Feliciano A. Cruz vs Auditor General, GR No. L-12233, May 30, 1959
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
During
the Japanese occupation, Cruz wanted to purchase a lot made available to the
public by the Government through the Rural Progress Administration. The lot
refers to the Sta. Clara Estate in Sampaloc, Manila. Pursuant to government
requisites, Cruz has to pay 1,160 in Japanese money as deposit.
After
liberation, Cruz delivered to RPA another 442.85 in Philippine currency. To
expedite the conveyance, Cruz delivered the balance of the stipulated price and
thereafter demanded the refund of the 1,160 but the Auditor General refused on
the ground that deposits under EO No. 49 were considered void and the loss of
the deposit by fortuitous event must be borne by Cruz.
ISSUE
Whether
or not Cruz can recover the deposit he paid.
RULING
Yes.
Under
the law and existing jurisprudence, deposits made in banks during the
occupation are null and void, because said institutions were bound to accept
and could not have refused to accept any and all deposits made in Mickey Mouse
money. In other words, said deposits were accepted without the degree of
freedom characterizing the consent that normally binds the parties to a
contract. This situation did not obtain in other deposits made during said
period.
In this case, it was the RPA that
required the petitioner to make the deposit by way of advance partial payment.
Such policy was adopted by the RPA of its own free will. It could have changed
the policy yet it did not do so. Thus, neither the petitioner nor the RPA was
in the same condition as that of the depositors and depositaries contemplated
in Executive Order No. 49 and the jurisprudence mentioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment