9/6/2017 G.R. No.

85494

Today is Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Custom Search

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 85494 May 7, 1991

CHOITHRAM JETHMAL RAMNANI AND/OR NIRMLA V. RAMNANI and MOTI G. RAMNANI, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI, SONYA JETHMAL RAMNANI and
OVERSEAS HOLDING CO., LTD., respondents.

G.R. No. 85496 May 7, 1991

SPOUSES ISHWAR JETHMAL RAMNANI AND SONYA JET RAMNANI, petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. PARTNERSHIP, and OVERSEAS HOLDING
CO., LTD., respondents.

Quasha, Asperilla Ancheta, Peña and Nolasco for petitioners Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani & Sonya Ramnani.
Salonga, Andres, Hernandez & Allado for Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani & Moti Ramnani.
Rama Law Office for private respondents in collaboration with Salonga, Andres, Hernandez & Allado.
Eulogio R. Rodriguez for Ortigas & Co., Ltd.

GANCAYCO, J.:

This case involves the bitter quarrel of two brothers over two (2) parcels of land and its improvements now worth a
fortune. The bone of contention is the apparently conflicting factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court,
the resolution of which will materially affect the result of the contest.

The following facts are not disputed.

Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai, all surnamed Jethmal Ramnani, are brothers of the full blood. Ishwar and his
spouse Sonya had their main business based in New York. Realizing the difficulty of managing their investments in
the Philippines they executed a general power of attorney on January 24, 1966 appointing Navalrai and Choithram
as attorneys-in-fact, empowering them to manage and conduct their business concern in the Philippines.1

On February 1, 1966 and on May 16, 1966, Choithram, in his capacity as aforesaid attorney-in-fact of Ishwar,
entered into two agreements for the purchase of two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, from
Ortigas & Company, Ltd. Partnership (Ortigas for short) with a total area of approximately 10,048 square meters.2
Per agreement, Choithram paid the down payment and installments on the lot with his personal checks. A building
was constructed thereon by Choithram in 1966 and this was occupied and rented by Jethmal Industries and a
wardrobe shop called Eppie's Creation. Three other buildings were built thereon by Choithram through a loan of
P100,000.00 obtained from the Merchants Bank as well as the income derived from the first building. The buildings
were leased out by Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. Two of these buildings were later burned.

Sometime in 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses relative to these properties
during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed and refused to render such accounting. As a consequence, on
February 4, 1971, Ishwar revoked the general power of attorney. Choithram and Ortigas were duly notified of such
revocation on April 1, 1971 and May 24, 1971, respectively.3 Said notice was also registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 29, 19714 and was published in the April 2, 1971 issue of The Manila Times for
the information of the general public.5

Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, transferred all rights and interests of Ishwar and Sonya
in favor of his daughter-in-law, Nirmla Ramnani, on February 19, 1973. Her husband is Moti, son of Choithram.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 1/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

Upon complete payment of the lots, Ortigas executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla.6 Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal were issued in her favor.

Thus, on October 6, 1982, Ishwar and Sonya (spouses Ishwar for short) filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal against Choithram and/or spouses Nirmla and Moti (Choithram et al. for brevity) and Ortigas for
reconveyance of said properties or payment of its value and damages. An amended complaint for damages was
thereafter filed by said spouses.

After the issues were joined and the trial on the merits, a decision was rendered by the trial court on December 3,
1985 dismissing the complaint and counterclaim. A motion for reconsideration thereof filed by spouses Ishwar was
denied on March 3, 1986.

An appeal therefrom was interposed by spouses Ishwar to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision
was promulgated on March 14, 1988, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing and setting aside the appealed decision of the lower
court dated December 3, 1985 and the Order dated March 3, 1986 which denied plaintiffs-appellants' Motion
for Reconsideration from aforesaid decision. A new decision is hereby rendered sentencing defendants-
appellees Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani, and Ortigas and Company
Limited Partnership to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiffs-appellants the following:

1. Actual or compensatory damages to the extent of the fair market value of the properties in question and all
improvements thereon covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 403150 and Transfer Certificate of Title No.
403152 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal, prevailing at the time of the satisfaction of the judgment but in no
case shall such damages be less than the value of said properties as appraised by Asian Appraisal, Inc. in its
Appraisal Report dated August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive).

2. All rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for the use and occupancy of the properties in question and all
improvements thereon consisting of buildings, and to be computed as follows:

a) On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to 1973, inclusive,
based on the 1967 to 1973 monthly rentals paid by Eppie's Creation;

b) Also on Building C above, occupied by Jethmal Industries and Lavine from 1974 to 1978, the rental
incomes based on then rates prevailing as shown under Exhibit "P"; and from 1979 to 1981, based on
then prevailing rates as indicated under Exhibit "Q";

c) On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental incomes based
upon then prevailing rates shown under Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1981, based on prevailing rates
per Exhibit "Q";

d) On the two Bays Buildings occupied by Sigma-Mariwasa from 1972 to 1978, the rentals based on
the Lease Contract, Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on the Lease Contract,
Exhibit "Q",

and thereafter commencing 1982, to account for and turn over the rental incomes paid or ought to be paid for
the use and occupancy of the properties and all improvements totalling 10,048 sq. m based on the rate per
square meter prevailing in 1981 as indicated annually cumulative up to 1984. Then, commencing 1985 and
up to the satisfaction of the judgment, rentals shall be computed at ten percent (10%) annually of the fair
market values of the properties as appraised by the Asian Appraisal, Inc. in August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14,
inclusive.)

3. Moral damages in the sum of P200,000.00;

4. Exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00;

5. Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the award herein made;

6. Legal interest on the total amount awarded computed from first demand in 1967 and until the full amount is
paid and satisfied; and

7. The cost of suit.7

Acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by Choithram, et al. and Ortigas, the appellate court promulgated an
amended decision on October 17, 1988 granting the motion for reconsideration of Ortigas by affirming the dismissal
of the case by the lower court as against Ortigas but denying the motion for reconsideration of Choithram, et al.8

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 2/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

Choithram, et al. thereafter filed a petition for review of said judgment of the appellate court alleging the following
grounds:

1. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in making a factual finding not supported by and
contrary, to the evidence presented at the Trial Court.

2. The Court of Appeals acted in excess of jurisdiction in awarding damages based on the value of the real
properties in question where the cause of action of private respondents is recovery of a sum of money.

ARGUMENTS

THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION IN MAKING A FACTUAL
FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT ISHWAR REMITTED THE AMOUNT OF US $150,000.00 TO
PETITIONER CHOITHRAM IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF SUCH REMITTANCE.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND MANIFEST PARTIALITY
IN DISREGARDING THE TRIAL COURTS FINDINGS BASED ON THE DIRECT DOCUMENTARY AND
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY CHOITHRAM IN THE TRIAL COURT ESTABLISHING THAT
THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED WITH PERSONAL FUNDS OF PETITIONER CHOITHRAM AND
NOT WITH MONEY ALLEGEDLY REMITTED BY RESPONDENT ISHWAR.

III

THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN AWARDING DAMAGES BASED ON

THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE FRUITS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON.9

Similarly, spouses Ishwar filed a petition for review of said amended decision of the appellate court exculpating
Ortigas of liability based on the following assigned errors

THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR AND HAS
DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR WITH APPLICABLE
DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT—

A) IN PROMULGATING THE QUESTIONED AMENDED DECISION (ANNEX "A") RELIEVING

RESPONDENT ORTIGAS FROM LIABILITY AND DISMISSING PETITIONERS' AMENDED
COMPLAINT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 534-P, AS AGAINST SAID RESPONDENT ORTIGAS;

B) IN HOLDING IN SAID AMENDED DECISION THAT AT ANY RATE NO ONE EVER TESTIFIED
THAT ORTIGAS WAS A SUBSCRIBER TO THE MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION OR THAT ANY OF
ITS OFFICERS READ THE NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN THE MANILA TIMES, THEREBY
ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDING THAT FOR RESPONDENT ORTIGAS TO BE CONSTRUCTIVELY
BOUND BY THE PUBLISHED NOTICE OF REVOCATION, ORTIGAS AND/OR ANY OF ITS
OFFICERS MUST BE A SUBSCRIBER AND/OR THAT ANY OF ITS OFFICERS SHOULD READ THE
NOTICE AS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED;

C) IN HOLDING IN SAID AMENDED DECISION THAT ORTIGAS COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE
JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WITH THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND
NIRMLA RAMNANI, AS ORTIGAS RELIED ON THE WORD OF CHOITHRAM THAT ALL ALONG HE
WAS ACTING FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HIS BROTHER ISHWAR WHEN IT TRANSFERRED THE
RIGHTS OF THE LATTER TO NIRMLA V. RAMNANI;

D) IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE DULY PRESENTED AND ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL THAT
ORTIGAS WAS PROPERLY NOTIFIED OF THE NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF THE GENERAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN TO CHOITHRAM, EVIDENCED BY THE PUBLICATION IN THE
MANILA TIMES ISSUE OF APRIL 2, 1971 (EXH. F) WHICH CONSTITUTES NOTICE TO THE
WHOLE WORLD; THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF SUCH REVOCATION WHICH WAS SENT TO
ORTIGAS ON MAY 22, 1971 BY ATTY. MARIANO P. MARCOS AND RECEIVED BY ORTIGAS ON
MAY 24, 1971 (EXH. G) AND THE FILING OF THE NOTICE WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON MARCH 29,1971 (EXH. H);

E) IN DISCARDING ITS FINDINGS CONTAINED IN ITS DECISION OF 14 MARCH 1988 (ANNEX B)

THAT ORTIGAS WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THE REVOCATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 3/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

CHOITHRAM, HENCE ORTIGAS ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN EXECUTING THE DEED OF SALE TO
THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION IN FAVOR OF NIRMLA V. RAMNANI;

F) IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT ORTIGAS VACUOUS REHASHED ARGUMENTS IN ITS MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT IT WOULD NOT GAIN ONE CENTAVO MORE FROM CHOITHRAM
FOR THE SALE OF SAID LOTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE SAME TO THE
MATTER'S DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, AND THAT IT WAS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN IT TRANSFERRED
ISHWAR'S RIGHTS TO THE LOTS IN QUESTION.

II

THE RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE
ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING WHEN IT HELD IN THE QUESTIONED
AMENDED DECISION OF 17 NOVEMBER 1988 (ANNEX A) THAT RESPONDENT ORTIGAS & CO., LTD.,
IS NOT JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CHOITHRAM, MOTI AND
NIRMLA RAMNANI IN SPITE OF ITS ORIGINAL DECISION OF 14 MARCH 1988 THAT ORTIGAS WAS
DULY NOTIFIED OF THE REVOCATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF CHOITHRAM RAMNANI.10

The center of controversy is the testimony of Ishwar that during the latter part of 1965, he sent the amount of US
$150,000.00 to Choithram in two bank drafts of US$65,000.00 and US$85,000.00 for the purpose of investing the
same in real estate in the Philippines. The trial court considered this lone testimony unworthy of faith and credit. On
the other hand, the appellate court found that the trial court misapprehended the facts in complete disregard of the
evidence, documentary and testimonial.

Another crucial issue is the claim of Choithram that because he was then a British citizen, as a temporary
arrangement, he arranged the purchase of the properties in the name of Ishwar who was an American citizen and
who was then qualified to purchase property in the Philippines under the then Parity Amendment. The trial court
believed this account but it was debunked by the appellate court.

As to the issue of whether of not spouses Ishwar actually sent US$150,000.00 to Choithram precisely to be used in
the real estate business, the trial court made the following disquisition —

After a careful, considered and conscientious examination of the evidence adduced in the case at bar, plaintiff
Ishwar Jethmal Ramanani's main evidence, which centers on the alleged payment by sending through
registered mail from New York two (2) US$ drafts of $85,000.00 and $65,000.00 in the latter part of 1965
(TSN 28 Feb. 1984, p. 10-11). The sending of these moneys were before the execution of that General Power
of Attorney, which was dated in New York, on January 24, 1966. Because of these alleged remittances of US
$150,000.00 and the subsequent acquisition of the properties in question, plaintiffs averred that they
constituted a trust in favor of defendant Choithram Jethmal Ramnani. This Court can be in full agreement if
the plaintiffs were only able to prove preponderantly these remittances. The entire record of this case is bereft
of even a shred of proof to that effect. It is completely barren. His uncorroborated testimony that he remitted
these amounts in the "later part of 1965" does not engender enough faith and credence. Inadequacy of
details of such remittance on the two (2) US dollar drafts in such big amounts is completely not positive,
credible, probable and entirely not in accord with human experience. This is a classic situation, plaintiffs not
exhibiting any commercial document or any document and/or paper as regard to these alleged remittances.
Plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani is not an ordinary businessman in the strict sense of the word. Remember his main
business is based in New York, and he should know better how to send these alleged remittances. Worst,
plaintiffs did not present even a scum of proof, that defendant Choithram Ramnani received the alleged two
US dollar drafts. Significantly, he does not know even the bank where these two (2) US dollar drafts were
purchased. Indeed, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani's lone testimony is unworthy of faith and credit and, therefore,
deserves scant consideration, and since the plaintiffs' theory is built or based on such testimony, their cause
of action collapses or falls with it.

Further, the rate of exchange that time in 1966 was P4.00 to $1.00. The alleged two US dollar drafts
amounted to $150,000.00 or about P600,000.00. Assuming the cash price of the two (2) lots was only
P530,000.00 (ALTHOUGH he said: "Based on my knowledge I have no evidence," when asked if he even
knows the cash price of the two lots). If he were really the true and bonafide investor and purchaser for profit
as he asserted, he could have paid the price in full in cash directly and obtained the title in his name and not
thru "Contracts To Sell" in installments paying interest and thru an attorney-in fact (TSN of May 2, 1984, pp.
10-11) and, again, plaintiff Ishwar Ramnani told this Court that he does not know whether or not his late
father-in-law borrowed the two US dollar drafts from the Swiss Bank or whether or not his late father-in-law
had any debit memo from the Swiss Bank (TSN of May 2, 1984, pp. 9-10).11

On the other hand, the appellate court, in giving credence to the version of Ishwar, had this to say —

While it is true, that generally the findings of fact of the trial court are binding upon the appellate courts, said
rule admits of exceptions such as when (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 4/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inferences made is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3)
when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts and
when the court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee (Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 63 SCRA 33; Philippine American
Life Assurance Co. vs. Santamaria, 31 SCRA 798; Aldaba vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 189).

The evidence on record shows that the t court acted under a misapprehension of facts and the inferences
made on the evidence palpably a mistake.

The trial court's observation that "the entire records of the case is bereft of even a shred of proof" that plaintiff-
appellants have remitted to defendant-appellee Choithram Ramnani the amount of US $ 150,000.00 for
investment in real estate in the Philippines, is not borne by the evidence on record and shows the trial court's
misapprehension of the facts if not a complete disregard of the evidence, both documentary and testimonial.

Plaintiff-appellant Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani testifying in his own behalf, declared that during the latter part of
1965, he sent the amount of US $150,000.00 to his brother Choithram in two bank drafts of US $65,000.00
and US $85,000.00 for the purpose of investing the same in real estate in the Philippines. His testimony is as
follows:

ATTY. MARAPAO:

Mr. Witness, you said that your attorney-in-fact paid in your behalf. Can you tell this Honorable Court
where your attorney-in-fact got the money to pay this property?

ATTY. CRUZ:

Wait. It is now clear it becomes incompetent or hearsay.

COURT:

Witness can answer.

A I paid through my attorney-in-fact. I am the one who gave him the money.

ATTY. MARAPAO:

Q You gave him the money?

A That's right.

Q How much money did you give him?

A US $ 150,000.00.

Q How was it given then?

A Through Bank drafts. US $65,000.00 and US $85,000.00 bank drafts. The total amount which is $
150,000.00 (TSN, 28 February 1984, p. 10; Emphasis supplied.)

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. CRUZ:

Q The two bank drafts which you sent I assume you bought that from some banks in New York?

A No, sir.

Q But there is no question those two bank drafts were for the purpose of paying down payment and
installment of the two parcels of land?

A Down payment, installment and to put up the building.

Q I thought you said that the buildings were constructed . . . subject to our continuing objection from
rentals of first building?

ATTY. MARAPAO:

Your Honor, that is misleading.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 5/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

COURT;

Witness (may) answer.

A Yes, the first building was immediately put up after the purchase of the two parcels of land that was in
1966 and the finds were used for the construction of the building from the US $150,000.00 (TSN, 7
March 1984, page 14; Emphasis supplied.)

xxx xxx xxx

Q These two bank drafts which you mentioned and the use for it you sent them by registered mail, did
you send them from New Your?

A That is right.

Q And the two bank drafts which were put in the registered mail, the registered mail was addressed to
whom?

A Choithram Ramnani. (TSN, 7 March 1984, pp. 14-15).

On cross-examination, the witness reiterated the remittance of the money to his brother Choithram, which
was sent to him by his father-in-law, Rochiram L. Mulchandoni from Switzerland, a man of immense wealth,
which even defendants-appellees' witness Navalrai Ramnani admits to be so (tsn., p. 16, S. Oct. 13, 1985).
Thus, on cross-examination, Ishwar testified as follows:

Q How did you receive these two bank drafts from the bank the name of which you cannot remember?

A I got it from my father-in-law.

Q From where did your father- in-law sent these two bank drafts?

A From Switzerland.

Q He was in Switzerland.

A Probably, they sent out these two drafts from Switzerland.

(TSN, 7 March 1984, pp. 16-17; Emphasis supplied.)

This positive and affirmative testimony of plaintiff-appellant that he sent the two (2) bank drafts totalling US $
150,000.00 to his brother, is proof of said remittance. Such positive testimony has greater probative force
than defendant-appellee's denial of receipt of said bank drafts, for a witness who testifies affirmatively that
something did happen should be believed for it is unlikely that a witness will remember what never happened
(Underhill's Cr. Guidance, 5th Ed., Vol. 1, pp. 10-11).

That is not all. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff-appellant Ishwar Ramnani executed a General Power of Attorney
(Exhibit "A") dated January 24, 1966 appointing his brothers, defendants-appellees Navalrai and Choithram
as attorney-in-fact empowering the latter to conduct and manage plaintiffs-appellants' business affairs in the
Philippines and specifically—

No. 14. To acquire, purchase for us, real estates and improvements for the purpose of real estate
business anywhere in the Philippines and to develop, subdivide, improve and to resell to buying public
(individual, firm or corporation); to enter in any contract of sale in oar behalf and to enter mortgages
between the vendees and the herein grantors that may be needed to finance the real estate business
being undertaken.

Pursuant thereto, on February 1, 1966 and May 16, 1966, Choithram Jethmal Ramnani entered into
Agreements (Exhibits "B' and "C") with the other defendant. Ortigas and Company, Ltd., for the purchase of
two (2) parcels of land situated at Barrio Ugong, Pasig, Rizal, with said defendant-appellee signing the
Agreements in his capacity as Attorney-in-fact of Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani.

Again, on January 5, 1972, almost seven (7) years after Ishwar sent the US $ 150,000.00 in 1965, Choithram
Ramnani, as attorney-in fact of Ishwar entered into a Contract of Lease with Sigma-Mariwasa (Exhibit "P")
thereby re-affirming the ownership of Ishwar over the disputed property and the trust relationship between the
latter as principal and Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar.

All of these facts indicate that if plaintiff-appellant Ishwar had not earlier sent the US $ 150,000.00 to his
brother, Choithram, there would be no purpose for him to execute a power of attorney appointing his brothers

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 6/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

as s attorney-in-fact in buying real estate in the Philippines.

As against Choithram's denial that he did not receive the US $150,000.00 remitted by Ishwar and that the
Power of Attorney, as well as the Agreements entered into with Ortigas & Co., were only temporary
arrangements, Ishwar's testimony that he did send the bank drafts to Choithram and was received by the
latter, is the more credible version since it is natural, reasonable and probable. It is in accord with the
common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men (Gardner vs. Wentors 18 Iowa 533). And in
determining where the superior weight of the evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider the
probability or improbability of the testimony of the witness (Sec. 1, Rule 133, Rules of Court).

Contrary, therefore, to the trial court's sweeping observation that 'the entire records of the case is bereft of
even a shred of proof that Choithram received the alleged bank drafts amounting to US $ 150,000.00, we
have not only testimonial evidence but also documentary and circumstantial evidence proving said remittance
of the money and the fiduciary relationship between the former and Ishwar.12

The Court agrees. The environmental circumstances of this case buttress the claim of Ishwar that he did entrust the
amount of US $ 150,000.00 to his brother, Choithram, which the latter invested in the real property business subject
of this litigation in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar.

True it is that there is no receipt whatever in the possession of Ishwar to evidence the same, but it is not unusual
among brothers and close family members to entrust money and valuables to each other without any formalities or
receipt due to the special relationship of trust between them.

And another proof thereof is the fact that Ishwar, out of frustration when Choithram failed to account for the realty
business despite his demands, revoked the general power of attorney he extended to Choithram and Navalrai.
Thereafter, Choithram wrote a letter to Ishwar pleading that the power of attorney be renewed or another authority to
the same effect be extended, which reads as follows:

June 25,1971

MR. ISHWAR JETHMAL

NEW YORK

(1) Send power of Atty. immediately, because the case has been postponed for two weeks. The
same way as it has been send before in favor of both names. Send it immediately otherwise
everything will be lost unnecessarily, and then it will take us in litigation. Now that we have gone
ahead with a case and would like to end it immediately otherwise squatters will take the entire
land. Therefore, send it immediately.

(2) Ortigas also has sued us because we are holding the installments, because they have
refused to give a rebate of P5.00 per meter which they have to give us as per contract. They
have filed the law suit that since we have not paid the installment they should get back the land.
The hearing of this case is in the month of July. Therefore, please send the power immediately.
In one case DADA (Elder Brother) will represent and in another one, I shall.

(3) In case if you do not want to give power then make one letter in favor of Dada and the other
one in my favor showing that in any litigation we can represent you and your wife, and whatever
the court decide it will be acceptable by me. You can ask any lawyer, he will be able to prepare
these letters. After that you can have these letters ratify before P.I. Consulate. It should be dated
April 15, 1971.

(4) Try to send the power because it will be more useful. Make it in any manner whatever way
you have confident in it. But please send it immediately.

You have cancelled the power. Therefore, you have lost your reputation everywhere. What can I further
write you about it. I have told everybody that due to certain reasons I have written you to do this that is
why you have done this. This way your reputation have been kept intact. Otherwise if I want to do
something about it, I can show you that inspite of the power you have cancelled you can not do
anything. You can keep this letter because my conscience is clear. I do not have anything in my mind.

I should not be writing you this, but because my conscience is clear do you know that if I had predated
papers what could you have done? Or do you know that I have many paper signed by you and if had
done anything or do then what can you do about it? It is not necessary to write further about this. It
does not matter if you have cancelled the power. At that time if I had predated and done something
about it what could you have done? You do not know me. I am not after money. I can earn money
anytime. It has been ten months since I have not received a single penny for expenses from Dada
(elder brother). Why there are no expenses? We can not draw a single penny from knitting (factory).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 7/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

Well I am not going to write you further, nor there is any need for it. This much I am writing you
because of the way you have conducted yourself. But remember, whenever I hale the money I will not
keep it myself Right now I have not got anything at all.

I am not going to write any further.

Keep your business clean with Naru. Otherwise he will discontinue because he likes to keep his
business very clean.13

The said letter was in Sindhi language. It was translated to English by the First Secretary of the Embassy of
Pakistan, which translation was verified correct by the Chairman, Department of Sindhi, University of Karachi.14

From the foregoing letter what could be gleaned is that—

1. Choithram asked for the issuance of another power of attorney in their favor so they can continue to
represent Ishwar as Ortigas has sued them for unpaid installments. It also appears therefrom that Ortigas
learned of the revocation of the power of attorney so the request to issue another.

2. Choithram reassured Ishwar to have confidence in him as he was not after money, and that he was not
interested in Ishwar's money.

3. To demonstrate that he can be relied upon, he said that he could have ante-dated the sales agreement of
the Ortigas lots before the issuance of the powers of attorney and acquired the same in his name, if he
wanted to, but he did not do so.

4. He said he had not received a single penny for expenses from Dada (their elder brother Navalrai). Thus,
confirming that if he was not given money by Ishwar to buy the Ortigas lots, he could not have consummated
the sale.

5. It is important to note that in said letter Choithram never claimed ownership of the property in question. He
affirmed the fact that he bought the same as mere agent and in behalf of Ishwar. Neither did he mention the
alleged temporary arrangement whereby Ishwar, being an American citizen, shall appear to be the buyer of
the said property, but that after Choithram acquires Philippine citizenship, its ownership shall be transferred to
Choithram.

This brings us to this temporary arrangement theory of Choithram.

The appellate court disposed of this matter in this wise

Choithram's claim that he purchased the two parcels of land for himself in 1966 but placed it in the name of
his younger brother, Ishwar, who is an American citizen, as a temporary arrangement,' because as a British
subject he is disqualified under the 1935 Constitution to acquire real property in the Philippines, which is not
so with respect to American citizens in view of the Ordinance Appended to the Constitution granting them
parity rights, there is nothing in the records showing that Ishwar ever agreed to such a temporary
arrangement.

During the entire period from 1965, when the US $ 150,000. 00 was transmitted to Choithram, and until
Ishwar filed a complaint against him in 1982, or over 16 years, Choithram never mentioned of a temporary
arrangement nor can he present any memorandum or writing evidencing such temporary arrangement,
prompting plaintiff-appellant to observe:

The properties in question which are located in a prime industrial site in Ugong, Pasig, Metro Manila
have a present fair market value of no less than P22,364,000.00 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive), and yet
for such valuable pieces of property, Choithram who now belatedly that he purchased the same for
himself did not document in writing or in a memorandum the alleged temporary arrangement with
Ishwar' (pp. 4-41, Appellant's Brief).

Such verbal allegation of a temporary arrangement is simply improbable and inconsistent. It has repeatedly
been held that important contracts made without evidence are highly improbable.

The improbability of such temporary arrangement is brought to fore when we consider that Choithram has a
son (Haresh Jethmal Ramnani) who is an American citizen under whose name the properties in question
could be registered, both during the time the contracts to sell were executed and at the time absolute title
over the same was to be delivered. At the time the Agreements were entered into with defendant Ortigas &
Co. in 1966, Haresh, was already 18 years old and consequently, Choithram could have executed the deeds
in trust for his minor son. But, he did not do this. Three (3) years, thereafter, or in 1968 after Haresh had
attained the age of 21, Choithram should have terminated the temporary arrangement with Ishwar, which

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 8/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

according to him would be effective only pending the acquisition of citizenship papers. Again, he did not do
anything.

Evidence to be believed, said Vice Chancellor Van Fleet of New Jersey, must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself—such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth
of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is
repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance. (Daggers vs. Van
Dyek 37 M.J. Eq. 130, 132).

Another factor that can be counted against the temporary arrangement excuse is that upon the revocation on
February 4, 1971 of the Power of attorney dated January 24, 1966 in favor of Navalrai and Choithram by
Ishwar, Choithram wrote (tsn, p. 21, S. July 19, 1985) a letter dated June 25, 1971 (Exhibits R, R-1, R-2 and
R-3) imploring Ishwar to execute a new power of attorney in their favor. That if he did not want to give power,
then Ishwar could make a letter in favor of Dada and another in his favor so that in any litigation involving the
properties in question, both of them could represent Ishwar and his wife. Choithram tried to convince Ishwar
to issue the power of attorney in whatever manner he may want. In said letter no mention was made at all of
any temporary arrangement.

On the contrary, said letter recognize(s) the existence of principal and attorney-in-fact relationship between
Ishwar and himself. Choithram wrote: . . . do you know that if I had predated papers what could you have
done? Or do you know that I have many papers signed by you and if I had done anything or do then what can
you do about it?' Choithram was saying that he could have repudiated the trust and ran away with the
properties of Ishwar by predating documents and Ishwar would be entirely helpless. He was bitter as a result
of Ishwar's revocation of the power of attorney but no mention was made of any temporary arrangement or a
claim of ownership over the properties in question nor was he able to present any memorandum or document
to prove the existence of such temporary arrangement.

Choithram is also estopped in pais or by deed from claiming an interest over the properties in question
adverse to that of Ishwar. Section 3(a) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states that whenever a party has, by
his own declaration, act, or omission intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true
and act upon such belief, he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be
permitted to falsify it.' While estoppel by deed is a bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from
asserting as against the other and his privies any right of title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the
truth of any material fact asserted in it (31 C.J.S. 195; 19 Am. Jur. 603).

Thus, defendants-appellees are not permitted to repudiate their admissions and representations or to assert
any right or title in derogation of the deeds or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the (1)
power of attorney dated January 24, 1966 (Exhibit A); (2) the Agreements of February 1, 1966 and May 16,
1966 (Exhibits B and C); and (3) the Contract of Lease dated January 5, 1972 (Exhibit P).

. . . The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and
justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments
to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. The doctrine of
estoppel springs from equitable principles and the equities in the case. It is designed to aid the law in
the administration of justice where without its aid injustice might result. It has been applied by court
wherever and whenever special circumstances of a case so demands' (Philippine National Bank vs.
Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 357, 368 [1979]).

It was only after the services of counsel has been obtained that Choithram alleged for the first time in his
Answer that the General Power of attorney (Annex A) with the Contracts to Sell (Annexes B and C) were
made only for the sole purpose of assuring defendants' acquisition and ownership of the lots described
thereon in due time under the law; that said instruments do not reflect the true intention of the parties (par. 2,
Answer dated May 30, 1983), seventeen (17) long years from the time he received the money transmitted to
him by his brother, Ishwar.

Moreover, Choithram's 'temporary arrangement,' by which he claimed purchasing the two (2) parcels in
question in 1966 and placing them in the name of Ishwar who is an American citizen, to circumvent the
disqualification provision of aliens acquiring real properties in the Philippines under the 1935 Philippine
Constitution, as Choithram was then a British subject, show a palpable disregard of the law of the land and to
sustain the supposed "temporary arrangement" with Ishwar would be sanctioning the perpetration of an illegal
act and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Defendants-appellees likewise violated the Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth Act 108, as amended), which
provides in Section 1 thereof that:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 9/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

In all cases in which any constitutional or legal provision requires Philippine or any other specific
citizenship as a requisite for the exercise or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege, . . . any alien or
foreigner profiting thereby, shall be punished . . . by imprisonment . . . and of a fine of not less than the
value of the right, franchise or privileges, which is enjoyed or acquired in violation of the provisions
hereof . . .

Having come to court with unclean hands, Choithram must not be permitted foist his 'temporary arrangement'
scheme as a defense before this court. Being in delicto, he does not have any right whatsoever being
shielded from his own wrong-doing, which is not so with respect to Ishwar, who was not a party to such an
arrangement.

The falsity of Choithram's defense is further aggravated by the material inconsistencies and contradictions in
his testimony. While on January 23, 1985 he testified that he purchased the land in question on his own
behalf (tsn, p. 4, S. Jan. 23, 1985), in the July 18, 1985 hearing, forgetting probably what he stated before,
Choithram testified that he was only an attorney-in-fact of Ishwar (tsn, p. 5, S. July 18, 1985). Also in the
hearing of January 23, 1985, Choithram declared that nobody rented the building that was constructed on the
parcels of land in question (tsn, pp. 5 and 6), only to admit in the hearing of October 30, 1985, that he was in
fact renting the building for P12,000. 00 per annum (tsn, p. 3). Again, in the hearing of July 19, 1985,
Choithram testified that he had no knowledge of the revocation of the Power of Attorney (tsn, pp. 20- 21), only
to backtrack when confronted with the letter of June 25, 1971 (Exhibits R to R-3), which he admitted to be in
"his own writing," indicating knowledge of the revocation of the Power of Attorney.

These inconsistencies are not minor but go into the entire credibility of the testimony of Choithram and the
rule is that contradictions on a very crucial point by a witness, renders s testimony incredible People vs.
Rafallo, 80 Phil. 22). Not only this the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is fully applicable as far as
the testimony of Choithram is concerned. The cardinal rule, which has served in all ages, and has been
applied to all conditions of men, is that a witness willfully falsifying the truth in one particular, when upon oath,
ought never to be believed upon the strength of his own testimony, whatever he may assert (U.S. vs. Osgood
27 Feb. Case No. 15971-a, p. 364); Gonzales vs. Mauricio, 52 Phil, 728), for what ground of judicial relief can
there be left when the party has shown such gross insensibility to the difference between right and wrong,
between truth and falsehood? (The Santisima Trinidad, 7 Wheat, 283, 5 U.S. [L. ed.] 454).

True, that Choithram's testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of his brother, Navalrai, but the same
would not be of much help to Choithram. Not only is Navalrai an interested and biased witness, having
admitted his close relationship with Choithram and that whenever he or Choithram had problems, they ran to
each other (tsn, pp. 17-18, S. Sept. 20, 1985), Navalrai has a pecuniary interest in the success of Choithram
in the case in question. Both he and Choithram are business partners in Jethmal and Sons and/or Jethmal
Industries, wherein he owns 60% of the company and Choithram, 40% (p. 62, Appellant's Brief). Since the
acquisition of the properties in question in 1966, Navalrai was occupying 1,200 square meters thereof as a
factory site plus the fact that his son (Navalrais) was occupying the apartment on top of the factory with his
family rent free except the amount of P l,000.00 a month to pay for taxes on said properties (tsn, p. 17, S.
Oct. 3, 1985).

Inherent contradictions also marked Navalrai testimony. "While the latter was very meticulous in keeping a
receipt for the P 10,000.00 that he paid Ishwar as settlement in Jethmal Industries, yet in the alleged payment
of P 100,000.00 to Ishwar, no receipt or voucher was ever issued by him (tsn, p. 17, S. Oct. 3, 1983).15

We concur.
The foregoing findings of facts of the Court of Appeals which are supported by the evidence is conclusive on this
Court. The Court finds that Ishwar entrusted US$150,000.00 to Choithram in 1965 for investment in the realty
business. Soon thereafter, a general power of attorney was executed by Ishwar in favor of both Navalrai and
Choithram. If it is true that the purpose only is to enable Choithram to purchase realty temporarily in the name of
Ishwar, why the inclusion of their elder brother Navalrai as an attorney-in-fact?

Then, acting as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, Choithram purchased two parcels of land located in Barrio Ugong Pasig,
Rizal, from Ortigas in 1966. With the balance of the money of Ishwar, Choithram erected a building on said lot.
Subsequently, with a loan obtained from a bank and the income of the said property, Choithram constructed three
other buildings thereon. He managed the business and collected the rentals. Due to their relationship of confidence
it was only in 1970 when Ishwar demanded for an accounting from Choithram. And even as Ishwar revoked the
general power of attorney on February 4, 1971, of which Choithram was duly notified, Choithram wrote to Ishwar on
June 25, 1971 requesting that he execute a new power of attorney in their favor.16 When Ishwar did not respond
thereto, Choithram nevertheless proceeded as such attorney-in-fact to assign all the rights and interest of Ishwar to
his daughter-in-law Nirmla in 1973 without the knowledge and consent of Ishwar. Ortigas in turn executed the
corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla after full payment of the purchase accomplice of the lots.

In the prefatory statement of their petition, Choithram pictured Ishwar to be so motivated by greed and
ungratefulness, who squandered the family business in New York, who had to turn to his wife for support,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 10/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

accustomed to living in ostentation and who resorted to blackmail in filing several criminal and civil suits against
them. These statements find no support and should be stricken from the records. Indeed, they are irrelevant to the
proceeding.

Moreover, assuming Ishwar is of such a low character as Choithram proposes to make this Court to believe, why is
it that of all persons, under his temporary arrangement theory, Choithram opted to entrust the purchase of valuable
real estate and built four buildings thereon all in the name of Ishwar? Is it not an unconscious emergence of the truth
that this otherwise wayward brother of theirs was on the contrary able to raise enough capital through the generosity
of his father-in-law for the purchase of the very properties in question? As the appellate court aptly observed if truly
this temporary arrangement story is the only motivation, why Ishwar of all people? Why not the own son of
Choithram, Haresh who is also an American citizen and who was already 18 years old at the time of purchase in
1966? The Court agrees with the observation that this theory is an afterthought which surfaced only when
Choithram, Nirmla and Moti filed their answer.

When Ishwar asked for an accounting in 1970 and revoked the general power of attorney in 1971, Choithram had a
total change of heart. He decided to claim the property as his. He caused the transfer of the rights and interest of
Ishwar to Nirmla. On his representation, Ortigas executed the deeds of sale of the properties in favor of Nirmla.
Choithram obviously surmised Ishwar cannot stake a valid claim over the property by so doing.

Clearly, this transfer to Nirmla is fictitious and, as admitted by Choithram, was intended only to place the property in
her name until Choithram acquires Philippine citizenship.17 What appears certain is that it appears to be a scheme
of Choithram to place the property beyond the reach of Ishwar should he successfully claim the same. Thus, it must
be struck down.

Worse still, on September 27, 1990 spouses Ishwar filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment and to require Choithram, et al. to submit certain documents, inviting the attention of this Court to the
following:

a) Donation by Choithram of his 2,500 shares of stock in General Garments Corporation in favor of his
children on December 29, 1989;18

b) Sale on August 2, 1990 by Choithram of his 100 shares in Biflex (Phils.), Inc., in favor of his children;19 and

c) Mortgage on June 20, 1989 by Nirmla through her attorney-in-fact, Choithram, of the properties subject of
this litigation, for the amount of $3 Million in favor of Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd., (Overseas for brevity), a
corporation which appears to be organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Cayman Islands,
with a capital of only $100.00 divided into 100 shares of $1.00 each, and with address at P.O. Box 1790,
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.20

An opposition thereto was filed by Choithram, et al. but no documents were produced. A manifestation and reply to
the opposition was filed by spouses Ishwar.

All these acts of Choithram, et al. appear to be fraudulent attempts to remove these properties to the detriment of
spouses Ishwar should the latter prevail in this litigation.

On December 10, 1990 the court issued a resolution that substantially reads as follows:

Considering the allegations of petitioners Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani and Sonya Ramnani that respondents
Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti G. Ramnani have fraudulently executed a simulated
mortgage of the properties subject of this litigation dated June 20, 1989, in favor of Overseas Holding Co.,
Ltd. which appears to be a corporation organized in Cayman Islands, for the amount of $ 3,000,000.00, which
is much more than the value of the properties in litigation; that said alleged mortgagee appears to be a "shell"
corporation with a capital of only $100.00; and that this alleged transaction appears to be intended to defraud
petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani of any favorable judgment that this Court may render in this
case;

Wherefore the Court Resolved to issue a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining and prohibiting said
respondents Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti G. Ramnani and the Overseas Holding
Co., Ltd. from encumbering, selling or otherwise disposing of the properties and improvements subject of this
litigation until further orders of the Court. Petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani are hereby required
to post a bond of P 100,000.00 to answer for any damages d respondents may suffer by way of this injunction
if the Court finally decides the said petitioners are not entitled thereto.

The Overseas Holding Co., Ltd. with address at P.O. Box 1790 Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, is hereby
IMPLEADED as a respondent in these cases, and is hereby required to SUBMIT its comment on the Urgent
Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Motion for Production of Documents, the
Manifestation and the Reply to the Opposition filed by said petitioners, within Sixty (60) days after service by

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 11/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

publication on it in accordance with the provisions of Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, at the
expense of petitioners Ishwar and Sonya Jethmal Ramnani.

Let copies of this resolution be served on the Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, and the Provincial Assessor
of Pasig, Rizal, both in Metro Manila, for its annotation on the transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. 403150 and
403152 registered in the name of respondent Nirmla V. Ramnani, and on the tax declarations of the said
properties and its improvements subject of this litigation.21

The required injunction bond in the amount of P 100,000.00 was filed by the spouses Ishwar which was approved by
the Court. The above resolution of the Court was published in the Manila Bulletin issue of December 17, 1990 at the
expense of said spouses.22 On December 19, 1990 the said resolution and petition for review with annexes in G.R.
Nos. 85494 and 85496 were transmitted to respondent Overseas, Grand Cayman Islands at its address c/o Cayman
Overseas Trust Co. Ltd., through the United Parcel Services Bill of Lading23 and it was actually delivered to said
company on January 23, 1991.24

On January 22, 1991, Choithram, et al., filed a motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction alleging that there
is no basis therefor as in the amended complaint what is sought is actual damages and not a reconveyance of the
property, that there is no reason for its issuance, and that acts already executed cannot be enjoined. They also
offered to file a counterbond to dissolve the writ.

A comment/opposition thereto was filed by spouses Ishwar that there is basis for the injunction as the alleged
mortgage of the property is simulated and the other donations of the shares of Choithram to his children are
fraudulent schemes to negate any judgment the Court may render for petitioners.

No comment or answer was filed by Overseas despite due notice, thus it is and must be considered to be in default
and to have lost the right to contest the representations of spouses Ishwar to declare the aforesaid alleged
mortgage nun and void.

This purported mortgage of the subject properties in litigation appears to be fraudulent and simulated. The stated
amount of $3 Million for which it was mortgaged is much more than the value of the mortgaged properties and its
improvements. The alleged mortgagee-company (Overseas) was organized only on June 26,1989 but the mortgage
was executed much earlier, on June 20, 1989, that is six (6) days before Overseas was organized. Overseas is a
"shelf" company worth only $100.00.25 In the manifestation of spouses Ishwar dated April 1, 1991, the Court was
informed that this matter was brought to the attention of the Central Bank (CB) for investigation, and that in a letter
of March 20, 1991, the CB informed counsel for spouses Ishwar that said alleged foreign loan of Choithram, et al.
from Overseas has not been previously approved/registered with the CB.26

Obviously, this is another ploy of Choithram, et al. to place these properties beyond the reach of spouses Ishwar
should they obtain a favorable judgment in this case. The Court finds and so declares that this alleged mortgage
should be as it is hereby declared null and void.

All these contemporaneous and subsequent acts of Choithram, et al., betray the weakness of their cause so they
had to take an steps, even as the case was already pending in Court, to render ineffective any judgment that may
be rendered against them.

The problem is compounded in that respondent Ortigas is caught in the web of this bitter fight. It had all the time
been dealing with Choithram as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar. However, evidence had been adduced that notice in
writing had been served not only on Choithram, but also on Ortigas, of the revocation of Choithram's power of
attorney by Ishwar's lawyer, on May 24, 1971.27 A publication of said notice was made in the April 2, 1971 issue of
The Manila Times for the information of the general public.28 Such notice of revocation in a newspaper of general
circulation is sufficient warning to third persons including Ortigas.29 A notice of revocation was also registered with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1 971.30

Indeed in the letter of Choithram to Ishwar of June 25, 1971, Choithram was pleading that Ishwar execute another
power of attorney to be shown to Ortigas who apparently learned of the revocation of Choithram's power of
attorney.31 Despite said notices, Ortigas nevertheless acceded to the representation of Choithram, as alleged
attorney-in-fact of Ishwar, to assign the rights of petitioner Ishwar to Nirmla. While the primary blame should be laid
at the doorstep of Choithram, Ortigas is not entirely without fault. It should have required Choithram to secure
another power of attorney from Ishwar. For recklessly believing the pretension of Choithram that his power of
attorney was still good, it must, therefore, share in the latter's liability to Ishwar.

In the original complaint, the spouses Ishwar asked for a reconveyance of the properties and/or payment of its
present value and damages.32 In the amended complaint they asked, among others, for actual damages of not less
than the present value of the real properties in litigation, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, costs of the
suit and further prayed for "such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises .33 The amended
complaint contain the following positive allegations:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 12/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

7. Defendant Choithram Ramnani, in evident bad faith and despite due notice of the revocation of the General
Power of Attorney, Annex 'D" hereof, caused the transfer of the rights over the said parcels of land to his
daughter-in-law, defendant Nirmla Ramnani in connivance with defendant Ortigas & Co., the latter having
agreed to the said transfer despite receiving a letter from plaintiffs' lawyer informing them of the said
revocation; copy of the letter is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex "H";

8. Defendant Nirmla Ramnani having acquired the aforesaid property by fraud is, by force of law, considered
a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of plaintiff and is obliged to return the same to the latter:

9. Several efforts were made to settle the matter within the family but defendants (Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla
Ramnani and Moti Ramnani) refused and up to now fail and still refuse to cooperate and respond to the
same; thus, the present case;

10. In addition to having been deprived of their rights over the properties (described in par. 3 hereof),
plaintiffs, by reason of defendants' fraudulent act, suffered actual damages by way of lost rental on the
property which defendants (Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla Ramnani and Moti Ramnani have collected for
themselves;34

In said amended complaint, spouses Ishwar, among others, pray for payment of actual damages in an amount no
less than the value of the properties in litigation instead of a reconveyance as sought in the original complaint.
Apparently they opted not to insist on a reconveyance as they are American citizens as alleged in the amended
complaint.

The allegations of the amended complaint above reproduced clearly spelled out that the transfer of the property to
Nirmla was fraudulent and that it should be considered to be held in trust by Nirmla for spouses Ishwar. As above-
discussed, this allegation is well-taken and the transfer of the property to Nirmla should be considered to have
created an implied trust by Nirmla as trustee of the property for the benefit of spouses Ishwar.35

The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction filed by Choithram, et al. should be denied. Its issuance by
this Court is proper and warranted under the circumstances of the case. Under Section 3(c) Rule 58 of the Rules of
Court, a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after commencement of the action and before
judgment when it is established:

(c) that the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act
probably in violation of plaintiffs's rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual.

As above extensively discussed, Choithram, et al. have committed and threaten to commit further acts of disposition
of the properties in litigation as well as the other assets of Choithram, apparently designed to render ineffective any
judgment the Court may render favorable to spouses Ishwar.

The purpose of the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the things subject of
the litigation and to protect the rights of the spouses Ishwar respecting the subject of the action during the pendency
of the Suit36 and not to obstruct the administration of justice or prejudice the adverse party.37 In this case for
damages, should Choithram, et al. continue to commit acts of disposition of the properties subject of the litigation,
an award of damages to spouses Ishwar would thereby be rendered ineffectual and meaningless.38

Consequently, if only to protect the interest of spouses Ishwar, the Court hereby finds and holds that the motion for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment filed by spouses Ishwar should be granted covering the properties
subject of this litigation.

Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides that at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter,
the plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction
of any judgment that may be recovered, in, among others, the following cases:

(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the
obligation upon which the action is brought, or in concealing or disposing of the property for the taking,
detention or conversion of which the action is brought;

(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent
to defraud his creditors; . . .

Verily, the acts of Choithram, et al. of disposing the properties subject of the litigation disclose a scheme to defraud
spouses Ishwar so they may not be able to recover at all given a judgment in their favor, the requiring the issuance
of the writ of attachment in this instance.

Nevertheless, under the peculiar circumstances of this case and despite the fact that Choithram, et al., have
committed acts which demonstrate their bad faith and scheme to defraud spouses Ishwar and Sonya of their rightful
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 13/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

share in the properties in litigation, the Court cannot ignore the fact that Choithram must have been motivated by a
strong conviction that as the industrial partner in the acquisition of said assets he has as much claim to said
properties as Ishwar, the capitalist partner in the joint venture.

The scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of $150,000.00 for the business. They entrusted the
1âwphi1

money to Choithram to invest in a profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this purpose they appointed
Choithram as their attorney-in-fact.

Choithram in turn decided to invest in the real estate business. He bought the two (2) parcels of land in question
from Ortigas as attorney-in-fact of Ishwar- Instead of paying for the lots in cash, he paid in installments and used the
balance of the capital entrusted to him, plus a loan, to build two buildings. Although the buildings were burned later,
Choithram was able to build two other buildings on the property. He rented them out and collected the rentals.
Through the industry and genius of Choithram, Ishwar's property was developed and improved into what it is now—
a valuable asset worth millions of pesos. As of the last estimate in 1985, while the case was pending before the trial
court, the market value of the properties is no less than P22,304,000.00.39 It should be worth much more today.

We have a situation where two brothers engaged in a business venture. One furnished the capital, the other
contributed his industry and talent. Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of their joint
investment and efforts. Perhaps this Solomonic solution may pave the way towards their reconciliation. Both would
stand to gain. No one would end up the loser. After all, blood is thicker than water.

However, the Court cannot just close its eyes to the devious machinations and schemes that Choithram employed in
attempting to dispose of, if not dissipate, the properties to deprive spouses Ishwar of any possible means to recover
any award the Court may grant in their favor. Since Choithram, et al. acted with evident bad faith and malice, they
should pay moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees to spouses Ishwar.

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 85494 is DENIED, while the petition in G.R. No. 85496 is hereby given due
course and GRANTED. The judgment of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1988 is hereby modified as follows:

1. Dividing equally between respondents spouses Ishwar, on the one hand, and petitioner Choithram
Ramnani, on the other, (in G.R. No. 85494) the two parcels of land subject of this litigation, including all
the improvements thereon, presently covered by transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 403150 and 403152
of the Registry of Deeds, as well as the rental income of the property from 1967 to the present.

2. Petitioner Choithram Jethmal Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani, Moti C. Ramnani and respondent
Ortigas and Company, Limited Partnership (in G.R. No. 85496) are ordered solidarily to pay in cash the
value of said one-half (1/2) share in the said land and improvements pertaining to respondents spouses
Ishwar and Sonya at their fair market value at the time of the satisfaction of this judgment but in no
case less than their value as appraised by the Asian Appraisal, Inc. in its Appraisal Report dated
August 1985 (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive).

3. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti Ramnani and respondent Ortigas & Co., Ltd. Partnership
shall also be jointly and severally liable to pay to said respondents spouses Ishwar and Sonya
Ramnani one-half (1/2) of the total rental income of said properties and improvements from 1967 up to
the date of satisfaction of the judgment to be computed as follows:

a. On Building C occupied by Eppie's Creation and Jethmal Industries from 1967 to 1973,
inclusive, based on the 1967 to 1973 monthly rentals paid by Eppie's Creation;

b. Also on Building C above, occupied by Jethmal Industries and Lavine from 1974 to 1978, the
rental incomes based on then rates prevailing as shown under Exhibit "P"; and from 1979 to
1981, based on then prevailing rates as indicated under Exhibit "Q";

c. On Building A occupied by Transworld Knitting Mills from 1972 to 1978, the rental incomes
based upon then prevailing rates shown under Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1981, based on
prevailing rates per Exhibit "Q";

d. On the two Bays Buildings occupied by Sigma-Mariwasa from 1972 to 1978, the rentals based
on the Lease Contract, Exhibit "P", and from 1979 to 1980, the rentals based on the Lease
Contract, Exhibit "Q".

and thereafter commencing 1982, to account for and turn over the rental incomes paid or ought to be
paid for the use and occupancy of the properties and all improvements totalling 10,048 sq. m., based
on the rate per square meter prevailing in 1981 as indicated annually cumulative up to 1984. Then,
commencing 1985 and up to the satisfaction of the judgment, rentals shall be computed at ten percent
(10%) annually of the fair market values of the properties as appraised by the Asian Appraisals, Inc. in
August 1985. (Exhibits T to T-14, inclusive.)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 14/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494

4. To determine the market value of the properties at the time of the satisfaction of this judgment and
the total rental incomes thereof, the trial court is hereby directed to hold a hearing with deliberate
dispatch for this purpose only and to have the judgment immediately executed after such
determination.

5. Petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, are also jointly and severally liable to
pay respondents Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani the amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages,
P200,000.00 as exemplary damages and attorney's fees equal to 10% of the total award. to said
respondents spouses.

6. The motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction dated December 10, 1990 filed by petitioners
Choithram, Nirmla and Moti, all surnamed Ramnani, is hereby DENIED and the said injunction is
hereby made permanent. Let a writ of attachment be issued and levied against the properties and
improvements subject of this litigation to secure the payment of the above awards to spouses Ishwar
and Sonya.

7. The mortgage constituted on the subject property dated June 20, 1989 by petitioners Choithram and
Nirmla, both surnamed Ramnani in favor of respondent Overseas Holding, Co. Ltd. (in G.R. No. 85496)
for the amount of $3-M is hereby declared null and void. The Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, is
directed to cancel the annotation of d mortgage on the titles of the properties in question.

8. Should respondent Ortigas Co., Ltd. Partnership pay the awards to Ishwar and Sonya Ramnani
under this judgment, it shall be entitled to reimbursement from petitioners Choithram, Nirmla and Moti,
all surnamed Ramnani.

9. The above awards shag bear legal rate of interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the time this
judgment becomes final until they are fully paid by petitioners Choithram Ramnani, Nirmla V. Ramnani,
Moti C. Ramnani and Ortigas, Co., Ltd. Partnership. Said petitioners Choithram, et al. and respondent
Ortigas shall also pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1
Exhibit A.
2
Exhibits B and C.
3
Exhibit 3.
4
Exhibit H.
5
Exhibit F.
6
Exhibits and J.
7
Pages 80 to 82, Rollo of G.R. No. 85496; pages 55 to 57, G.R. No. 85494; Associate Justice Rodolfo A-
Nocon was the ponente, concurred in separate opinion by Justices Ricardo P. Tensuan and Manuel C.
Herrera. Justices Felipe B. Kalalo and Venancio D. Aldecoa Jr., both dissented in separate the opinions and
voted to affirm the decision of the trial court.
8
The five justices wrote separate opinions.
9
Pages 15 and 16, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
10
Pages 23 to 24, Rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
11
Pages 117 to 119, Rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
12
Pages 41 to 45, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
13
Exhibit R-1; emphasis supplied.
14
See Exhibit R to R-3.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 15/16
9/6/2017 G.R. No. 85494
15
Pages 45 to 50, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494; emphasis supplied.
16
Exhibits R to R-3.
17
TSN, July 18, 1985, page 12; and July 19, 1985, pages 8 to 9.
18
Annex A to Urgent Motion, etc. pages 438 to 450, Rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
19
Annex B, supra; page 451, supra.
20
Annex C, supra; pages 452 to 456, supra.
21
Pages 438 to 442, rollo, G.R. No. 85496; pages 413 to 417, rollo, G.R. No. 85494.
22
Page 450, rollo, G.R. No. 85496.
23
Annexes C, C-1 and C-2 to Manifestation and Complaint of petitioners Ishwar & Sonya filed on January 26,
1991.
24
Annex D to Manifestation, etc.
25
Annex A to Reply to Opposition filed by petitioners on December 7, 1990; Pages 383 to 384, Rollo; See
also Manifestation of petitioners, December 11, 1990, pages 438 to 443 rollo, G.R. 85494.
26
See pages to of Rollo.
27
Exhibit B.
28
Exhibit F.
29
Article 1922, Civil Code.
30
Exhibit H.
31
Exhibit R-1; supra.
32
Annex C to Petition in G.R. No. 85494; pages 88 to 92, rollo.
33
Annex D, supra; Pages 93 to 97, Rollo.
34
Supra, pages 95 to 96, Rollo; emphasis supplied.
35
Annex C to Petition in G.R. No. 85494; pages 88 to 92, Rollo.
36
Calo vs. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445 (1946); De los Reyes v. Elepaño, G.R. L-5282, May 29, 1959; De la Cruz vs.
Tan Torres, G.R. L-14925, April 30, 1960,
37
Yu Tiong Tay vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 597 (1947).
38
Calo vs. Roldan supra.
39
Exhibits T to T-14.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_85494_1991.html 16/16