G.R. No. L-34338 November 21, 1984 amount of P550.

50 without subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs of

suit." (p. 24, Rollo)
LOURDES VALERIO LIM, petitioner,
vs. The question involved in this case is whether the receipt, Exhibit "A", is a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. contract of agency to sell or a contract of sale of the subject tobacco between
petitioner and the complainant, Maria de Guzman Vda. de Ayroso, thereby
precluding criminal liability of petitioner for the crime charged.

SYLLABUS The findings of facts of the appellate court are as follows:

1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS: PERIOD OF ... The appellant is a businesswoman. On January 10, 1966,
OBLIGATION; MAY NOT BE FIXED BY COURT WHERE the appellant went to the house of Maria Ayroso and
AGREEMENT IN CASE AT BAR CLEARLY FIXES A PERIOD. — It is proposed to sell Ayroso's tobacco. Ayroso agreed to the
clear in the agreement, Exhibit "A", that the proceeds of the sale of the proposition of the appellant to sell her tobacco consisting of
tobacco should be turned over to the complainant as soon as the same 615 kilos at P1.30 a kilo. The appellant was to receive the
was sold, or, that the obligation was immediately demandable as soon overprice for which she could sell the tobacco. This
as the tobacco was disposed of Hence, Article 1197 of the New Civil agreement was made in the presence of plaintiff's sister,
Code, which provides that the courts may fix the duration of the Salud G. Bantug. Salvador Bantug drew the document, Exh.
obligation if it does not fix a period, does not apply. A, dated January 10, 1966, which reads:

2. ID.; ID.; AGENCY; SUBJECT AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT OF To Whom It May Concern:

AGENCY TO SELL NOT A CONTRACT OF SALE. — The fact that
appellant received the tobacco to be sold at P1.30 per kilo and the This is to certify that I have received from
proceeds to be given to complainant as soon as it was sold, strongly Mrs. Maria de Guzman Vda. de Ayroso. of
negates transfer of ownership of the goods to the petitioner. The Gapan, Nueva Ecija, six hundred fifteen
agreement (Exhibit "A") constituted her as an agent with the obligation to kilos of leaf tobacco to be sold at Pl.30 per
return the tobacco if the same was not sold. kilo. The proceed in the amount of Seven
Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and 50/100 (P
799.50) will be given to her as soon as it
DECISION was sold.

RELOVA, J.: This was signed by the appellant and witnessed by the
complainant's sister, Salud Bantug, and the latter's maid,
Petitioner Lourdes Valerio Lim was found guilty of the crime of estafa and Genoveva Ruiz. The appellant at that time was bringing a
was sentenced "to suffer an imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day jeep, and the tobacco was loaded in the jeep and brought by
as minimum to two (2) years and four (4) months as maximum, to indemnify the appellant. Of the total value of P799.50, the appellant
the offended party in the amount of P559.50, with subsidize imprisonment in had paid to Ayroso only P240.00, and this was paid on three
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs." (p. 14, Rollo) different times. Demands for the payment of the balance of
the value of the tobacco were made upon the appellant by
Ayroso, and particularly by her sister, Salud Bantug. Salud
From this judgment, appeal was taken to the then Court of Appeals which
Bantug further testified that she had gone to the house of the
affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the penalty imposed by
appellant several times, but the appellant often eluded her;
sentencing her "to suffer an indeterminate penalty of one (1) month and one
and that the "camarin" the appellant was empty. Although
(1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year and one (1) day
the appellant denied that demands for payment were made
of prision correccional as maximum, to indemnify the complainant in the
 upon her, it is a fact that on October 19, 1966, she wrote a intended in which case the only action that can be
letter to Salud Bantug which reads as follows: maintained is a petition to ask the court to fix the duration
thereof;
Dear Salud,
2. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals was
Hindi ako nakapunta dian noon a 17 nitong legally right in holding that "Art. 1197 of the New Civil Code
nakaraan, dahil kokonte pa ang nasisingil does not apply" as against the alternative theory of the
kong pera, magintay ka hanggang dito sa petitioner that the fore. going receipt (Exhibit "A") gives rise
linggo ito at tiak na ako ay magdadala sa to an obligation wherein the duration of the period depends
iyo. Gosto ko Salud ay makapagbigay man upon the will of the debtor in which case the only action that
lang ako ng marami para hindi masiadong can be maintained is a petition to ask the court to fix the
kahiyahiya sa iyo. Ngayon kung gosto mo ay duration of the period; and
kahit konte muna ay bibigyan kita. Pupunta
lang kami ni Mina sa Maynila ngayon. Salud 3. Whether or not the honorable Court of Appeals was legally
kung talagang kailangan mo ay bukas ay right in holding that the foregoing receipt is a contract of
dadalhan kita ng pera. agency to sell as against the theory of the petitioner that it is
a contract of sale. (pp. 3-4, Rollo)
Medio mahirap ang maningil sa palengke ng
Cabanatuan dahil nagsisilipat ang mga suki It is clear in the agreement, Exhibit "A", that the proceeds of the sale of the
ko ng puesto. Huwag kang mabahala at tobacco should be turned over to the complainant as soon as the same was
tiyak na babayaran kita. sold, or, that the obligation was immediately demandable as soon as the
tobacco was disposed of. Hence, Article 1197 of the New Civil Code, which
Patnubayan tayo ng mahal na panginoon provides that the courts may fix the duration of the obligation if it does not fix
Dios. (Exh. B). a period, does not apply.

Ludy Anent the argument that petitioner was not an agent because Exhibit "A"
does not say that she would be paid the commission if the goods were sold,
the Court of Appeals correctly resolved the matter as follows:
Pursuant to this letter, the appellant sent a money order for
P100.00 on October 24, 1967, Exh. 4, and another for
P50.00 on March 8, 1967; and she paid P90.00 on April 18, ... Aside from the fact that Maria Ayroso testified that the
1967 as evidenced by the receipt Exh. 2, dated April 18, appellant asked her to be her agent in selling Ayroso's
1967, or a total of P240.00. As no further amount was paid, tobacco, the appellant herself admitted that there was an
the complainant filed a complaint against the appellant for agreement that upon the sale of the tobacco she would be
estafa. (pp. 14, 15, 16, Rollo) given something. The appellant is a businesswoman, and it
is unbelievable that she would go to the extent of going to
Ayroso's house and take the tobacco with a jeep which she
In this petition for review by certiorari, Lourdes Valerio Lim poses the
had brought if she did not intend to make a profit out of the
following questions of law, to wit:
transaction. Certainly, if she was doing a favor to Maria
Ayroso and it was Ayroso who had requested her to sell her
1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals was tobacco, it would not have been the appellant who would
legally right in holding that the foregoing document (Exhibit have gone to the house of Ayroso, but it would have been
"A") "fixed a period" and "the obligation was therefore, Ayroso who would have gone to the house of the appellant
immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was sold" and deliver the tobacco to the appellant. (p. 19, Rollo)
(Decision, p. 6) as against the theory of the petitioner that
the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and
the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was
The fact that appellant received the tobacco to be sold at P1.30 per kilo and
the proceeds to be given to complainant as soon as it was sold, strongly
negates transfer of ownership of the goods to the petitioner. The agreement
(Exhibit "A') constituted her as an agent with the obligation to return the
tobacco if the same was not sold.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition for review on certiorari is dismissed for lack of

merit. With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la

Fuente, JJ., concur.