Pelaez v. Abreu

TRENT, J.:

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P863.81 and denying him affirmative relief. Plaintiff sold to the defendant under pacto de retro a house and lot for P14,000. The contract stipulated that she should continue to occupy the house as tenant at a rental of P140 per month.

She was also to pay taxes, premiums on the insurance policy for necessary repairs, etc. The property was sold on August 23, 1901, and was redeemed by the plaintiff on December 16, 1902, a period of 15 22/30 months. It appears that the plaintiff, although she occupied the property, paid no rent during this period and that defendant paid the taxes for the year 1901, amounting to P186.19, and the premium on the insurance policy, amounting to P100.

The rent due the defendant at the time the property was redeemed would amount to P2,207.33. It was orally agreed after the date of the sale that the defendant should rent part of the premises to other persons and collect the rents therefor, such collections to be applied on the redemption price. The defendant collected P1,150 in this manner.

On December 16, 1902, when the property was redeemed, the plaintiff paid to the defendant the sum of P16,500. The court found that this sum was made up of P14,000, the actual redemption price, and P2,500 for rent. The court found that the plaintiff had overpaid the defendant for rent the sum of P260 in reality, however, P292.67), but that according to plaintiff's own statement she did not believe that the account presented to her by the defendant a few days before the date of the redemption of the property, was correct.

Further, that she was of the opinion that the defendant was entitled to only P14,216.24. Notwithstanding these facts, she paid the coconut as set forth by defendant. It was held, therefore, that the plaintiff was not laboring under any mistake of fact in paying the P16,500 in settlement with the defendant; and applying articles 1985 and 1900 of the Civil Code; and citing 12 Manresa, 275, the court held that she was not entitled to consideration in the matter of the excess payment of rent.

Neither party appealed from this portion of the judgment of the lower court, and it is not therefore before us. The case presented to this court relates to the oral agreement made by the parties subsequent to the written contract of sale with pacto de retro , whereby the defendant was allowed to lease part of the premises to other persons and collect the rent therefrom, such collections, to be applied to the redemption of the property. The court found that no part of these collections was credited to the plaintiff when she redeemed the property.

The amount of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is made up in the following manner: Rent collected by the defendant which should have been applied to the redemption price .......................................................... P1,150.00 Premium on insurance policy, paid by defendant ................. P100.00 Taxes for 1901 paid by defendant ............................................

186.19