G.R. NO. 141311 - BERNICE LEGASPI, VS. SPOUSES RITA AND FRANCISCO ONG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the consolidation of title in the name of petitioner Bernice Legaspi and the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila is hereby ordered to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 182956, issued in the name of Permanent Savings and Loan Bank, and in lieu thereof, a new one be issued in the name of petitioner BERNICE LEGASPI upon payment of the corresponding charges. Respondents are hereby ordered to pay attorney's fees in the sum of P25,000.00. Respondents' counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. With costs against respondents. [17] In arriving at its decision, the trial court made the following disquisition: The main controversy centers on the true nature of Exhibit "C", the Deed of Absolute Sale with Right to Repurchase. The Court examines Exhibit "C", and finds it clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. If the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of the stipulation shall control (Art. 1370 CC). The intention of the parties is to be deduced from the language employed by them and the terms of the contract found unambiguous, are conclusive in the absence of averment and proof of mistake, the question being not what intention existed in the minds of the parties but what intention is expressed by the language used. When the words of a contract are plain and readily understandable, there is no room for construction (Dihiasan, et al. vs. CA, G.R. 49839, Sept. 14, 1987). According to Rita Ong who admitted having signed the document she trusted Mr. Hong as her husband's former classmate. There is a presumption in law that a person takes ordinary care of his concern (Rule 131, Sec. 5(d), Revised Rules of Evidence). It is to be presumed that Rita Ong a pharmacy and medical technology graduate would not sign a document without being satisfied of the contents thereof. She knew fully well what she was signing. Rita Ong admitted on the stand that the matter was discussed in the residence of the petitioner in the presence of her husband and Mr. Hong. She was completely aware, therefore, that she was executing a document, a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase. If she did not like its contents, she could easily refrain from signing the document. After signing the document, she cannot now be heard to complain that the parties to said exhibit intended the same to be loan with mortgage contrary to what are clearly expressed therein. The natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents. It is the duty of every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a contract before he signs and delivers it. He owes this duty to the other party to the contract because the latter may probably pay his money and shape his action in reliance upon the agreement. To permit a party when sued on a written contract to admit that he signed it but to deny that it