SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 167615. January 11, 2016.]

SPOUSES ALEXANDER AND JULIE LAM, Doing Business Under the

Name and Style "COLORKWIK LABORATORIES" AND "COLORKWIK
PHOTO SUPPLY", petitioners, vs. KODAK PHILIPPINES, LTD.,
respondent .

DECISION

LEONEN, J : p

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed on April 20, 2005 assailing the
March 30, 2005 Decision 1 and September 9, 2005 Amended Decision 2 of the Court of
Appeals, which modified the February 26, 1999 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court by
reducing the amount of damages awarded to petitioners Spouses Alexander and Julie
Lam (Lam Spouses). 4 The Lam Spouses argue that respondent Kodak Philippines,
Ltd.'s breach of their contract of sale entitles them to damages more than the amount
awarded by the Court of Appeals. 5
I
On January 8, 1992, the Lam Spouses and Kodak Philippines, Ltd. entered into an
agreement (Letter Agreement) for the sale of three (3) units of the Kodak Minilab
System 22XL 6 (Minilab Equipment) in the amount of P1,796,000.00 per unit, 7 with the
following terms: HTc ADC

This confirms our verbal agreement for Kodak Phils., Ltd. to provide Colorkwik
Laboratories, Inc. with three (3) units Kodak Minilab System 22XL . . . for your
proposed outlets in Rizal Avenue (Manila), Tagum (Davao del Norte), and your
existing Multicolor photo counter in Cotabato City under the following terms and
conditions:
1. Said Minilab Equipment packages will avail a total of 19% multiple
order discount based on prevailing equipment price provided said
equipment packages will be purchased not later than June 30,
1992.
2. 19% Multiple Order Discount shall be applied in the form of
merchandise and delivered in advance immediately after signing of
the contract.
* Also includes start-up packages worth P61,000.00.
3. NO DOWNPAYMENT.
4. Minilab Equipment Package shall be payable in 48 monthly
installments at THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.00)
inclusive of 24% interest rate for the first 12 months; the balance
shall be re-amortized for the remaining 36 months and the
 prevailing interest shall be applied.
5. Prevailing price of Kodak Minilab System 22XL as of January 8,
1992 is at ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SIX
THOUSAND PESOS.
6. Price is subject to change without prior notice.
*Secured with PDCs; 1st monthly amortization due 45 days after installation[.] 8
On January 15, 1992, Kodak Philippines, Ltd. delivered one (1) unit of the Minilab
Equipment in Tagum, Davao Province. 9 The delivered unit was installed by Noritsu
representatives on March 9, 1992. 10 The Lam Spouses issued postdated checks
amounting to P35,000.00 each for 12 months as payment for the first delivered unit, with
the first check due on March 31, 1992. 11
The Lam Spouses requested that Kodak Philippines, Ltd. not negotiate the check
dated March 31, 1992 allegedly due to insufficiency of funds. 12 The same request was
made for the check due on April 30, 1992. However, both checks were negotiated by
Kodak Philippines, Ltd. and were honored by the depository bank. 13 The 10 other
checks were subsequently dishonored after the Lam Spouses ordered the depository
bank to stop payment. 14
Kodak Philippines, Ltd. canceled the sale and demanded that the Lam Spouses
return the unit it delivered together with its accessories. 15 The Lam Spouses ignored
the demand but also rescinded the contract through the letter dated November 18, 1992
on account of Kodak Philippines, Ltd.'s failure to deliver the two (2) remaining Minilab
Equipment units. 16
On November 25, 1992, Kodak Philippines, Ltd. filed a Complaint for replevin
and/or recovery of sum of money. The case was raffled to Branch 61 of the Regional
Trial Court, Makati City. 17 The Summons and a copy of Kodak Philippines, Ltd.'s
Complaint was personally served on the Lam Spouses. 18
The Lam Spouses failed to appear during the pre-trial conference and submit their
pre-trial brief despite being given extensions. 19 Thus, on July 30, 1993, they were
declared in default. 20 Kodak Philippines, Ltd. presented evidence ex-parte. 21 The trial
court issued the Decision in favor of Kodak Philippines, Ltd. ordering the seizure of the
Minilab Equipment, which included the lone delivered unit, its standard accessories, and
a separate generator set. 22 Based on this Decision, Kodak Philippines, Ltd. was able to
obtain a writ of seizure on December 16, 1992 for the Minilab Equipment installed at the
Lam Spouses' outlet in Tagum, Davao Province. 23 The writ was enforced on December
21, 1992, and Kodak Philippines, Ltd. gained possession of the Minilab Equipment unit,
accessories, and the generator set. 24
The Lam Spouses then filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition to Set Aside
the Orders issued by the trial court dated July 30, 1993 and August 13, 1993. These
Orders were subsequently set aside by the Court of Appeals Ninth Division, and the
case was remanded to the trial court for pre-trial. 25
On September 12, 1995, an Urgent Motion for Inhibition was filed against Judge
Fernando V. Gorospe, Jr., 26 who had issued the writ of seizure. 27 The ground for the
motion for inhibition was not provided. Nevertheless, Judge Fernando V. Gorospe Jr.
inhibited himself, and the case was reassigned to Branch 65 of the Regional Trial Court,
Makati City on October 3, 1995. 28
 In the Decision dated February 26, 1999, the Regional Trial Court found that
Kodak Philippines, Ltd. defaulted in the performance of its obligation under its Letter
Agreement with the Lam Spouses. 29 It held that Kodak Philippines, Ltd.'s failure to
deliver two (2) out of the three (3) units of the Minilab Equipment caused the Lam
Spouses to stop paying for the rest of the installments. 30 The trial court noted that while
the Letter Agreement did not specify a period within which the delivery of all units was
to be made, the Civil Code provides "reasonable time" as the standard period for
compliance:
The second paragraph of Article 1521 of the Civil Code provides:
Where by a contract of sale the seller is bound to send the
goods to the buyer, but no time for sending them is fixed, the seller
is bound to send them within a reasonable time.
What constitutes reasonable time is dependent on the circumstances availing
both on the part of the seller and the buyer. In this case, delivery of the first unit
was made five (5) days after the date of the agreement. Delivery of the other two
(2) units, however, was never made despite the lapse of at least three (3)
months. 31
Kodak Philippines, Ltd. failed to give a sufficient explanation for its failure to
deliver all three (3) purchased units within a reasonable time. 32
The trial court found: aSc ITE

Kodak would have the court believe that it did not deliver the other two
(2) units due to the failure of defendants to make good the installments
subsequent to the second. The court is not convinced. First of all, there should
have been simultaneous delivery on account of the circumstances surrounding
the transaction . . . . Even after the first delivery . . . no delivery was made
despite repeated demands from the defendants and despite the fact no
installments were due. Then in March and in April (three and four months
respectively from the date of the agreement and the first delivery) when the
installments due were both honored, still no delivery was made.
Second, although it might be said that Kodak was testing the waters with
just one delivery — determining first defendants' capacity to pay — it was not at
liberty to do so. It is implicit in the letter agreement that delivery within a
reasonable time was of the essence and failure to so deliver within a
reasonable time and despite demand would render the vendor in default.
xxx xxx xxx
Third, at least two (2) checks were honored. If indeed Kodak refused
delivery on account of defendants' inability to pay, non-delivery during the two
(2) months that payments were honored is unjustified. 33
Nevertheless, the trial court also ruled that when the Lam Spouses accepted
delivery of the first unit, they became liable for the fair value of the goods received:
On the other hand, defendants accepted delivery of one (1) unit. Under
Article 1522 of the Civil Code, in the event the buyer accepts incomplete
delivery and uses the goods so delivered, not then knowing that there would not
be any further delivery by the seller, the buyer shall be liable only for the fair
value to him of the goods received. In other words, the buyer is still liable for the
value of the property received. Defendants were under obligation to pay the
 amount of the unit. Failure of delivery of the other units did not thereby give unto
them the right to suspend payment on the unit delivered. Indeed, in incomplete
deliveries, the buyer has the remedy of refusing payment unless delivery is first
made. In this case though, payment for the two undelivered units have not even
commenced; the installments made were for only one (1) unit.
Hence, Kodak is right to retrieve the unit delivered. 34
The Lam Spouses were under obligation to pay for the amount of one unit, and the
failure to deliver the remaining units did not give them the right to suspend payment for
the unit already delivered. 35 However, the trial court held that since Kodak Philippines,
Ltd. had elected to cancel the sale and retrieve the delivered unit, it could no longer
seek payment for any deterioration that the unit may have suffered while under the
custody of the Lam Spouses. 36
As to the generator set, the trial court ruled that Kodak Philippines, Ltd. attempted
to mislead the court by claiming that it had delivered the generator set with its
accessories to the Lam Spouses, when the evidence showed that the Lam Spouses had
purchased it from Davao Ken Trading, not from Kodak Philippines, Ltd. 37 Thus, the
generator set that Kodak Philippines, Ltd. wrongfully took from the Lam Spouses should
be replaced. 38
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Decision reads:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the case is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff is
ordered to pay the following:
1) PHP130,000.00 representing the amount of the generator set, plus
legal interest at 12% per annum from December 1992 until fully paid; and
2) PHP1,300,000.00 as actual expenses in the renovation of the
Tagum, Davao and Rizal Ave., Manila outlets.
SO ORDERED. 39
On March 31, 1999, the Lam Spouses filed their Notice of Partial Appeal, raising
as an issue the Regional Trial Court's failure to order Kodak Philippines, Ltd. to pay: (1)
P2,040,000 in actual damages; (2) P50,000,000 in moral damages; (3) P20,000,000 in
exemplary damages; (4) P353,000 in attorney's fees; and (5) P300,000 as litigation
expenses. 40 The Lam Spouses did not appeal the Regional Trial Court's award for the
generator set and the renovation expenses. 41
Kodak Philippines, Ltd. also filed an appeal. However, the Court of Appeals 42
dismissed it on December 16, 2002 for Kodak Philippines, Ltd.'s failure to file its
appellant's brief, without prejudice to the continuation of the Lam Spouses' appeal. 43
The Court of Appeals' December 16, 2002 Resolution denying Kodak Philippines, Ltd.'s
appeal became final and executory on January 4, 2003. 44
In the Decision 45 dated March 30, 2005, the Court of Appeals Special Fourteenth
Division modified the February 26, 1999 Decision of the Regional Trial Court:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Assailed Decision
dated 26 February 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65 in Civil Case
No. 92-3442 is hereby MODIFIED. Plaintiff-appellant is ordered to pay the
following:
1. P130,000.00 representing the amount of the generator set, plus
 legal interest at 12% per annum from December 1992 until fully
paid; and
2. P440,000.00 as actual damages;
3. P25,000.00 as moral damages; and
4. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED. 46 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's Decision, but extensively
discussed the basis for the modification of the dispositive portion. HEITAD

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Letter Agreement executed by the parties
showed that their obligations were susceptible of partial performance. Under Article
1225 of the New Civil Code, their obligations are divisible:
In determining the divisibility of an obligation, the following factors may
be considered, to wit: (1) the will or intention of the parties, which may be
expressed or presumed; (2) the objective or purpose of the stipulated prestation;
(3) the nature of the thing; and (4) provisions of law affecting the prestation.
Applying the foregoing factors to this case, We found that the intention of
the parties is to be bound separately for each Minilab Equipment to be
delivered as shown by the separate purchase price for each of the item, by the
acceptance of Sps. Lam of separate deliveries for the first Minilab Equipment
and for those of the remaining two and the separate payment arrangements for
each of the equipment. Under this premise, Sps. Lam shall be liable for the
entire amount of the purchase price of the Minilab Equipment delivered
considering that Kodak had already completely fulfilled its obligation to deliver
the same. . . .
Third, it is also evident that the contract is one that is severable in
character as demonstrated by the separate purchase price for each of the
minilab equipment. "If the part to be performed by one party consists in several
distinct and separate items and the price is apportioned to each of them, the
contract will generally be held to be severable. In such case, each distinct
stipulation relating to a separate subject matter will be treated as a separate
contract." Considering this, Kodak's breach of its obligation to deliver the other
two (2) equipment cannot bar its recovery for the full payment of the
equipment already delivered. As far as Kodak is concerned, it had already
fully complied with its separable obligation to deliver the first unit of Minilab
Equipment. 47 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court of Appeals held that the issuance of a writ of replevin is proper insofar
as the delivered Minilab Equipment unit and its standard accessories are concerned,
since Kodak Philippines, Ltd. had the right to possess it: 48
The purchase price of said equipment is P1,796,000.00 which, under the
agreement is payable with forty eight (48) monthly amortization. It is undisputed
that Sps. Lam made payments which amounted to Two Hundred Seventy
Thousand Pesos (P270,000.00) through the following checks: Metrobank
Check Nos. 00892620 and 00892621 dated 31 March 1992 and 30 April 1992
respectively in the amount of Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (P35,000.00) each,
and BPI Family Check dated 31 July 1992 amounting to Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). This being the case, Sps. Lam are still liable to
 Kodak in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Pesos
(P1,526,000.00), which is payable in several monthly amortization, pursuant to
the Letter Agreement. However, Sps. Lam admitted that sometime in May 1992,
they had already ordered their drawee bank to stop the payment on all the
other checks they had issued to Kodak as payment for the Minilab Equipment
delivered to them. Clearly then, Kodak ha[d] the right to repossess the said
equipment, through this replevin suit. Sps. Lam cannot excuse themselves from
paying in full the purchase price of the equipment delivered to them on account
of Kodak's breach of the contract to deliver the other two (2) Minilab
Equipment, as contemplated in the Letter Agreement. 49 (Emphasis supplied)
Echoing the ruling of the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that the liability of
the Lam Spouses to pay the remaining balance for the first delivered unit is based on
the second sentence of Article 1592 of the New Civil Code. 50 The Lam Spouses' receipt
and use of the Minilab Equipment before they knew that Kodak Philippines, Ltd. would
not deliver the two (2) remaining units has made them liable for the unpaid portion of the
purchase price. 51
The Court of Appeals noted that Kodak Philippines, Ltd. sought the rescission of
its contract with the Lam Spouses in the letter dated October 14, 1992. 52 The
rescission was based on Article 1191 of the New Civil Code, which provides: "The
power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors
should not comply with what is incumbent upon him." 53 In its letter, Kodak Philippines,
Ltd. demanded that the Lam Spouses surrender the lone delivered unit of Minilab
Equipment along with its standard accessories. 54
The Court of Appeals likewise noted that the Lam Spouses rescinded the contract
through its letter dated November 18, 1992 on account of Kodak Philippines, Inc.'s
breach of the parties' agreement to deliver the two (2) remaining units. 55
As a result of this rescission under Article 1191, the Court of Appeals ruled that
"both parties must be restored to their original situation, as far as practicable, as if the
contract was never entered into." 56 The Court of Appeals ratiocinated that Article 1191
had the effect of extinguishing the obligatory relation as if one was never created: 57
To rescind is to declare a contract void in its inception and to put an end
to it as though it never were. It is not merely to terminate it and to release parties
from further obligations to each other but abrogate it from the beginning and
restore parties to relative positions which they would have occupied had no
contract been made. 58
The Lam Spouses were ordered to relinquish possession of the Minilab
Equipment unit and its standard accessories, while Kodak Philippines, Ltd. was ordered
to return the amount of P270,000.00, tendered by the Lam Spouses as partial payment.
59

As to the actual damages sought by the parties, the Court of Appeals found that
the Lam Spouses were able to substantiate the following: ATICc S

Incentive fee paid to Mr. Ruales in the amount of P100,000.00; the rider to the
contract of lease which made the Sps. Lam liable, by way of advance payment,
in the amount of P40,000.00, the same being intended for the repair of the
flooring of the leased premises; and lastly, the payment of P300,000.00, as
compromise agreement for the pre-termination of the contract of lease with
 Ruales. 60
The total amount is P440,000.00. The Court of Appeals found that all other claims
made by the Lam Spouses were not supported by evidence, either through official
receipts or check payments. 61
As regards the generator set improperly seized from Kodak Philippines, Ltd. on
the basis of the writ of replevin, the Court of Appeals found that there was no basis for
the Lam Spouses' claim for reasonable rental of P5,000.00. It held that the trial court's
award of 12% interest, in addition to the cost of the generator set in the amount of
P130,000.00, is sufficient compensation for whatever damage the Lam Spouses
suffered on account of its improper seizure. 62
The Court of Appeals also ruled on the Lam Spouses' entitlement to moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and litigation expenses:
In seeking recovery of the Minilab Equipment, Kodak cannot be
considered to have manifested bad faith and malevolence because as earlier
ruled upon, it was well within its right to do the same. However, with respect to
the seizure of the generator set, where Kodak misrepresented to the court a quo
its alleged right over the said item, Kodak's bad faith and abuse of judicial
processes become self-evident. Considering the off-setting circumstances
attendant, the amount of P25,000.00 by way of moral damages is considered
sufficient.
In addition, so as to serve as an example to the public that an application
for replevin should not be accompanied by any false claims and
misrepresentation, the amount of P50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages
should be pegged against Kodak.
With respect to the attorney's fees and litigation expenses, We find that
there is no basis to award Sps. Lam the amount sought for. 63
Kodak Philippines, Ltd. moved for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals
Decision, but it was denied for lack of merit. 64 However, the Court of Appeals noted
that the Lam Spouses' Opposition correctly pointed out that the additional award of
P270,000.00 made by the trial court was not mentioned in the decretal portion of the
March 30, 2005 Decision:
Going over the Decision, specifically page 12 thereof, the Court noted
that, in addition to the amount of Two Hundred Seventy Thousand
(P270,000.00) which plaintiff-appellant should return to the defendants-
appellants, the Court also ruled that defendants-appellants should, in turn,
relinquish possession of the Minilab Equipment and the standard accessories to
plaintiff-appellant. Inadvertently, these material items were not mentioned in the
decretal portion of the Decision. Hence, the proper correction should herein be
made. 65
The Lam Spouses filed this Petition for Review on April 14, 2005. On the other
hand, Kodak Philippines, Ltd. filed its Motion for Reconsideration 66 before the Court of
Appeals on April 22, 2005.
While the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Lam Spouses was pending
before this court, the Court of Appeals Special Fourteenth Division, acting on Kodak
Philippines, Ltd.'s Motion for Reconsideration, issued the Amended Decision 67 dated
September 9, 2005. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
September 9, 2005. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolved that:
A. Plaintiff-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED
for lack of merit.
B. The decretal portion of the 30 March 2005 Decision should now
read as follows:
"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Assailed
Decision dated 26 February 1999 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 65 in Civil Cases No. 92-3442 is hereby MODIFIED.
Plaintiff-appellant is ordered to pay the following:
a. P270,000.00 representing the partial payment made on
the Minilab equipment.
b. P130,000.00 representing the amount of the
generator set, plus legal interest at 12% per annum from
December 1992 until fully paid;
c. P440,000.00 as actual damages;
d. P25,000.00 as moral damages; and
e. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Upon the other hand, defendants-appellants are hereby
ordered to return to plaintiff-appellant the Minilab equipment and
the standard accessories delivered by plaintiff-appellant.
SO ORDERED."
SO ORDERED. 68 (Emphasis in the original)
Upon receiving the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, Kodak Philippines,
Ltd. filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File an Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before this court. 69
This was docketed as G.R. No. 169639. In the Motion for Consolidation dated
November 2, 2005, the Lam Spouses moved that G.R. No. 167615 and G.R. No. 169639
be consolidated since both involved the same parties, issues, transactions, and
essential facts and circumstances. 70 TIADCc

In the Resolution dated November 16, 2005, this court noted the Lam Spouses'
September 23 and September 30, 2005 Manifestations praying that the Court of Appeals'
September 9, 2005 Amended Decision be considered in the resolution of the Petition for
Review on Certiorari . 71 It also granted the Lam Spouses' Motion for Consolidation. 72
In the Resolution 73 dated September 20, 2006, this court deconsolidated G.R.
No. 167615 from G.R. No. 169639 and declared G.R. No. 169639 closed and terminated
since Kodak Philippines, Ltd. failed to file its Petition for Review.
II
We resolve the following issues:
First, whether the contract between petitioners Spouses Alexander and Julie Lam
and respondent Kodak Philippines, Ltd. pertained to obligations that are severable,
divisible, and susceptible of partial performance under Article 1225 of the New Civil
Code; and
 Second, upon rescission of the contract, what the parties are entitled to under
Article 1190 and Article 1522 of the New Civil Code.
Petitioners argue that the Letter Agreement it executed with respondent for three
(3) Minilab Equipment units was not severable, divisible, and susceptible of partial
performance. Respondent's recovery of the delivered unit was unjustified. 74
Petitioners assert that the obligations of the parties were not susceptible of partial
performance since the Letter Agreement was for a package deal consisting of three (3)
units. 75 For the delivery of these units, petitioners were obliged to pay 48 monthly
payments, the total of which constituted one debt. 76 Having relied on respondent's
assurance that the three units would be delivered at the same time, petitioners
simultaneously rented and renovated three stores in anticipation of simultaneous
operations. 77 Petitioners argue that the divisibility of the object does not necessarily
determine the divisibility of the obligation since the latter is tested against its
susceptibility to a partial performance. 78 They argue that even if the object is
susceptible of separate deliveries, the transaction is indivisible if the parties intended
the realization of all parts of the agreed obligation. 79
Petitioners support the claim that it was the parties' intention to have an
indivisible agreement by asserting that the payments they made to respondent were
intended to be applied to the whole package of three units. 80 The postdated checks
were also intended as initial payment for the whole package. 81 The separate purchase
price for each item was merely intended to particularize the unit prices, not to negate
the indivisible nature of their transaction. 82 As to the issue of delivery, petitioners claim
that their acceptance of separate deliveries of the units was solely due to the
constraints faced by respondent, who had sole control over delivery matters. 83
With the obligation being indivisible, petitioners argue that respondent's failure to
comply with its obligation to deliver the two (2) remaining Minilab Equipment units
amounted to a breach. Petitioners claim that the breach entitled them to the remedy of
rescission and damages under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code. 84
Petitioners also argue that they are entitled to moral damages more than the
P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of Appeals since respondent's wrongful act of
accusing them of non-payment of their obligations caused them sleepless nights, mental
anguish, and wounded feelings. 85 They further claim that, to serve as an example for
the public good, they are entitled to exemplary damages as respondent, in making false
allegations, acted in evident bad faith and in a wanton, oppressive, capricious, and
malevolent manner. 86
Petitioners also assert that they are entitled to attorney's fees and litigation
expenses under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code since respondent's act of bringing a
suit against them was baseless and malicious. This prompted them to engage the
services of a lawyer. 87
Respondent argues that the parties' Letter Agreement contained divisible
obligations susceptible of partial performance as defined by Article 1225 of the New
Civil Code. 88 In respondent's view, it was the intention of the parties to be bound
separately for each individually priced Minilab Equipment unit to be delivered to different
outlets: 89
The three (3) Minilab Equipment are intended by petitioners LAM for
 install[a]tion at their Tagum, Davao del Norte, Sta. Cruz, Manila and Cotabato
City outlets. Each of these units [is] independent from one another, as many of
them may perform its own job without the other. Clearly the objective or purpose
of the prestation, the obligation is divisible.
The nature of each unit of the three (3) Minilab Equipment is such that
one can perform its own functions, without awaiting for the other units to perform
and complete its job. So much so, the nature of the object of the Letter
Agreement is susceptible of partial performance, thus the obligation is divisible.
90

With the contract being severable in character, respondent argues that it

performed its obligation when it delivered one unit of the Minilab Equipment. 91 Since
each unit could perform on its own, there was no need to await the delivery of the other
units to complete its job. 92 Respondent then is of the view that when petitioners ordered
the depository bank to stop payment of the issued checks covering the first delivered
unit, they violated their obligations under the Letter Agreement since respondent was
already entitled to full payment. 93AIDSTE

Respondent also argues that petitioners benefited from the use of the Minilab
Equipment for 10 months — from March to December 1992 — despite having paid only
two (2) monthly installments. 94 Respondent avers that the two monthly installments
amounting to P70,000.00 should be the subject of an offset against the amount the Court
of Appeals awarded to petitioners. 95
Respondent further avers that petitioners have no basis for claiming damages
since the seizure and recovery of the Minilab Equipment was not in bad faith and
respondent was well within its right. 96
III
The Letter Agreement contained an indivisible obligation.
Both parties rely on the Letter Agreement 97 as basis of their respective
obligations. Written by respondent's Jeffrey T. Go and Antonio V. Mines and addressed
to petitioner Alexander Lam, the Letter Agreement contemplated a "package deal"
involving three (3) units of the Kodak Minilab System 22XL, with the following terms and
conditions:
This confirms our verbal agreement for Kodak Phils., Ltd. to provide Colorkwik
Laboratories, Inc. with three (3) units Kodak Minilab System 22XL . . . for your
proposed outlets in Rizal Avenue (Manila), Tagum (Davao del Norte), and your
existing Multicolor photo counter in Cotabato City under the following terms and
conditions:
1. Said Minilab Equipment packages will avail a total of 19% multiple
order discount based on prevailing equipment price provided said
equipment packages will be purchased not later than June 30,
1992.
2. 19% Multiple Order Discount shall be applied in the form of
merchandise and delivered in advance immediately after signing of
the contract.
* Also includes start-up packages worth P61,000.00.
3. NO DOWNPAYMENT.
 4. Minilab Equipment Package shall be payable in 48 monthly
installments at THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.00)
inclusive of 24% interest rate for the first 12 months; the balance
shall be re-amortized for the remaining 36 months and the
prevailing interest shall be applied.
5. Prevailing price of Kodak Minilab System 22XL as of January 8,
1992 is at ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY SIX
THOUSAND PESOS.
6. Price is subject to change without prior notice.
*Secured with PDCs; 1st monthly amortization due 45 days after
installation[.] 98
Based on the foregoing, the intention of the parties is for there to be a single
transaction covering all three (3) units of the Minilab Equipment. Respondent's obligation
was to deliver all products purchased under a "package," and, in turn, petitioners'
obligation was to pay for the total purchase price, payable in installments.
The intention of the parties to bind themselves to an indivisible obligation can be
further discerned through their direct acts in relation to the package deal. There was
only one agreement covering all three (3) units of the Minilab Equipment and their
accessories. The Letter Agreement specified only one purpose for the buyer, which was
to obtain these units for three different outlets. If the intention of the parties were to have
a divisible contract, then separate agreements could have been made for each Minilab
Equipment unit instead of covering all three in one package deal. Furthermore, the 19%
multiple order discount as contained in the Letter Agreement was applied to all three
acquired units. 99 The "no downpayment" term contained in the Letter Agreement was
also applicable to all the Minilab Equipment units. Lastly, the fourth clause of the Letter
Agreement clearly referred to the object of the contract as "Minilab Equipment
Package."
In ruling that the contract between the parties intended to cover divisible
obligations, the Court of Appeals highlighted: (a) the separate purchase price of each
item; (b) petitioners' acceptance of separate deliveries of the units; and (c) the separate
payment arrangements for each unit. 100 However, through the specified terms and
conditions, the tenor of the Letter Agreement indicated an intention for a single
transaction. This intent must prevail even though the articles involved are physically
separable and capable of being paid for and delivered individually, consistent with the
New Civil Code:
Article 1225. For the purposes of the preceding articles, obligations to give
definite things and those which are not susceptible of partial performance shall
be deemed to be indivisible.
When the obligation has for its object the execution of a certain number of days
of work, the accomplishment of work by metrical units, or analogous things
which by their nature are susceptible of partial performance, it shall be divisible.
However, even though the object or service may be physically divisible, an
obligation is indivisible if so provided by law or intended by the parties.
(Emphasis supplied)
I n Nazareno v. Court of Appeals , 101 the indivisibility of an obligation is tested
against whether it can be the subject of partial performance: AaCTc I
 An obligation is indivisible when it cannot be validly performed in parts,
whatever may be the nature of the thing which is the object thereof. The
indivisibility refers to the prestation and not to the object thereof . In the present
case, the Deed of Sale of January 29, 1970 supposedly conveyed the six lots to
Natividad. The obligation is clearly indivisible because the performance of the
contract cannot be done in parts, otherwise the value of what is transferred is
diminished. Petitioners are therefore mistaken in basing the indivisibility of a
contract on the number of obligors. 102 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
There is no indication in the Letter Agreement that the units petitioners ordered
were covered by three (3) separate transactions. The factors considered by the Court of
Appeals are mere incidents of the execution of the obligation, which is to deliver three
units of the Minilab Equipment on the part of respondent and payment for all three on the
part of petitioners. The intention to create an indivisible contract is apparent from the
benefits that the Letter Agreement afforded to both parties. Petitioners were given the
19% discount on account of a multiple order, with the discount being equally applicable
to all units that they sought to acquire. The provision on "no downpayment" was also
applicable to all units. Respondent, in turn, was entitled to payment of all three Minilab
Equipment units, payable by installments.
IV
With both parties opting for rescission of the contract under Article 1191, the
Court of Appeals correctly ordered for restitution.
The contract between the parties is one of sale, where one party obligates himself
or herself to transfer the ownership and deliver a determinate thing, while the other pays
a certain price in money or its equivalent. 103 A contract of sale is perfected upon the
meeting of minds as to the object and the price, and the parties may reciprocally
demand the performance of their respective obligations from that point on. 104
The Court of Appeals correctly noted that respondent had rescinded the parties'
Letter Agreement through the letter dated October 14, 1992. 105 It likewise noted
petitioners' rescission through the letter dated November 18, 1992. 106 This rescission
from both parties is founded on Article 1191 of the New Civil Code:
The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of
the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfilment and the rescission of the
obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek
rescission, even after he has chosen fulfilment, if the latter should become
impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause
authorizing the fixing of a period.
Rescission under Article 1191 has the effect of mutual restitution. 107 In Velarde
v. Court of Appeals: 108
Rescission abrogates the contract from its inception and requires a
mutual restitution of benefits received.
xxx xxx xxx
Rescission creates the obligation to return the object of the contract. It
 can be carried out only when the one who demands rescission can return
whatever he may be obliged to restore. To rescind is to declare a contract void
at its inception and to put an end to it as though it never was. It is not merely
to terminate it and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but
to abrogate it from the beginning and restore the parties to their relative
positions as if no contract has been made. 109 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that both parties must be restored to their
original situation as far as practicable, as if the contract was never entered into.
Petitioners must relinquish possession of the delivered Minilab Equipment unit and
accessories, while respondent must return the amount tendered by petitioners as partial
payment for the unit received. Further, respondent cannot claim that the two (2) monthly
installments should be offset against the amount awarded by the Court of Appeals to
petitioners because the effect of rescission under Article 1191 is to bring the parties
back to their original positions before the contract was entered into. Also in Velarde:
As discussed earlier, the breach committed by petitioners was the
nonperformance of a reciprocal obligation, not a violation of the terms and
conditions of the mortgage contract. Therefore, the automatic rescission and
forfeiture of payment clauses stipulated in the contract does not apply. Instead,
Civil Code provisions shall govern and regulate the resolution of this
controversy.
Considering that the rescission of the contract is based on Article 1191
of the Civil Code, mutual restitution is required to bring back the parties to their
original situation prior to the inception of the contract. Accordingly, the initial
payment of P800,000 and the corresponding mortgage payments in the
amounts of P27,225, P23,000 and P23,925 (totaling P874,150.00) advanced
by petitioners should be returned by private respondents, lest the latter
unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the former . 110 (Emphasis
supplied)
When rescission is sought under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, it need not be
judicially invoked because the power to resolve is implied in reciprocal obligations. 111
The right to resolve allows an injured party to minimize the damages he or she may
suffer on account of the other party's failure to perform what is incumbent upon him or
her. 112 When a party fails to comply with his or her obligation, the other party's right to
resolve the contract is triggered. 113 The resolution immediately produces legal effects if
the non-performing party does not question the resolution. 114 Court intervention only
becomes necessary when the party who allegedly failed to comply with his or her
obligation disputes the resolution of the contract. 115 Since both parties in this case
have exercised their right to resolve under Article 1191, there is no need for a judicial
decree before the resolution produces effects. Ec TCAD

V
The issue of damages is a factual one. A petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 shall only pertain to questions of law. 116 It is not the duty of this court to re-
evaluate the evidence adduced before the lower courts. 117 Furthermore, unless the
petition clearly shows that there is grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the
trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this court. 118 In
Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr.: 119
 For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or
any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law
provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue
invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.
xxx xxx xxx
For the same reason, we would ordinarily disregard the petitioner's
allegation as to the propriety of the award of moral damages and attorney's
fees in favor of the respondent as it is a question of fact. Thus, questions on
whether or not there was a preponderance of evidence to justify the award of
damages or whether or not there was a causal connection between the given
set of facts and the damage suffered by the private complainant or whether or
not the act from which civil liability might arise exists are questions of fact.
Essentially, the petitioner is questioning the award of moral damages
and attorney's fees in favor of the respondent as the same is supposedly not
fully supported by evidence. However, in the final analysis, the question of
whether the said award is fully supported by evidence is a factual question as
it would necessitate whether the evidence adduced in support of the same has
any probative value. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants
or any of them. 120 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The damages awarded by the Court of Appeals were supported by documentary
evidence. 121 Petitioners failed to show any reason why the factual determination of the
Court of Appeals must be reviewed, especially in light of their failure to produce receipts
or check payments to support their other claim for actual damages. 122
Furthermore, the actual damages amounting to P2,040,000.00 being sought by
petitioners 123 must be tempered on account of their own failure to pay the rest of the
installments for the delivered unit. This failure on their part is a breach of their
obligation, for which the liability of respondent, for its failure to deliver the remaining
units, shall be equitably tempered on account of Article, 1192 of the New Civil Code. 124
In Central Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals : 125
Since both parties were in default in the performance of their respective
reciprocal obligations, that is, Island Savings Bank failed to comply with its
obligation to furnish the entire loan and Sulpicio M. Tolentino failed to comply
with his obligation to pay his P17,000.00 debt within 3 years as stipulated, they
are both liable for damages.
Article 1192 of the Civil Code provides that in case both parties have
committed a breach of their reciprocal obligations, the liability of the first
infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts. WE rule that the liability of
Island Savings Bank for damages in not furnishing the entire loan is offset by
the liability of Sulpicio M. Tolentino for damages, in the form of penalties and
surcharges, for not paying his overdue P17,000.00 debt. The liability of Sulpicio
M. Tolentino for interest on his P17,000.00 debt shall not be included in
offsetting the liabilities of both parties. Since Sulpicio M. Tolentino derived some
benefit for his use of the P17,000.00, it is just that he should account for the
interest thereon. 126 (Emphasis supplied)
The award for moral and exemplary damages also appears to be sufficient. Moral
damages are granted to alleviate the moral suffering suffered by a party due to an act of
another, but it is not intended to enrich the victim at the defendant's expense. 127 It is
not meant to punish the culpable party and, therefore, must always be reasonable vis-a-
vis the injury caused. 128 Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded when the
injurious act is attended by bad faith. 129 In this case, respondent was found to have
misrepresented its right over the generator set that was seized. As such, it is properly
liable for exemplary damages as an example to the public. 130
However, the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Amended Decision dated
September 9, 2005 must be modified to include the recovery of attorney's fees and
costs of suit in favor of petitioners. In Sunbanun v. Go: 131
Furthermore, we affirm the award of exemplary damages and attorney's
fees. Exemplary damages may be awarded when a wrongful act is
accompanied by bad faith or when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner which would justify an award of
exemplary damages under Article 2232 of the Civil Code. Since the award of
exemplary damages is proper in this case, attorney's fees and cost of the suit
may also be recovered as provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. 132
(Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Based on the amount awarded for moral and exemplary damages, it is reasonable
to award petitioners P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Amended Decision dated September
9, 2005 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Respondent Kodak Philippines, Ltd. is
ordered to pay petitioners Alexander and Julie Lam: HSAc aE

(a) P270,000.00, representing the partial payment made on the Minilab

Equipment;
(b) P130,000.00, representing the amount of the generator set, plus legal
interest at 12% per annum from December 1992 until fully paid;
(c) P440,000.00 as actual damages;
(d) P25,000.00 as moral damages;
(e) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(f) P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.
Petitioners are ordered to return the Kodak Minilab System 22XL unit and its
standard accessories to respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo and Mendoza JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 58-75. The case, docketed as CA-G.R. No. CV-64158, was entitled Kodak
Philippines, Ltd. v. Spouses Alexander and Julie Lam.

2. Id. at 423.

3. Id. at 76-79. The Decision was penned by Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos of Branch 65 of
the Regional Trial Court, Makati City.
4. Id. at 74-75.

5. Id. at 462, 468, 469, and 472-473.

6. Id. at 76. The Kodak Minilab System 22XL is a Noritsu QSS 1501 with 430-2 Film
Processor (non-plumbed) with standard accessories.

7. Id. at 76.

8. Id. at 94.

9. Id. at 76.

10. Id.

11. Id.

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. Id.

15. Id. at 106. In the letter dated October 14, 2002, Kodak Philippines, Ltd., through counsel,
demanded from the Lam Spouses the surrender of possession of the delivered unit of
the Minilab Equipment and its accessories. The letter stated that failure to comply will
prompt Kodak Philippines, Ltd. to file a case for recovery of possession.

16. Id. at 68.

17. Id. In the Lam Spouses' Petition for Review, the checks were issued in favor of Kodak
Philippines, Ltd. on March 9, 1992, the same day the first unit was delivered, in
accordance with the Letter Agreement which provided that the first check would be
due 45 days after the installation of the system (Id. at 13).

18. Id. at 19-20.

19. Id. at 76.

20. Id.

21. Id.

22. Id.

23. Id. at 439.

24. Id. at 76.

25. Id.

26. Id. at 77.

27. Id. at 113.

28. Id. at 77.

29. Id.

30. Id.

31. Id.

32. Id. at 77-78.

33. Id.

34. Id. at 78. CIVIL CODE, art. 1522: "Where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of
goods less than he contracted to sell, the buyer may reject them, but if the buyer
accepts or retains the goods so delivered, knowing that the seller is not going to
perform the contract in full, he must pay for them at the contract rate. If, however, the
buyer has used or disposed of the goods delivered before he knows that the seller is
not going to perform his contract in full, the buyer shall not be liable for more than the
fair value to him of the goods so received. Where the seller delivers to the buyer a
quantity of goods larger than he contracted to sell, the buyer may accept the goods
included in the contract and reject the rest. If the buyer accepts the whole of the
goods so delivered he must pay for them at the contract rate. Where the seller
delivers to the buyer the goods he contracted to sell mixed with goods of a different
description not included in the contract, the buyer may accept the goods which are in
accordance with the contract and reject the rest.

In the preceding two paragraphs, if the subject matter is indivisible, the buyer may reject the
whole of the goods.

The provisions of this article are subject to any usage of trade, special agreement, or course
of dealing between the parties. (n)"

35. Id.

36. Id.

37. Id. at 80.

38. Id.

39. Id.

40. Id. at 23.

41. Id.

42. Id. at 129. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and
concurred in by Associate Justices Eliezer R. de Los Santos and Regalado E.
Maambong of the Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.

43. Id.

44. Id. at 130. A Partial Entry of Judgment was issued by the Court of Appeals on January 4,
2003.
45. Id. at 58-75. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and
concurred in by Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now an Associate Justice of
this court) and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente of the Special Fourteenth Division, Court
of Appeals Manila.

46. Id. at 74-75.

47. Id. at 66-67, citing 4 ARTURO TOLENTINO, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE

ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 255-257 (1995 ed.).

48. Id. at 64.

49. Id. at 64-65.

50. Id. at 65.

51. Id. at 65-66.

52. Id. at 68.

53. Id.

54. Id.

55. Id.

56. Id. at 69.

57. Id. at 68.

58. Id. at 69.

59. Id.

60. Id. at 71.

61. Id. at 71-72.

62. Id. at 73.

63. Id. at 73-74.

64. Id. at 368-371.

65. Id. at 369.

66. Id. at 385.

67. Id. at 367. The Amended Decision was penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
and concurred in by Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now an Associate
Justice of this court) and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente of the Special Fourteenth
Division, Court of Appeals Manila.

68. Id. at 370-371.

69. Id. at 393.

70. Id. at 384-388.

71. Id. at 383-A.

72. Id. at 383-B.

73. Id. at 504.

74. Id. at 446-456.

75. Id. at 449.

76. Id.

77. Id. at 450.

78. Id. at 450-453.

79. Id. at 30-31 and 453.

80. Id. at 455.

81. Id. at 456.

82. Id. at 455-456.

83. Id. at 456.

84. Id. at 460.

85. Id. at 462.

86. Id. at 468-469.

87. Id. at 472-473.

88. Id. at 548.

89. Id. at 548-549.

90. Id. at 549.

91. Id.

92. Id.

93. Id. at 550.

94. Id. at 551.

95. Id. at 552.

96. Id. at 554.

97. Id. at 94.

98. Id. at 94.

99. Id. at 356. Aside from the Letter Agreement, the 19% Multiple Order Discount was also
contained in the Sample Computation supplied by respondent to petitioner.

100. Id. at 66.

101. 397 Phil. 707 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

102. Id. at 729.

103. CIVIL CODE, art. 1458 — By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates
himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver the determinate thing, and the other
to pay therefore a price certain in money or its equivalent.

104. Province of Cebu v. Heirs of Morales , 569 Phil. 641 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago,
Third Division].

105. Rollo, p. 68.

106. Id.

107. Laperal v. Southridge, 499 Phil. 367 (2005) [Per J. Garcia, Third Division].

108. 413 Phil. 360 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

109. Id. at 363-375.

110. Id. at 375.

111. J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in EDS Manufacturing, Inc. v. Healthcheck International,

Inc., G.R. No. 162802, October 9, 2013, 707 SCRA 133 [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division].

112. Id. See also University of the Philippines v. De Los Angeles , 146 Phil. 108 (1970) [Per
J. J. B. L. Reyes, Second Division].

113. Id.

114. Id.

115. Id.

116. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1.

117. Frondarina v. Malazarte, 539 Phil. 279 (2006) [Per J. Velasco Jr., Third Division].

118. Muaje-Tuazon v. Wenphil Corporation , 540 Phil. 503 (2006) [Per J. Quisumbing, Third
Division].

119. Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., 681 Phil. 39 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division].
120. Id. at 48-50.

121. Rollo, pp. 70-73.

122. Id. at 71.

123. Id. at 52.

124. Article 1192. In case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation, the liability
of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts. If it cannot be
determined which of the parties first violated the contract, the same shall be deemed
extinguished, and each shall bear his won damages.

125.223 Phil. 266 (1985) [Per C.J. Makasiar, Second Division].

126. Id. at 276-277.

127. Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., 681 Phil. 39 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division].

128. Id.

129. Sunbanun v. Go, 625 Phil. 159 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].

130. Rollo, p. 74.

131.625 Phil. 159 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].

132. Id. at 166-167.