
[30] Exhibit H.
[31] Exhibit R-1; supra.
[32] Annex C to Petition in G.R. No. 85494; pages 88 to 92, rollo.
[33] Annex D, supra; Pages 93 to 97, Rollo.
[34] Supra, pages 95 to 96, Rollo; underscoring supplied.
[35] Annex C to Petition in G.R. No. 85494; pages 88 to 92, Rollo.
[36] Calo vs. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445 (1946); De los Reyes v. Elepaño, G.R. L-5282, May 29, 1959; De la Cruz vs. Tan Torres, G.R. L-14925, April 30, 1960.
[37] Yu Tiong Tay vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 597(1947).
[38] Calo vs. Rolda, supra.
[39] Exhibits T to T-14.