This is an appeal from a decision by the Court of First Instance of  Manila,  then presided by Judge Conrado V. Sanchez, new an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, dismissing  plaintiff's complaint as  well  as  the counter-claim of the defendants.

The appeal is predicated on the grounds that the lower court erred:

"I.  In finding that the defendant Drr Cornelio S. Tantoco  was not a  party  to the contract of lease of the fishpond in question, and consequently erred in exempting  him from  any  and all liabilities  arising out  of the lease  agreement;

II. In finding the P200,000 Japanese war notes' as full payment and satisfaction of rentals from November 15, 1944 to November 15, 1945, and in not finding the same  as deposit to guarantee and secure the payment of the corresponding , monthly  rentals at the rate of Pl6,666.66 1/3 which deposit is amply supported by the  surrounding circumstances and  the abnormal  and  chaotic conditions prevailing  at the time;

III.  In not finding document Exhibit J, dated  October 17, 1944 as a mere  'receipt and provisional contract of lease'  subject to such clear  and  manifest intention of  the parties thereto to  execute at a later date (October 19,  1944)  a final contract of lease containing the true, real  and agreed terms  and conditions  as contained on document  Exhibit K;

IV.  In not finding that the  true, real and agreed  terms and conditions  of the lease agreement  are those  appearing on  document  Exhibit K, which defendants deliberately  and  intentionally failed to  execute;

V. In not condemning the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiff  the corresponding rentals at the  rate  of P16,666.16 1/3 Philippine  currency a  month,  commencing February 15, 1945 to November  15, 1945, inclusive, and in holding that plaintiff's intention was to enrich himself at the expense of  (or to  the  injury of) another;

VI.  In finding that the plaintiff is seized with that atavistic propensity to  jump from one theory to another in the hope of obtaining beneficial  results, and in  considering independent cases  of the plaintiff in other courts as basis for such findings (Exhibits 7 and 8-Tamayo), thereby creating in the mind of the court prejudice and contempt against the  plaintiff by  dismissing in toto plaintiff's claims in the case at bar;

VII.  In finding that the  plaintiff is not entitled to be indemnified in the sum  of P6,000 Philippine  currency, representing the  value of 3,700 bangus try which defendant failed to  deliver  to the plaintiff at the expiration of the lease, pursuant to the agreement.

VIII. In .finding that the  damages on the fishpond represented by photographs  A-3, A-4 and A-5  refer to. tot  l-B-3 which does not belong to plaintiff and in further finding that these photographs were taken by photographer  Pablo Calayag not in November 1945; shortly after the expiration  of the  lease,  but in June or July  of 1946; and consequently erred in denying plaintiff's claim for damages for P50,000;

IX. In finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that repairs were made on  the fishpond before and after the lease, and  in holding the lack  of authenticity and genuineness  of the  various receipts evidencing payments for such repairs among them Exhibits  G, G-l,  G-2, G-8, G-4 and G-5; H,  H-l, H-2, H-3  and M-l and consequently  in denying the plaintiffs claims for actual damages in the sum of M.4,100;

X, In  finding that the fishpond  was delivered tot and accepted by  Ciriaco Calayag  in good conditions  and in further holding that Ciriaco Galayag was an encargado of the plaintiff duly authorized to accept the same  for the  defendants;

XI. In denying plaintiff's motion for a new  trial dated September 3, 1953, the A admission of  such newly discovered evidence  being of such material and transcendental importance  that would enable the trial court to have a more full, detailed and  complete facts  of the case at bar that  would have helped the said trial cemrfc to arrive at a  just, fair and impartial judgment en  the issues  involved.".

The issues involved in  the appeal, as clearly pointed out by the appellant  on page  18 of Ms  brief,  are reduced  to the following propositions: 

1. Whether  or not Dr. Cornelio S. Tantoco was a party to the contract of lease of the fishpond in question;   
   
2.  
3. Whether or not the P200,000  in  Japanese  war notes  was  a mere deposit to guarantee or secure the  payment of the monthly rentals at the  rate of P16,666.66 1/3 from November 15, 1944  to November 15, ,1945; or in full payment and satisfaction  of  a year rentals of the  said  fishpond;
   
4.  
5. Whether or not Exhibit J, is the final contract of lease between the parties; or  that the true, real and agreed terms and conditions of the  lease agreement are  those embodied on Exh. K which the defendants deliberately and intentionally failed to execute;
   
6.  
7. Whether or not  Ciriaco  Calayag was the  encargado  of  Dr. Vicente Valencia, with authority to accept the return and delivery of  the  fishpond in question  on November 15, 1945;
   
8.  
9. Whether or not the fishpond was actually  delivered  in  good conditions by the defendants on  November 15, 1945, or was it left and  abandoned by the  defendants as a retaliatory  act for filing the plaintiff's complaint on July 26, 1945;
      
   
10. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the damages claimed, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable for said damages.

We have read the decision  appealed  from and the evidence presented by both parties and We find that none of the  errors assigned by the appellant has  been committed by the lower court.   And the issues now raised were fully. clearly and exhaustively discussed  and  disposed  of in  the decision which we could  hardly improve, for which reason we adopt it as our own. It says

"Plaintiff, Vicente  Valencia,  seeks to recover from  defendants Cornelio Tantoco and Amado C. Tamayo (1)  rentals at the rate of P16,666.66  per  month  from February 15, 1945 to  November  15, 1945, on  a fishpond  located in Marulao,  Hagonoy,  Bulacan;   (2) P6,000 damages  arising out  of  defendants' failure  to replace about 3,700 bangus seedlings left with the fishpond at the time defendants took possession thereof; and (3) P64,000 damages suffered by plaintiff by reason of defendants' abandonment of said fishpond in an unserviceable  condition upon the expiration  of  the  one year lease , from November 15, 1944 to November 15,  1945.

Defendant Cornelio  Tantoco  disclaims  liability  under the lease agreement sued upon, alleges  that he  is neither  party nor  privy to that contract, and  sets up  a counterclaim for  damages planted upon the  averment  that  plaintiff included said defendant  in  the complaint  maliciously  and knowing that no cause of action exists against the latter.

Defendant Amado C. Tamayo alleges  full payment of the rentals claimed, the delivery of an equivalent amount of fish  seedlings upon termination  of the  lease, and the return  of the  fishpond in the  same condition as when  received,  repairs  and  improvements having been  introduced  during his possession.  He also filed  a counterclaim  for  damages.

Early in October, 1944,  defendant Tamayo presented  to plaintiff a  letter  Exhibit  I whereunder defendant Tantoco desired to acquire by lease of two  of plaintiff's fishponds; a  similar one in Paombong, Bulacan, then under lease to Angel Tantoco, brother of defendant Tantoco,  and the other a big one  described  in the  blue print Exhibit D located in  Marulao, Hagonoy, Bulacan, tr. p.  133. Exhibit I textually reads as follows:

'DR.  VICENTE VALENCIA,

Ang inyo pong encargado na  ang pangalan ay  Am bo ay naibalita  sa  aking kapatid na si  Angel na kayo  daw  ay  may gustong  pabuisan  ang  inyong  dalawang  palaisdaan na  kung ano  ang  pasok  ay  siyang labas.  Ang  inyong  palaisdaan  na ka  hanga  ni  Angel  ay  nasa  aming posesion  ngayon  sapagkat na  buisan  sa  amin  nila  Angel  ng naka buis  sa inyo dahil dito ay  malaki  ang aming pagkakagusto  na  sa  amin  na ninyo sana pa  buisan  ang inyong dalawang palaisdaan.

Ang may dala nitong  sulat  na ito ay si Mr.  Aqaado Tamayo ang siya  na  namin pinakakatawan  at binigyan namin  ng  poder na makipagusap  sa ano mang halaga  at  condickmes na  inyong pagkakasunduan tungkol sa inyong palaisdaan. Hanggang dito na lamang at magutos ng  kaya.

(Sgd.)  CORNELIO S. TANTOCO'

It was then contemplated that if the two fishponds could be had on a  one-year lease (kung ano  ang pasok  ay siyang labas)  for P200,000,  defendant  Tamayo and Tantoco would be in partnership in  that lease.   But plaintiff demanded P200,000 for  the lease of one fishpond alone the big  fishpond at  Harulao.  Tamayo  conveyed to Tantoco plaintiff's terms.  Tantoco refused  to take the  lease under that condition.  Tamayo thereupon decided to  lease  by himself  the  Marulao  fishpond  of about 76 hectares.  In  so  doing, Tamayo had  in  mind the  prospect of  disposing  of his  Japanese money and giving jobs to his  employees.

So it was,  that on  October 11, 1944 defendant Tamayo returned to see plaintiff and told the latter that he  (Tamayo) would lease l:he big fishpond.  Valencia and  Tamayo went  to see Valencia's attorney,  Francisco  Delgado at  the latter's  office.  He was  not there.  They  however met  Atty.  Santiago Macapagal,  Delgado's .assistant,  who, on that  day, October 11, 1944, drew  up the  receipt for P20,000 advance payment made by  Tamayo on account  of  the total  rentals  of  P200,000 for the lease  of Marulao fishpond for a one-year  period  from November  15,  1944  to  November 14, 1945. Exhibit 2 reads:

"Tinangap ko kay  G. Amado C.  Tamayo, Filipino, nasa karampatang gulang,  may asawa  at naninirahan sa Malolos,  Bulacan, Filipinas, ang halagang veinte mil pesos (P20,000)  bilang paunang bayad ng kabuuang buwis na halagang P200,000  ng aking pinabubuwisan sa kanilang  palaisdaan ko na nasa Barrio ng Sta. Elena, Marulao,  Hagonoy, Bulacan, na may laking 76 hectareas  humigit kumulang, nguni't sa buisan ng nasabing palaisdaan  ay hindi kasali ang bansutan at katabing binhian.

Ang pagbuwis  ay magkakabisa  mula sa ika  15 ng Noviembre 1944, at  matatapos sa  ika 15  ng Noviembre ng 1945 (isang taon lamang).

Ang kabuuan ng buwis aydos dentos mil pesos (P200,000) at ang pagbabayad ay gaya ag sumusunod:

Veinte mil pesos (P20,000)  sa fechang ito;  at  ang matitirang ciento ochenta mil pesos  (P180,000) ay babayaran sa akin sa araw ng Jueves, ika  19 ng Octubre ng 1944.

Sakaling bindi  mabayaran «mg nasabing  halagang W.80,000  sa nabanguit  na araw, mawawalan na  ng bisa ang kasunduan  sa buwisan, at ang halagang P20,000 na naibayad na ay magiging kay Dr. Vicente Valencia na bilang kabayaran  ng  kanyang danos y perjuicios.

Sa katunayan ng nasasabi ng itaas, kami ay ltunagda sa kasulatang ito dito sa Maynila ngayong ika 11 ng Octubre ng taong 1944.

		(Sgd.) VICENTE VALENCIA Nagpapabuwis
Along tinatangap ang sinasabi sa  itaas: (Sgd.)  AMADO C. TAMAYO Res.  Cert. A-0118280 Manila Jan. 22/44
In the presence of:
	(Sgd.)  S.  MACAPAGAL (Sgd.)  CATALINO DE LA CRUZ"

On October 17, 1944,, defendant Tamayo went back to  plaintiff and delivered to  the latter  the amount of P180,000, consisting  of P150,000 in certified check which Tamayo procured from the Province of Bulacan and P25.000 in cash.   Plaintiff  and defendant Tamayo once again proceeded to the office of Atty.  Francisco Delgado for the preparation  of the  necessary  document.  There they met Atty. Alejandro  de  Santos, a lawyer-assistant.  The amount  oi W.80,000 having been turned over by  Tamayo  to  Valencia, Atty. De  Santos prepared  the receipt  and provisional contract of lease in the form of a  public document Exhibit J  (or 3) ratified before him as Notary, which is as  follows:

RECEIPT  AND PROVISIONAL CONTRACT OF  LEASE KNOW  ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, VICENTE VALENCIA, Filipino,  legal  age, married,  residing at  107  Solis, Manila, having received the  further sum  of ONE hundred and eighty thousand pesos (P180,000)  Phil, currency, from Amado C.. Tamayo, Filipino, of legal age,  married and residing at Malolos, Bulacan, this 17th day  of  October, 1944,  in the City  of  Manila,  which  amount  completed  the  agreed  rental  of Two hundred1 thousand pesos (P200,000)  of fishpond situated  at barrio Sta. Elena, Marulao,  Hagonoy, Bulacan,  having an area  of SWENTY SIX HECTARES (76 hectares) More or less, does hereby cede, transfix  and convey unto  said Amado C. Tamayo,  his heirs and assigns, by way of lease for a full period of one  (1) yeae beginning from November 16,  1044 and ending on November 15, 1945; the said  fishpond, excluding only  the  'Bansutan"  and the "BINGHIAN".

Amado  C. Tamayo for  his part does hereby  declare that he accepts the  lease under the precise terms stateji above and in  the receipt issued by Vicente Valencia on October 11, 1944.  He farther manifests that  he has inspected the  property and that he obligates himself to return the  possession of the same te Vkeste Valencia after the  lapse of the period of one year, and in the same condition thereof, minus  only the ordinary wear and tear.

In  witness whereof, the  parties hereto have hereunto set their hands on  these presents this 17th day  of October, 1944 in the City of Manila.

		(Sgd.)  Vicente  Valencia. Lessor (Sgd.)  Amado C.  Tamayo Lessee
In  the presence  of
	(Sgd.) JOSE L. ABELARDO (Sgd.) ALEJANDRO DE SANTOS"
(Acknowledgment clause omitted)

The foregoing  document having  been  signed, Dr. Vicente  Valencia delivered to Amado C. Tamayo a letter in the former's handwriting addressed  to  Giriaco  Calayag, caretaker  of the fishpond instructing the latter to deliver the said fishpond to Tamayo.  Calayag turned over the fishpond to the  representatives of  defendant Tamayo  on the 15th of November, 1944.  A survey  then made by Tamayo  showed that certain repairs  had to  be done to  put  the fishpond   in  good condition.  Repairs  were  made.  Fish  seedlings were put in.  Tamayo harvested fish  twice, the first on  May 2, 1945 and the  second on  October 25,  1945.

About  April, 1945, that  is, after liberation, plaintiff  instructed his  Attorney Santiago  Macapagal to  prepare a contract of lease covering  the same fishpond for the same period  as that in Exhibit J, but with  different terms and conditions.   Remarkable are some of  the conditions  of that  proposed contract 6f lease Exhibit E. First, ;fche contract is no  longer with  Amado C. Tamayo alone  but with both Tamayo and Tantoeo, defendants herein.  Second,  it requires that monthly rentals should be paid at the rate of P16,666.66 1/3 every month beginning with  the month of November, 1944,  and any and all payments of monthly rental must be of the actual currency as  recognized  by the  constituted government  in the Philippines.'  Both Tamayo and  Tantoco refused to sign  this proposed contract Exhibit  K.

Pursuant to an understanding had between plaintiff and defendant Tamayo on November 10, 1945, after the last  fishes (simot) were taken, the  fishpond  was returned  to  Ciriaco  Calayag,  plaintiff's encargado.  Calayag went around the fishpond,  found it in good condition, and  accepted the same from Tamayo.

1. First in point of inquiry is the question whether or not plaintiff lias a cause  of action  against  defendant  Cornelio  Tantoco. Plaintiff's theory in all his pleadings in his original, first amended, and second  amended complaints  consistently was that the two defendants leased the fishpond  from him.

On the witness stand, however, plaintiff, testifying in his favor, presented for the court's consideration three theories contradictory to  each other.  First theory:  Plaintiff testified that, in reference to  the  fishpond in question, the lease  agreement was between him and Cornelio Tantoco alone, and that defendant Amado Tamayo was merely  a 'go-between'  for  them.   tr. p. 470.  On  this  point, plaintiff's testimony is  buttressed by documentary evidence  of his own making, Exhibits B, B-2, B-3, B-U, B-5 and C.  In fact, he said that Tamayo had written authority to sign for Tantoco, tr.  p. 247. See also tr. pp. 131, 134, 144, 148, 161. Second theory:  The second theory  saddled upon the court  by plaintiff is that the contract of lease was between  him on  one hand and defendants Tantoco  and Tamayo  on the other, tr. pp.  142, 153, 158-159,  161, 166, 167, 172-174, 176, 177,  184. Plaintiff's third  theory  is  that  really the lease  contract  was  with  defendant Tamayo,  and  that defendant Tantoco only acted  in  representation  of  Tamayo.

'Q. Why was Atty.  Macapagal  able  to put  in  Exhibit  2- Tamayo from  whom  you received the money,  if you did not tell him from whom you  received it?   

A. I told him that  I had received the P20,000 delivered personally by Dr. Tantoco in representation of Mr. Tamayo.'  tr. 241.

It thus appears that  plaintiff, in open court, has actually bandied his theory as to who was the lessee, from Tantoco,  to Tamayo and Tantoco, and then to Tamayo  and finallyback to  Tantoco alone. tr. p. 470.

The rigmarole  into which the court's  mind is ushered by such conflicting  theories  will prevent the court  from  giving its imprimatur to plaintiff's wobbly claim that Tantoco is  a party to the contract.  Registering indelibly in the mind of the  court  is that plaintiff,  by  his  own words  and his  pleadings,  failed to  nail down the question of Tantojco's liability.

Examining  the  written evidence of record,  it will appear  that Exhibits 2 and 3  (J)  totally  repudiate plaintiff's claim that Tantoco is a party to  the lease.

Exhibit 2, which is a receipt for the sum of P20,000 as advance payment of the rentals; shows that said amount was received from Amado C. Tamayo  alone. Said receipt  specifies  certain conditions such as the period of the lease and the covenant that in the event of failure to pay  the remaining rental of P180,000,  the P20,000 received thereby would be forfeited by way of  losses and damages. This Exhibit 2 bears the signature of Amado C. Tamayo personally written below the words  'aking tinatanggap ang  sinasabi sa itaas'. In this document  Exhibit 2 the name of Cornelio  Tantoco is  conspicuous by its absence.  He was not named here  as  Tamayo's principal or lessee or co-lessee.

Exhibit 3 Tamayo or Exhibit J, which is the  receipt and provisional contract of lease executed on  the 17th  of  October, 1944, is as  illuminating.   This contract recites  that  plaintiff received from defendant Amado C. Tamayo the sum of  P180,000 which completed the agreed rental of P200,000; that plaintiff has ceded, transferred and conveyed  unto  the said  Araado C. Tamayo, his heirs and  assigns,  by way of lessee, the fishpond  in question.  Amado C. Tamayo  for his part accepted the lease under the precise terms and  conditions set forth  therein and in the receipt of October 11, 1944, Exhibit 2.  The document also stated that Amado  C. Tamayo 'further manifests that he  has inspected the property and that he obligates  himself  to return the possession of  the  same' to plaintiff.   As in Exhibit 2, the only contracting parties  who appear  in and  signed  the document Exhibit 3 were Vicente Valencia  'lessor', and  Amado C. Tamayo, 'lessee'.  Once again, no mention was made of defendant  Cornelio  Tantoco  in  Exhibit 3.  When asked why he did not tell the notary to place the name of Tantoco in that document Exhibit  3, plaintiff simply stated  that  Tamayo had  written authority to sign  for Tantoco.  tr. p.  247, and  yet,  Tamayo  signed the document irt propria persona.

Plaintiff and his  son Mario  Valencia  in  an effort  to  pin down defendant Tantoco, would further  palm off  to  the  court the claim that it was said Tantoco who  allegedly gave his son P25,000  on the afternoon of the 11th of October, 1944.   This obviously is not true. For, paragraph III  of the original complaint, paragraph III of the first amended complaint and paragraph III  of the  second amended complaint, in  unison, state  that the sum of.P180,000 of which this P25,000 forms part was delivered to plaintiff  on October 17, 1944. Another proof that plaintiff's claim does not bear the usual earmarks of truth is the fact that although plaintiff and his own son Mario averred that a receipt was issued by the  latter to Tantoco for the said sum of P25,000 the notices to produce Exhibits 4, 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C, issued  by plaintiff's attorneys for the production of documents failed to mention  that alleged receipt of KJ5,000 issued on October 11, 1944.  Finally, plaintiff himself  had  to  admit that there was no agreement as to the delivery of P25,000 on that same day, October  11, 1944. tr. pp. 263, 266. 

Exhibits 2 and 3 uniformly speak of the contract of lease between plaintiff and Tamayo alone.  This and the morass of contradiction into which  plaintiff has  involved himself and  the complete unpredictability of plaintiff's  theory,  certainly will not  permit  this court to read into Exhibits 2 and  3 the name  of  Cornelio Tantoco  as a party  lessee.

Both  Attorneys  Santiago  Macapagal  who  prepared Exhibit  2 and Alejandro de  Santos who  wrote Exhibit  3  are  practicing attorneys in the City of Manila.  They are both alive.  That plaintiff should prefer that this case be in umbilical dependence upon his sole testimony without the support of these two distinguished gentlemen, is proof enough that, if presented,  the said attorneys would belie plaintiff's claim.

Needless  to state, the proposed contract of lease Exhibit  K  is not  binding upon  Tantoco: First, because it  has not  been signed by him; and Second,  because whatever Tamayo had stated at the back thereto,  Exhibits  K and K-l,  is  not  binding  on  Tantoco. At all events, the  notations, Exhibits K and K-l, made by Tamayo do not afford  as much as  cold comfort to plaintiff's claim for Tamayo  merely  said  there  that  he wanted to  consult Tantoco and the  parties  interested in the  partnership.   This plainly implies that defendant Tantoco is  not interested in  the partnership  and confirms  what  Tamayo statecl in  court to  the effect that he had  to consult Dr. Tantoco his  consultant in  fishpond deals by reason of his  (Tantoco's)  experience in fishery  business, tr. pp. 401, 402.

Upon all the foregoing, the court  is fully convinced that plaintiff has no cause of  action against  defendant Cornelio Tantoco.

2. Is plaintiff entitled to recover that rentals sought in  his complaint.

The quintessence of  plaintiff's testimony is that the total sum  of P200,000, consisting of P20,000 received by him under the terms  of the  receipt  Exhibit 2 and P180,000 thereafter paid to him as shown in Exhibit J  (or  3), was merely  a deposit  as security that  he would receive the  corresponding monthly  rentals on the fishpond  in question.

A  cursory examination of the receipt Exhibit 2 dated October 11, 1944 will readily show that the  sum of P20,000 received there under was an advance payment on account of rentals in the total amount of P200,000 for the lease of the fishpond from .November 15, 1944 to November  15, 1945.  The following lifted from Exhibit 2 amply  proves this fact:  'Tinanggap ko kay J. Amado C. Tamayo * * * ang halagang veinte mil pesos (P20,000)  bilang paunang bayad ng kabuuang buwis na halagang P200,000 ng taking pinabubuwisang sa kanilang palaisdaan  ko na  nasa barrio  Sta. Elena, Marulao, Hagunoy, Bulacan.'  Said  Exhibit  2  Iikewise provides  that  the lease is for one year, so that  the amount of P200,000 was the total rental  (kabuuang  buwis) for  the one-year period.  In like manner, the third paragraph of  Exhibit 2  recites that the total rental of P200,000  (kabuuan ng buwis)  was to be paid  as  follow:  (at ang pagbabayad ay gay a ng  sumusunod): P20,000 on that date, and the remaining P180,000 was  to  be paid (ay  babayaran) on October 19, 1944.  Finally, the last  paragraph  of  Exhibit 2 states that in the event of the failure of Tamayo to pay the said amount of P180,000 (sakaling hindi  mabayaran  ang nasabing halagang P180,000) on the date aforementioned,  the contract would be null and void and the sum of P20,000  paid (na naibayad na) would be forfeited to plaintiff as  losses and damages.

As will be seen, the word 'deposit' or  any  other term of similar import  is totally  absent from  Exhibit  2.  The words utilized to express payment of rentals are clear, the language plain and simple, and  intention unmistakable.  Plaintiff, a  doctor of  Medicine, is an intelligent businessman.   Exhibit 2  was prepared by  an  attorney of his  own choice, Santiago  Macapagal.  The  document was prepared  by Atty. Macapagal after he had interviewed plaintiff  and Tamayo, tr, pp. 237-238.  It  was read by  Macapagal in plaintiff's; presence,  tr. p. 242.  Therefore, Exhibit  2 must be  deemed  to represent the  true intention of the parties.

But  if  the foregoing  were  not yet  sufficient, there is Exhibit J (Exhibit 3) i the receipt  and provisional  contract of lease, a public document  executed  on  the 17th day of  October,  1944.  The  document written in English which  is understood  by  plaintiff  recites that 'I, Vicente  Valencia * *  * having received the further sum of one hundred eighty thousand  pesos  (P180,000)  Philippine currency from Amado  C.  Tamayo * * * this  17th day of  October,  1944 * * * which amount  completed the  agreed rental  of  P200.000 * * * does hereby cede,  transfer and  convey unto said Amado  C. Tamayo his heirs and assigns, by way of lease,  for a full period of one (1) year *  * * the said fishpond * * * tr,  p. 253.  This  document was prepared by Atty. Alejandro de Santos of the law firm oJt Francisco Delgado, counsel for plaintiff.   Before Atty. De Santos prepared Exhibit J (Exhibit 3), so plaintiff  himself admits, plaintiff and defendant Tamayo talked to Santos; they informed Santos about th contents of Exhibit 2 Tamayo,  and of the terms and conditions of the present  contract  Exhibit  J  (Exhibit 3); and Santos  understood the terms of the contract  before  the latter prepared  Exhibit J (Exhibit 3)  tr. pp.  251, 252, 270.

So  clear  indeed are the documents  Exhibits  2 and  3 (J)  that one  unschooled in the ways of the law or  another  possessed  of naivete will readily see that the  sum of P200,000  is in full payment of rentals not deposit.

It  has  been held that a recital in a public document  celebrated with  all  the  legal formalities under the safeguard of a  notarial certificate is  'evidence against  the  parties'  and  'a high  degree of proof is  necessary to overcome  the legal  presumption  that  such recital  is true.'  (Naval vs. Enriquez,  3 Phil., 669, 670-671;  Asido vs. Guzman,  37 Phil., 652,  654-655.)   Certainly the biased,  interested testimony of plaintiff will not overcome the evidentiary force of Exhibit J (or 3), a public document.  El  Hogar Filipino vs. Olviga, 60 Phil., 17, 21.

The  court is not unmindful of the proposed  contract  Exhibit K drawn  at plaintiff's behest by Atty. Santiago Macapagal who prepared Exhibit 2.  At best it is self-serving.  Defendants  refused to sign  it.  That this proposal was an  after thought is not  difficult to realize.  Mickey mouse money was already outlawed; plaintiff wanted to make  sure that he get hold of Dr.  Cornelio Tantoco  and  clamp not only upon Tamayo  but also upon said Tantoco the payment of P110,000  in genuine  Philippine  currency by  way  of  rentals  from liberation up to the end of the lease.   Is it any wonder then that plaintiff  should have eschewed Exhibits 2 and 3?

From another point of view, plaintiff's claim that he is entitled to collect rentals, month. by month,  at  the rate  of P16,666.66 1/3  in genuine  money is at  war with the facts.  Lease of fisheries under the common  practice  is 'kung ano ang pasok ay siyang  labas' that is, if the lease commences on November 30,  it will end on November 30 of  the succeeding year,  a one-year period.  There is  never a contract of lease of fishponds  on a  month  to month basis.  Exhibits  I; tr. pp.  403-404.  That is why  the lawyers who  prepared Exhibits 2 and 3 (or J) did not provide for the payments of rentals on monthly  installments.

Plaintiff received  the P200,000 in Japanese currency  which was good at the time; and now he wants an additional P110,000  in actual currency.  'No man may wrongfully (tertiously) enrich himself at the  expense  of (to the injury  of)  another.   (E  aun  dixeron,  que ningunono deue enriquesszer  tertizeramente con  dano  de otro). (Regla 17, Title 34, Setena Partida, sentencias Tribunal de Españia May  1, 1875, December 16, 1880, May 24, 1882; April  24, 1896' Cuyugan  vs. Santos, 34 Phil., 100, 116.

It would  appear appropriate  at this point to state that plaintiff gave cause for belief that he  (plaintiff)  is seized with that atavistic propensity to jump from one theory to another in the  hope of obtaining beneficial results.   In the suit covering a  portion  of the big fishpond in question, lot l-B-3 of the  plan Exhibit D, he sustained the theory that he  was  a vendee in pacto de retro  thereof. He lost in the Supreme Court.  See Exhibit 7-Tamayo.  Thereafter, he  started  land registration  proceedings  covering the same  land, lot l-B-3, and adopted an entirely different theory, to  wit:  that he  was the exclusive owner  of the property having inherited the same from his grandfather  Pedro  Crisostomo.  And,  he likewise lost in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.  Exhibit 8-Tamayo. This seemingly spineless pattern of behavior is once  again apparent. in  the  present  case.

The court, therefore, is constrained to state that it is not  merely a matter  of choice but of stern  necessity that this court must withhold its stamp of approval on plaintiff's claim that the  P200,000 received by him under Exhibits 2 and 3 (J)  was in the  form of deposit.  The court finds, by overwhelming proof, that  said sum of P200,000 was  paid by way of rentals in advance for  the one-year lease of the fishpond in question.

3. Plaintiff  claims  damages  for defendants'  failure  to replace the bangus fry  from which  according to  plaintiff  he could  have harvested fish at about P6,000.

Plaintiff's theory is that when defendant took possession  of the fishpond there were about 3,700 bangus  seedlings, tr.  pp. 181-182.. On this point there is no evidence but his sole uncorroborated testimony.

Oddly enough,  the last time that plaintiff saw the  fishpond before the liberation, was in August,  1944, that  is, three months before defendant Tamayo took possession thereof, tr. pp. 211, 294.  During the whole thne that defendant  Tamayo was in possession, plaintiff never  saw the  fishpond personally, tr.  167. As a  mater of  fact, the fishpond was  returned not  to  plaintiff but to Ciriaco Calayag,. the latter's encargado.

Damages  must be proven even when not denied.  Section 8,  Rule

9.  How could plaintiff know  the amount of bangus seedlings which was in the fishpond when he was not present at the time of the  delivery.  How many of the fry  would develop into  marketable fish is not  known.  Neither  is there  competent proof  of  the  prevailing price of hangus or bangus fry in Marulao,  at the time of the surrender of the fishpond to plaintiff or at the  time plaintiff could have harvested the fish following the return of the possession of the said fishpond. This court cannot predicate  a finding of substantial damages upon conjecture or guess work.  The amount claimed by  plaintiff could be ascertained with reasonable accuracy. But he failed in this.   Plaintiff could Tiave placed on the stand his overseer Ciriaco Calayag, a competent witness who was taking care  of the fish  fry (tr. p. 211), but  did  not.  A, stricter proof is required of him. Therefore,  plaintiff's claim  for damages on this point must fail. Song  Fo & Co.  vs.  Hawaiian Philippine Co., 47 Phil.,  821, 829; Bian  Hin & Co.  vs. Tan Romping, 48  PhiL, 523,  527;  Hicks  vs. Manila Hotel Co., 28 Phil.. 325, 339-340;  Choa  Tek Hee vs. Phil. Publishing  Co., 34 Phil.,  447,  456, 459-460.

4. Plaintiff also claims damages suffered by the fishpond  itself which allegedly was left unserviceable for the purpose.  (Paragraph XIV,  second amended  complaint).

The utter lack of dependability in plaintiff's position is  once more manifest in this  cause of action." Plaintiff's theory in the first  and second amended  complaints is that the fishpond  was abandoned by defendasts.   But in Exhibits  B-2, B-3, B-5 and C, which are documents prepared by plaintiff himself, plaintiff reneged on the theory that the fishpond was abandoned he wrote therein that it  was returned in a damaged condition.

Plaintiff  admits  that he did not  know the condition of the fishpond when  the same was left by the purchasers of the fish to  whom he (plaintiff) sold the fish in said fishpond  in September, 1944. re. pp.  235,  291.  He did not know the condition of the fishpond  on November 15, 1944, date  of  delivery,  to Tamayo, because the  last time he saw the said fishpond before liberation was in August, 1944. There is evidence to show that defendant  Tamayo had to put  the fishpond in  shape before  putting fish  fry therein, tr. pp. 333-334, 365-366, 370, 397.

An examination of the receipts presented by plaintiff to prove that repairs were made on the fishpond before and after  the lease, casts ;serious doubts as to their authenticity.  Take  for instance Exhibits H and H-l both thumbmarked by Francisco Salamat,  for the sums of Pl,120 and P400 respectively.  These two receipts bear the same date,  July  22,  1944.   Again  Exhibit  H-2 for Pl,550 and Exhibit H-3 for P683 both thumbmarked by Jose de la Cruz and Francisco Salamat likewise bear one date, July 28, 1944.   These last two receipts apparently were on sheets plucked from a composition book. Francisco Salamat, testifying in court, stated  that  after the foregoing receipts were thumbmarked by him, plaintiff Valencia  just paid him the amounts therein, solely and exclusively upon his representation  that he had done so much work.  For, Valencia, never bothered to go to the fishpond, tr. p. 106.  The court also examined the receipts  Exhibits G, G-l, G-2, G-4 and G-5 dated  respectively July  6,  1946,  July 16,  1946, July  26,  1946,  July 31,  1946  and August  31,  .1946.   That  amounts  in  these  receipts  were   paid without  the   intervention of  Jose  Salamat,  alleged  overseer  of plaintiff,  and  without  plaintiff knowing personally  the  amount of work done.  Is it possible for plaintiff, a careful, intelligent man, to just give away money without tangible proof that work had  been done? tr.  pp. 57, 58 and 89.  See also tr. pp. 297-298.  The  answer, most  emphatically,  is  "No".

And then,  the repairs extended from November, 1946  {Exhibit D)  to December,  1946 (Exhibit D-l).  Between November  1945 and  December,  1946,  so many things could have  happened,  such as storms or floods which could have destroyed or damaged the fishpond.    .

Turning to another  receipt  for  repairs  Exhibit M-l the court finds  that in  one  single  sheet  three receipts  widely  varying  in dates as follows, October 7, 1945, August 15,  1946  and August 11, 1945 were successively written. This  is irregular, to say the least.

The damages claimed, according to plaintiff, appear in the photographs Exhibts A  to A-5.  But Exhibits A-3, A-4  and A-5  refer to lot l-B-3  which does not and did not belong to plaintiff, tr. pp. 281,  286.   There is evidence to show that  these photographs were taken  by  photographer  Pablo Calayag n6t  in November,  1945, shortly  after the  expiration  of the lease, but in June, or  July, 1946. tr.  pp.  322, 356.  Referring  now to  the photograph  Exhibit A-5,  which  purports  to show the so-called  'balut' in  lot  l-B-3 (tr. p. 288), according to plaintiff's witness Francisco Salamat, there was no balut in August, 1944,  as they cleaned  the same.   He added that balut would not  grow  in  a year's time. tr. p. 122.  If  such is the case, why is it that  there was balut in the fishpond according to Exhibit A 57.   This  balut occupied an area of about ten  hectares according to  plaintiff,  tr. p.  187.  It cannot  be said  that defendant Tamayo filled that extensive area only out of spite  because plaintiff filed a suit against him.  The fact is that that balut  was there ever since before, tr. pp. 365, 371, 396.

Furthermore, Ciriaco Calayag, plaintiff's encargado, instruction of plaintiff  and after going  over  and  checking the fishpond  in question, received the same  in good order and condition, tr. pp.  340, 342.  350,  373-374.

Really,  defendant Tamayo could  not have harvested anything  if the water gates and the pieces of wood  for water gates were not in order and pilapiles were broken.  Fish naturally  would have escaped, tr. p. 335  .It  must be borne in  mind that the last harvest made by defendant Tamayo was  on  October  25,  1945, and  the fishpond was returned on November 10, 1945.  Damages  such  as were described by plaintiff could not have occurred within so short an interval of time. tr. pp.  338, 395.

There is  information to the  effect that  Ciriaco Calayag  is still alive, tr. 347.  Yet plaintiff did not  present  Calayag, his overseer, as a witness. No reason  was advanced for non-presentation. The  presumption  is that  if presented Ciriaco  Calayag  would  not support plaintiff's claim. Section 69 (e), Rule 123.

The court accordingly is of the opinion and so holds that plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages arising out of the alleged damaged condition of the fishpond  upon  the termination of  the lease. In view of all the foregoing,  the court concludes that  plaintiff is entitled to  take nothing by his complaint.

No evidence was presented to support the counterclaims. Wherefore, this case, in all  its parts, is hereby  dismissed, with costs against plaintiff."

As to the eleventh assignment of error to the effect that the  court  erred in  denying plaintiff's  motion for new trial, dated September 3,  1953,  We likewise find  that no such error was committed, for the evidence to be introduced by the  appellant,  if new  trial had been granted, was not a newly  discovered evidence  but one which existed at  the time of the trial,  although, according to the  appellant, he could  not present  it because during the  trial of  the case the  residence of Ciriaco Calayag  was not  known. We also find that, had the  court permitted the  new trial, the testimony of Ciriaco Calayag  would be  to the  effect that the defendants did not deliver to him,  as  encargado of the plaintiff, the fishpond in question in good condition; but this testimony, even admitted,  would not be sufficient to alter the findings of  the trial  court regarding delivery of the fishpond in question to the defendant, which are fully supported by  the evidence of record.   There  has  been, therefore, no substantial prejudice  to the appellant by the denial  of his motion for new trial which  may constitute reversible error.

Again, as to Annex B of the motion for new trial, consisting of a decision of  the Court of Appeals reversing a decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, which was invoked as a ground for new trial, We find said decision of the Court of Appeals not to have much bearing on the principal question  involved in this case and therefore its  rejection does not likewise  constitute  reversible error. Wherefore, finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement with regard to costs.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Montemayor, Concepcion,  and Felix, JJ,,  concur.