LAMBERTO SONGCO, Petitioners,

vs.
GEORGE C. SELLNER, Respondents.
G.R. No. 11513.|  December 4, 1917
J. Street

Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: Voidable Contracts – Active Fraud

Case Summary: Parties were sugar-cane farmers. Sellner bought petitioner’s sugar-cane harvest, based
on the Songco’s representation that it would yield a certain amount. Amount was substantially lower than
expected, thus Sellner refused to pay. Songco obtained a favorable ruling ordering Sellner to pay. Led to
appeal.
SC affirmed lower court, ruling that not every misrepresentation constitutes actionable fraud. In this case,
usual exaggerations in trade made by Songco was not fraudulent.
- Case is basically the jurisprudence which was codified into NCC 1340-1343

Parties Involved:

Petitioners: Lamberto Songco (Songco)

Respondents: George C. Sellner (Sellner)

Doctrines Involved: NCC 1388, 1340-1343

FACTS:
1. Parties were owners of farms which cultivated sugar cane in Floridablanca, Pampanga.
2. On Dec. 1915, both farms possessed a significant amount of sugar-cane ready to be processed at a
mill at a sugar central in Dinalupijan. At the time, Sellner desired to mill his cane at this
particular central but faced difficulties as the owners were not sure if they could mill his cane and
thus would not promise to take it. (Unspecified why exactly)
3. As a response, Sellner decided to buy Songco’s harvest of sugar-cane in order to process his own
cane at the sugar central at the same time as that of Songco’s.
a. Another motive was that Sellner desired to get a right of way over Songco’s land for
conveying his own sugar to the central.
4. In pursuit of this, Sellner bought Songco’s cane according to the following terms:
a. Total price of P12,000
b. Said price to be executed in (3) promissory notes, valued at P4,000 each.
5. At the time of the sale, Songco assured Sellner that from his estimate, his crops would produce
3,000 piculs of sugar. However, upon harvest the crop only produced 2,017 piculs gross.
6. However, of these (3) notes only two were paid. Which led to an action for recovery for the
remaining unpaid note filed by Songco.
a. At the lower court (unspecified, so CFI siguro) Songco obtained a favorable decision,
leading to current appeal.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

 Petitioner’s Argument related to Doctrine:
 o Sellner denied the allegations that the promissory note was unpaid
o Included a special defense that the promissory note in question was obtained by means of
false and fraudulent representations.
 Sellner claims that Songco falsely represented the quantity of uncut cane
standing in the fields of Songco at the time of the purchase.
 Songco provided an estimate of around 3,000 piculs of sugar but actual
harvest turned out to be 2,017 piculs.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N Songco’s misrepresentation of his estimate for the total number of picul’s his crops would
yield is enough to void the contract? – NO
o Under the law, not every false representation relating to the subject of the contract would
render it void. Only misrepresentations as to matters of fact that substantially affect the
buyer’s interest that are enough to render a contract void. Naturally, this does not extend
to representations as to matters of opinion, judgment, probability or expectation. (Long v.
Woodman)
 An exception to this would be when a party to a contract who is an expert or
possesses special knowledge takes advantage of the ignorance of another as to
secure the contract.
o As applied to the present case, Songco’s misrepresentation as to the potential yield of his
crops is only a matter of opinion, and thus not actionable. This is because he was
estimating the potential yield of the yet unharvested cane.
 Although it can be argued that Songco had better experience and better
information on which to form his own opinion it cannot be said that Sellner in
turn was an experienced farmer who had ample opportunity to inspect the crops
himself.
o The SC held that assertions concerning the properties of the object of a contract of sale
are “the usual and ordinary means used by sellers to obtain a high price and are always
understood as affording to buyers no ground for omitting to make inquiries”; Therefore, a
buyer who relies solely in such assertions when making purchases does so at their own
peril, and if they do so they alone must bear the consequences of their imprudence.

RULING: Judgment AFFIRMED