MARI MARIAN ANO O S. TUAS TUASON ON,, Plaintif-Appellant , MARQUEZ, Deendant-Appellee. G.R. No. L-20659 November , !92 MALCOLM, J."
vs. vs.
CRIS CRISAN ANTO TO
Marque Marquez z for the resci rescissi ssion on of the contract contract** is co#pla co#plaint int is on account of #isrepresentation and fraud perpetrated by Marques in sellin% an electric li%ht plant with a franchise when Marquez had already %i4en up his ri%ht to the franchise* C3 rendered ud%#ent for Marquez* ence, this appeal*
#$%&s"
On March 18, 1921, Crisanto Marquez, owner of the electric plant plant in Lucena Lucena,, Tayabas ayabas called called uceso ucesore res s del Lucen Lucena a !lectr !lectric ic "Lucena !lectric Co#pany$ sold the electric li%ht plant to &ntonio Tucson Tucson for 'h' 1(,)))*))* & contract was e+ecuted before a notary public public** n the a%ree# a%ree#ent ent,, Tuason uason was to pay Marque Marquez z in two instal#ent- 'h' 2,())*)) within the si+ty days and 'h' 12,)))*)) within the year* The .rst install#ent was co#plied by Tucson Tucson but the second install#ent was not paid* Tuason Tuason was in possession of the plant fro# March March 2), 1921 to /uly 19, 1922 "10 #onths$ under the #ana%e#ent of Consolidated !lectric Co#pany until it was sold to re%orio Marquez by reason of ud%#ent in the case of Levy Hermanos v. The Philippine Electric Light Company * 3act of the case also pro4ided that a franchise was %i4en to Lucen Lucena a !lectr !lectric ic Co#pan Co#pany y for 56 years years when when Crisan Crisanto to Marquez Marquez purchased the plant in 19157191(* owe4er, the co#pany did not function eecti4ely e4idenced on the constant co#plaint fro# the #unicipal #unicipal authorities authorities of Lucena* This led Crisanto to announce announce his intention to %i4e7up the franchise* On March 29, 1921, prior to the purchase purchase contract, contract, the 'ublic 'ublic :tility :tility Co##issione Co##issionerr cancelled cancelled the franchise of the co#pany* Tuason Tuason and his out.t were per#itted to operate the co#pany pursua pursuant nt to a specia speciall licens license e until until a new franchis franchise e is obtain obtained* ed* ubsequ ubsequent ently, ly, the Co##iss Co##ission ioner er %rante %ranted d a new franch franchise ise with with conditions, which a#ounted to a reno4ation of the entire plant* t was then that Tucson decided to .le a co#plaint a%ainst Crisanto
Iss'e"
;O< the contract should be rescinded due to fraud (e)*" No.
The Court e#phasized that the contract in #a=in% #ention of the property property of the electric li%ht co#pany, co#pany, #erely renewed a pre4ious in4entory of the property* ence, the franchise was not the deter#inin% cause of the purchase* The franchise was then in force and the party should ha4e ascertain its status by applyin% at the o>ce of the 'ublic :tility Co##issioner* The nondisclosure does not aect the for#ation of the contract or operate to dischar%e parties fro# their a%ree#ent, usin% the #a+i# caveat #a+i# caveat emptor * Moreo4er, it was also ruled that Tuason was estopped by latches due to his delay in assertin% his ri%ht and assentin% to the e+istin% conditions at bar* Tucson Tucson operated the electric li%ht plant for about si+teen #onths without question- he #ade the .rst pay#ent on the contract without protest- he bestirred hi#self to secure what da#a%es he could fro# the defendant only after the 4enture had pro4ed disastrous and only after the property had passed into the hands of a third party* party* No&es"
maxim caveat -"let -"let the buyer beware.”; the buyer assumes the ris that a pro!uct may ail to meet e#pectations or have !eects; the principle that the buyer alone is responsible or checing the $uality an! suitability o goo!s beore a purchase is ma!e.
