TodayisThursday,March02,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.119679May18,2001

SPS.ALFREDOANDSUSANABUOT,petitioners,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ENCARNACIONDIAZVDA.DERESTON,ETAL.,respondents.

DELEON,JR.,J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals2 promulgated on March 9, 1995 setting aside the
Amended Decision/Order3 dated December 5, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cebu City, and
reinstating the latter's Decision dated July 30, 19904 dismissing petitioners' action for recovery of property,
cancellation of originalcertificateoftitleanddamagesagainstprivaterespondents, the heirs of Encarnacion Diaz
Vda.deRestonandspousesMarianoDelRosarioandSoteraDejan.

Thefactsareasfollows:

PlaintiffsspousesAlfredoandSusanaBuot(petitionersherein),allegedintheirsecondamendedcomplaint5thaton
December 6, 1974 defendant Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de Reston (private respondent herein), sold to them the
easternportionofherpropertycoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.14887(1967),withanareaof19,042squaremeters
situated at Tulay (previously known as Tungkop), Minglanilla, Cebu, as evidenced by a Memorandum of
Agreement.6

The Memorandum of Agreement stated that the purchase price of P19,042.00 shall be paid as follows: (a) the
amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) in the concept of earnest money, upon the execution of the said
instrumentand(b)thebalancethereof,intheamountofeighteenthousandfortytwopesos(P18,042.00),withinsix
(6)monthsfromthedatethevendeesarenotifiedbythevendorofthefactthattheCertificateofTitletotheeastern
portion of the vendor's lot is ready for transfer in the names of the vendees. It was also agreed that title to,
ownership,possessionandenjoymentoftheportionsoldshallremainwiththevendoruntilthefullconsiderationof
the sale shall have been received by her and acknowledged in a document duly executed for said purpose.
ExpensesfortheregistrationofthelotundertheTorrenssystem,withaviewtosecuringacertificateoftitleforthe
same,aswellasfortheportionsold,shallbebornebythepartiesshareandsharealike.However,itshallbethe
vendorwhomustinitiatethefilingofthenecessarypetitioninthepropercourt.7

TheBuotspouses,asvendees,paidEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestontheearnestmoneyofP1,000.00.FromApril
1975 to March 1977, Encarnacion asked Alfredo Buot for additional sums of money totalling P2,774.00, duly
receipted8 as part payment of the subject lot.9 As the land was not titled, Alfredo Buot protected his interest by
informingtheProvincialAssessorofCebuinaletterdatedOctober23,1974thathehadacquired"certainrights"on
saidparceloflandcoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.14887(old)or004970(new)andrequestedthathissaidrights
be annotated on the face of said tax declaration.10 He also wrote a similar letter dated November 4, 1974 to the
MunicipalAssessorofMinglanilla,Cebu.11TheProvincialAssessorannotatedhissaidrightonTaxDeclarationNo.
00684712effectivein1975,insteadofTaxDeclarationNo.004970asrequested,effectivein1974.13

OnMay18,1977,AlfredoBuotreceivedasubpoenafromthePhilippineConstabulary,signedbyLt.Col.RuebYap,
requiring him to appear on May 20, 1977. On said date, they had a confrontation with Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de
Reston.14

On June 14, 1977, Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de Reston filed Case No. IX10474 before the then Court of First
InstanceofCebufortheregistrationoftitletolandconsistingof29,532squaremeterssituatedinTulay,Minglanilla,
Cebu,includingtheportionsoldtotheplaintiffs.15
Theplaintiffs(petitioners)allegedthatonAugust5,1977,EncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonmaliciouslyexecuteda
Deed of Absolute Sale for the whole parcel of land (29,532 square meters) described under Tax Declaration No.
14887 (1967), which included the portion (19,042 square meters) already sold to them, to defendantsspouses
MarianoDelRosarioandSoteraDejan,whohadpreviousknowledgeofthesaletothem.16AlfredoBuotsaidthat
hemetMarianoDelRosarioinApril1977ashecamewithEncarnacionandJudgePedroGodineztohishouse.17

The plaintiffs also alleged that on December 27, 1977, the spouses Del Rosario, by means of fraud were able to
secure a Free Patent Title to the entire property, including the eastern portion previously sold to them.
NotwithstandingtheseparateapplicationbyEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonforafreepatentonMay26,1965,
the Bureau of Lands accepted the free patent application of the Del Rosario spouses, which was approved on
December 27, 1977. They never received a notice of the Free Patent Application of the Del Rosario spouses
althoughtheyaretheadjacentownersofthepropertyappliedfor,andthepreviousprotestantofEncarnacion'sfirst
applicationforafreepatent.18

PlaintiffsprayedforthecancellationofthetitleofMarianoDelRosario,thereconveyanceoftheeasternportionof
thepropertytothem,anddamages.19

In her Answer, defendant (private respondent) Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de Reston stated that in the latter part of
1973,theplaintiffsofferedtopurchasethelandinquestion.Theyagreedthattheplaintiffswouldbegivenanoption
tobuytheland"ifhecouldfurnishamountsinordertohavethelandregisteredundertheTorrenssystem."Asa
resultofthenegotiation,theyexecutedaMemorandumofAgreement.TheamountofP1,000.00thatwasgivenby
theplaintiffswasonlyearnestmoneyfortheoptiontobuytheland.Itwasagreedthatanyconsummatedsaleofthe
propertywouldbereflectedinanotherinstrument.Plaintiffsknewthatatthattimeshewasbadlyinneedofmoney
andthattheexpensesforregistrationshouldinitiallybeshoulderedbythem,whichwouldthereafterbeappliedas
partpaymentofthepurchaseprice,incasethesalewouldbeconsummated.20

Encarnacion said that she exerted effort to register the property. While plaintiffs advanced several amounts on
severaloccasions,theywereinsmallamountsinsufficienttopayfortheregistrationexpenses.21

Itlaterbecameapparentthattheplaintiffshadnointentiontobuythepropertyandwereonlyinterestedindealing
withotherinterestedbuyerstomakeaprofit.22

Encarnacion alleged that she pleaded with plaintiffs several times that they purchase the property as there were
other interested buyers, and she was badly in need of money. She even sought the help of the Philippine
Constabularysothatplaintiffswouldexercisetheiroption.23

Infinancialdistress,sheinformedplaintiffsthatshecouldnolongerwaitforthemtoexercisetheoption,andoffered
to reimburse the amounts which they have advanced, including the earnest money. Plaintiffs refused
reimbursement, although they were not willing to consummate the sale. Plaintiffs, therefore, have no cause of
action,andtheiractionisbarredbylaches.24

Encarnacion reserved her right to file a crossclaim against her codefendants spouses Mariano Del Rosario and
SoteraDejan.Sheaskedthetrialcourtforthedismissalofthecomplaint,andthatshebeawardeddamages.25

OnApril6,1979,EncarnacionfiledacrosspartyclaimagainsthercodefendantsspousesMarianoDelRosarioand
SoteraDejanandprayedfortheannulmentoftheDeedofSaledatedAugust5,1977fornonpaymentofthelong
overduebalanceofP80,000.00,anddamages.26

JoaquinRestontestifiedthatpetitionerEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonwashismother,andthatshediedonJune
2, 1979. He, together with his brothers and sisters, namely, Venancio Reston, Erlinda Reston, Hayde Angeles
Reston,YolandaRestonandValdemarRestonsubstitutedtheirmotherinthiscase.HeknowsMarianoDelRosario
asthevendeeoftheirland,whichhasnotyetbeenfullypaidasshownintheaffidavit27ofMarianoDelRosarioand
thecontractofsale.28TheaffidavitstatedthatthecorrectconsiderationofthedeedofsalewasP100,000.00andof
thisamount,onlyP20,000.00wasactuallypaid.MarianoDelRosariopromisedtopaythebalanceofP80,000.00in
thefollowingmanner:P15,000.00wouldbepaidtoEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonuponthefirstreleaseofany
bank loan P10,000.00 would be paid on the second release P10,000.00 on the third release and another
P10,000.00onthefourthrelease.ThebalanceofP80,000.00,however,remainsunpaid.29

On the other hand, defendant Mariano Del Rosario testified that Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de Reston mortgaged a
parcel of land to him with an area of about 29,532 square meters evidenced by a deed of real estate mortgage
executedonMay17,1977.30Asmortgagee,hewasgivenanoptiontopurchasetheproperty.Aboutthreemonths
later,hepurchasedthepropertyforP40,000.00asevidencedbyaDeedofSaledatedAugust5,1977.31Onthe
samedate,anaffidavitwasalsoexecutedbytheDelRosariospousesstatingthatthecorrectconsiderationofthe
aforementioned Deed of Sale was P100,000.00, and that the Del Rosarios have paid Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de
RestonP20,000.00,leavingabalanceofP80,000.00.32

MarianoDelRosarioaverredthatbeforesaidmortgageandsale,EncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonrepresentedto
him that she was the absolute owner of the property and showed him her tax declarations and tax receipts. She
assuredhimthatthelandwastobetitledsoonasshehadfiledanapplicationforregistrationoftitletotheproperty
withtheCourtofFirstInstance,BranchII,ProvinceofCebu,inthesalaofJudgeFranciscoBurgos.Hetalkedwith
the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Amparo Gomez, who gave him the impression that the application might be
disapprovedbecausethepropertywaspublicland.Thereafter,heapproachedtheSpecialAttorneyoftheSolicitor
GeneralassignedattheBureauofLandsandfoundoutthattherewasanOpposition33bytheSolicitorGeneralto
saidapplication.HeshowedtheSpecialAttorneytheDeedofSaleinhisfavorandwastoldthatthedocumentwas
nullandvoidbecausethepropertyinvolvedwaspublicland.TheSpecialAttorneyadvisedhimtoapplyforafree
patent.34

MarianoDelRosariosaidthathefiledanapplicationforfreepatenttothelandinCebu.HetoldEncarnacionDiaz
Vda.deRestonabouttheverificationhemadeinManila,andthattheyhadtohelpeachother.Encarnacionagreed
tocooperateandsheappearedandmanifestedduringtheinvestigationattheBureauofLandsthatshewaivedher
right over the land in his favor. He was relying on Encarnacion's right of possession in his application. His
applicationforfreepatentwasapprovedonDecember27,1977,35andthereafterOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.0
15255wasissuedinhisname.36

Afteracquiringthepropertybyfreepatenttitle,MarianoDelRosariostartedclearingthepropertyandconstructed
separatefishponds.HespentaboutP300,000.00.Hedevelopedonly60to70percentoftheproperty,becausehe
ranshortofmoney.37

MarianoDelRosariodeclaredthatatthetimeheappliedforfreepatent,hedidnotknowofanytransactionbetween
EncarnacionandtheBuotspouses.Atthetimehefiledhisapplicationforfreepatent,nooppositionwasfiledbythe
Buotspouses.HefirstcametoknowAlfredoBuotatthetimethelatterfiledtheinstantcaseagainstEncarnacion.38

Healsostatedthatbeforeheexecutedthemortgagecontract,hedidnotcheckwhetherEncarnacionwastheowner
ofthepropertymortgaged,buthemerelyreliedontherepresentationofEncarnacion.Priortothesale,Encarnacion
didnotinformhimthattherewasatransactionbetweenherandtheBuotspouses.Onthebasisofthedocuments
presented to him, it did not appear that there was a transaction between Encarnacion and the Buots. He did not
check with the Office of the Provincial Assessor whether there was an annotation on the tax declaration of the
propertyownedbyEncarnacion.39

MarianoDelRosarioprayedforthedismissalofthecomplaintanddamages.40

OnJuly30,1990,thetrialcourtdismissedthecomplaintforlackofcauseofactionandordereddefendantMariano
DelRosariotopaytheheirsofEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonthesumofeightythousand(P80,000.00)pesos,
representingthebalanceofthepurchasepriceofthepropertyinquestion,withinterestoftwelve(12%)percentper
annum from the time of the filing of the crossclaim. Plaintiffs and crossclaim defendants spouses Mariano Del
RosarioandSoteraDejanwerealsojointlyandseverallyorderedtopaythecosts.41

PlaintiffsanddefendantsheirsofEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonfiledtheirrespectivemotionforreconsideration.
OnDecember5,1990,thetrialcourtreconsideredandsetasideitsdecisiondatedJuly30,1990,andmodifiedthe
dispositiveportion,thus:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrendered:

Declaring plaintiffs Alfredo A. Buot Sr. and Susana Buot the absolute owners of the eastern portion of the
property of Encarnacion Vda. de Reston situated at Tungkop, but more known as Tulay, Minglanilla, Cebu
describedundertheMemorandumofAgreement(Exhibit"A")containinganareaofNineteenThousandForty
Two(19,042)squaremetersorderingdefendantsMarianoDelRosarioandhisspousetoconveyinfavorof
theplaintiffstheeasternportionoftheaforementionedproperty,nowcoveredunderFreePatentFPANo.F
VII17483issuedonDecember28,1977(Exhibit"4"DelRosario)anddescribedunderOCTNo.15255upon
payment by plaintiffs the balance of Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Sixtyeight (P15, 268.00) pesos to the
heirs of Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de Reston the substituting defendants ordering defendant Mariano Del
RosarioandhisspousetoreconveyinfavoroftheheirsofEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestontheremaining
portionofFreePatentNo.FVII17483(OCTNo.15255)issuedinhisnameandcomplywiththeprovisions
of paragraph 5 in his affidavit (Exhibit "1" Reston) ordering the defendants to jointly and severally pay
plaintiffs the sum of Three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos for actual or compensatory damages, Three
Thousand(P3,000.00)pesosforattorney'sfeesandcostsofthisaction.
 ShoulddefendantDelRosariorefuseorfailtoexecutethedeedsofconveyanceandreconveyanceinfavorof
the plaintiffs and his codefendants, respectively, the Deputy sheriff of this Court is ordered to execute the
samewithequaleffectorvalidityasiftheywereexecutedbytheaforementioneddefendants.

SOORDERED.42

OnlydefendantMarianoDelRosarioseasonablyfiledamotionforreconsiderationtotheamendeddecision,which
wasdeniedinanOrderdatedMarch12,1991.43

DefendantsspousesMarianoDelRosarioandtheheirsofEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonappealedtotheCourt
of Appeals. In its Decision promulgated on March 9, 1995, the Court of Appeals found that the Memorandum of
AgreementbetweenEncarnacionandtheBuotspouseswasmerelyanoptiontopurchasetherewasnoperfected
contractofsale.Moreover,theappellatecourtfoundthattheallegationthatMarianoDelRosarioobtainedthefree
patent title through fraud was not supported by clear and sufficient evidence. The appellate court, thus, rendered
judgment,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

THEFOREGOINGCONSIDERED,theappealedDecisiondatedDecember5,1990,isherebyREVERSED
andSETASIDEinstead,theDecisiondatedJuly30,1990isreinstated.

SOORDERED.44

Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariwasfiledbytheBuotspouses.

Themainissueinthecaseatbariswhetherornotpetitionersareentitledtorecoverthepropertyinquestionwhich
hingesontheresolutionofwhetherornottheMemorandumofAgreementtheyenteredintowithEncarnacionDiaz
Vda.deRestonisacontractofsale.

Petitionerssubmitthefollowing:

1)ThatcontrarytotheholdingoftheCourtofAppeals,theMemorandumofAgreement(Exh.1BuotAnnex
"D")wasnotanoptiontopurchasebutavalidandpartiallyexecutedcontractofsale

2)Thatasaresultofsuchcontract,subjectpropertycouldnotanymorebethevalidsubjectofanothersales
contractinfavorofMarianoregardlessofMariano'sallegedgoodfaith

3) That considering that Mariano did not have any right over the land, he was not qualified to apply for a
patentand

4)ThatsincethelandproperlybelongstopetitionerAlfredoBuot,Marianoshouldbeconsideredatrusteeof
thelandforthebenefitofAlfredoBuotunderanimpliedtrust.45

PetitionersassertthatcontrarytotherulingoftheCourtofAppeals,theMemorandumofAgreementwasacontract
ofsale.Thesalewasperfectedfromthemomentthepartiesagreedontheobjectofthecontractandtheprice.The
downpaymentofP1,000.00wasproofthatthecontracthadbeenperfected.

Wedisagree.AnexaminationofsaidMemorandumofAgreementshowsthatitisneitheracontractofsalenoran
option to purchase, but it is a contract to sell. An option is a contract granting a privilege to buy or sell at a
determinedpricewithinanagreedtime,46thespecificlengthordurationofwhichisnotpresentintheMemorandum
ofAgreement.Inacontracttosell,thetitleoverthesubjectpropertyistransferredtothevendeeonlyuponthefull
paymentofthestipulatedconsideration.47Unlikeinacontractofsale,thetitleinacontracttoselldoesnotpassto
the vendee upon the execution of the agreement or the Delivery of the thing sold.48 The Memorandum of
Agreementreadsinpart:

WHEREFORE,thepartiesagreeasfollows:THAT

1. For and in consideration of the amount of NINETEEN THOUSAND FORTY TWO PESOS (P19,042.00),
Philippine currency, payable in the manner specified hereunder, the VENDOR hereby sells, transfers and
conveys all the attributes of her ownership over that eastern portion of the parcel of land aforedescribed,
containinganareaofNINETEENTHOUSANDFORTYTWOSQUAREMETERS,thetechnicaldescriptionof
whichismentioninAnnex"A"hereof,togetherwiththeimprovementsincludedtherein,consistingofcoconut
trees.

2.TheaforesaidpurchasepriceofP19,042.00shallbepaidasfollows:

a.Theamountofonethousandpesos(P1,000.00)inconceptofearnestmoney,upontheexecutionof
thisinstrumentreceiptofwhichamountisherebyacknowledged
 b. The balance thereof, in the amount of eighteen thousand forty two pesos (P18,042.00), within six
monthsfromthedateVENDEESarenotifiedbytheVENDORofthefactthattheCertificateofTitleto
theeasternportionofVENDOR'Slot,whicheasternportionishereinsoldanddescribedinAnnex"A"
hereof,isreadyfortransfertothenamesofhereinVENDEES

3.Titleto,ownership,possessionandenjoymentofthatportionhereinsold,shall,remainwiththeVENDOR
untilthefullconsiderationofthesalethereofshallhavebeenreceivedbyVENDORanddulyacknowledged
by her in a document duly executed for said purpose. VENDEES may introduce improvements there on
subjecttotherightsofausufructuary.49

Fromtheforegoing,itappearsthattheagreementwasinthenatureofacontracttosellasthevendor,Encarnacion
DiazVda.deReston,clearlyreservedtoherselfownershipandpossessionofthepropertyuntilfullpaymentofthe
purchasepricebythevendees,50 such payment being a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not
consideredabreach,casualorserious,butsimplyaneventwhichpreventedtheobligationfromacquiringobligatory
force.51

Petitioners, however, argue that their obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price had not arisen as the
MemorandumofAgreementstipulatedthatthebalanceofP18,042.00waspayablewithinsix(6)monthsfromthe
date the vendor would notify them that the certificate of title of the property could already be transferred in their
names.Saidargument,however,doesnotchangethenatureofthecontracttheyenteredinto,beingacontractto
sell, so that there was no actual sale until full payment was made by the vendees, and that on the part of the
vendees, no full payment would be made until a certificate of title was ready for transfer in their names.52 In her
Answer, Encarnacion even stated that it was agreed that any consummated sale of the property would be
necessarilyreflectedinanotherinstrument.53Thus,petitionersclearlyhadnorighttoaskforreconveyanceofthe
propertyonthegroundoffraudastherewasnoperfectedcontractofsalebetweenthemandthelateEncarnacion
DiazVda.deReston.TheCourtofAppealsalsocorrectlystatedthus:

Onlythepersonwhohasbeendeprivedofhispropertythroughfraud,eitheractualorconstructiveandwho
was not at fault, may file a personal action for reconveyance. The pretension that there was fraud when
MarianowasabletoobtainaFreePatentTitle,isnotsupportedbyevidence.Onthecontrary,fraudcannot
be presumed and must be established by clear and sufficient evidence (Carreon vs. Agcaoili, L11156,
February 23, 1961, 1 SCRA 521 Gutierrez vs. Villegas, L17117, July 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 527 Santos vs.
Buenaventura, L22797, September 22, 1966, 18 SCRA 47 Republic vs. Ker & Company, Ltd., L21609,
September 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 207 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Gonzales, L19495, November
24,1966,18SCRA757HengTongTextilesCompany,Inc.vs.CommissionerofInternalRevenue,L19737,
August26,1968,24SCRA767).54

However, under the second paragraph of Article 118855 of the New Civil Code, even if the Buot spouses did not
mistakenlymakepartialpayments,inasmuchasthesuspensiveconditionwasnotfulfilled,itisonlyfairandjustthat
the Buot spouses be allowed to recover what they had paid in expectancy that the condition would happen
otherwise,therewouldbeunjustenrichmentonthepartofEncarnacionDiazVda.deReston,nowsubstitutedby
herheirs.56Hence,theheirsofEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonshouldreturnthesumofP3,774.00receivedfrom
theBuotspouseswithinterestattwelve(12)percentperannumfromthetimetheRegionalTrialCourtrenderedits
originaldecisiononJune20,1977.57

On the other hand, private respondent Mariano Del Rosario held a contract of sale evidenced by the Deed of
DefiniteSale58coveringthesaidentirepropertyofEncarnacionDiazVda.deReston,andhewasgivenpossession
of the land. By that contract of sale, Encarnacion transferred to Mariano Del Rosario her rights, interests and
participationasclaimantofsaidpubliclandasshownbyherapplicationforfreepatentin1965andherapplication
for registration of title to the property under Act 496 in 1977.59 Such rights could be waived, transferred or
alienated.60Supportedbythecontractofsale,MarianoDelRosariofiledanapplicationforfreepatenttotheland,
whichwasapprovedbytheBureauofLandsonDecember27,1977,61andthereafterthecorrespondingfreepatent
was issued, followed by the issuance of the Original Certificate of Title No. 015255 in his name. Confirming the
transferofherrightsoverthepropertytoMarianoDelRosariobysale,Encarnacionfiledapetition62datedMarch3,
1978towithdrawherapplicationforregistrationoftitletotheland,whichwasgrantedbytheCourtofFirstInstance
ofCebu,63inanOrderdatedMarch15,1978.64

Hence,theCourtofAppealsdidnoterrinreinstatingtheDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtdatedJuly30,1990
thus:

WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,judgmentisherebyrenderedfordefendantsheirsofEncarnacion
Diaz Vda. de Reston and against plaintiffs Alfredo A. Buot and Susana L. Buot and third party defendant
MarianoDelRosarioforwhichplaintiffs'complaintisDISMISSEDforlackofcauseofactionanddefendant
Mariano Del Rosario is ordered to pay the heirs of Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de Reston, namely, Joaquin
 VenancioReston,ErlindaReston,HaydeAngelesReston,YolandaRestonandValdemarRestonthesumof
Eighty Thousand (P80,000.00) Pesos, representing the balance of the purchase price of the property in
question with an interest of twelve (12%) per cent per annum from the time of the filing of the crossclaim.
PlaintiffandcrossclaimdefendantsMarianoDelRosarioandSoteraDejanarejointlyandseverallyordered
topaythecosts.65

In their brief,66 private respondentsheirs of Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de Reston prayed for the reversal of the
decision of the Court of Appeals by awarding the entire property to them, although they did not appeal from said
decision.InQuezonDevelopmentBankvs.CourtofAppeals,67weruledthatapartywhohasnotappealedfroma
decisioncannotseekanyreliefotherthanwhatisprovidedinthejudgmentappealedfrom,andcitedLumibaovs.
IntermediateAppellateCourt,68thus:

Itiswellsettledinthisjurisdictionthatwheneveranappealistakeninacivilcase,anappelleewhohasnot
himselfappealedmaynotobtainfromtheappellatecourtanyaffirmativereliefotherthantheonesgrantedin
thedecisionofthecourtbelow.Theappelleecanonlyadvanceanyargumentthathemaydeemnecessaryto
defeattheappellant'sclaimortoupholdthedecisionthatisbeingdisputed,andhecanassignerrorsinhis
briefifsuchisrequiredtostrengthentheviewsexpressedbythecourtaquo.Theseassignederrorsinturn
maybeconsideredbytheappellatecourtsolelytomaintaintheappealeddecisiononothergrounds,butnot
forthepurposeofreversingormodifyingthejudgmentintheappellee'sfavorandgivinghimotherreliefs.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED
withthemodificationthattheheirsofEncarnacionDiazVda.deRestonareorderedtoreturnthepartialpaymentsin
the total amount of P3,774.00 received from petitionersspouses Alfredo and Susana Buot with interest at twelve
(12)percentperannumfromthetimetheRegionalTrialCourtrendereditsdecisiononJuly30,1990.

SOORDERED.

Bellosillo,Mendoza,QuisumbingandBuena,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeBernardoLl.SalasandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesJaimeM.Lantin
andMaAliciaAustriaMartinez,Rollo,pp.2445.
2EighthDivision.

3PennedbyJudgeJoseP.Burgos,Records,pp.529537.

4Records,pp.463476.

5Records,pp.348354.

6Records,pp.79.

7Records,pp.89.

8Exhibits"B1"to"B28,"FolderofExhibits,pp.716.

9TSN,June8,1983,pp.67.

10Exh."C1"(Buot),FolderofExhibits,p.17.

11Exh."C2,"(Buot),FolderofExhibits,p.18.

12Exhibit"D"(Buot),FolderofExhibits,p.19.

13TSN,June8,1983,p.

14TSN,June8,1983,p.29.

15Records,p.349.

16SecondAmendedComplaint,Records,p.350.