Cases from Articles 1251-1279 for Oblicon

8/13/2019 Cases from Articles 1251-1279 for Oblicon

1/59

G.R. No. 42108 December 29, 1989

OSCAR D. RAMOS and LUZ AGUDO, petitioners,vs.HON. COUR O! A""#ALS, AD#LA$DA RAMOS and LAZARO #.M#N#S#S, respodents.

Godofredo V. Magbiray for petitioners.

Joselito Lim for private respondents.

R#GALADO, J.:

The instant petition for review on certiorariimpugns the decision of the Court

of Appeals dated October 7, 1975,1which affirmed in toto the decision of the

Court of irst !nstance of Tarlac in Civil Case "o. #1$%, entitled &Adelaida'amos, et al. vs. Oscar (. 'amos, et al.,& holding that the contracts betweenthe parties are not ventas con pacto de retro but are e)uitable mortgages.

*ometime in +anuar 1959, private respondent Adelaida 'amos borrowedfrom her brother, petitioner Oscar (. 'amos, the amounts of - 5,. and

- 9,. in connection with her business transaction with one lor 'amiro,red "aboa and Att. 'uperto *arandi involving the recover of a parcel ofland in Tene/eros, 0alabon. The said amount was used to finance the trip toawaii of 'amiro, "aboa and Att. *arandi. As securit for said loan, privaterespondent Adelaida 'amos e2ecuted in favor of petitioners two 34 deeds ofconditional sale dated 0a 47, 1959 and August 6, 1959, of her rights,shares, interests and participation respectivel over ot "o. #66 covered bOriginal Certificate of Title "o. 5145 registered in the name of their parents,

8alente 'amos and 0argarita (enoga, now deceased2and ot "o. #441

covered b Transfer Certificate of Title "o. 17%% then registered in the

names of *ocorro 'amos, +osefina 'amos and Adelaida 'amos,%

said

properties being of the Cadastral *urve of -ani)ui, Tarlac.:pon the failure of said private respondent as vendor a retro to e2ercise herright of repurchase within the redemption period, aforenamed petitioner fileda petition for consolidation and approval of the conditional sale of ot "o.#66 in *pecial -roceedings "o. 517#, entitled &!ntestate ;state of the late

0argarita (enoga,&4and a petition for approval of the pacto de retro sale of

ot "o. #441 in the former Court of irst !nstance of Tarlac acting as a

cadastral court.&

On +anuar 44, 19$, the said probate court issued anorder with the following dispositionAgudo, conveing to the latter b wa of pacto de retro sale whatever rights

and interests the former ma have in ot "o. #66 of the Cadastral *urve of-ani)ui, which deed of conditional sale is ?nown as (ocument "o. 1#, -age4$, @oo? 8!, *eries of 1959, of the notarial register of "otar -ublic +ose -.

*ibal, is hereb approved.'

The cadastral Court also issued a similar order dated April 1%, 19$, thedispositive portion of which readsance of an action for consolidation of ownership, much less toissue an order to that effect, such action must have been filed in the formercourt of first instance, now in the regional trial court, in the e2ercise of itsgeneral /urisdiction. That remed, and the procedure therefor, is nowgoverned b 'ule $# of the 'ules of Court as a special civil action cogni>ableb the regional trial court in the e2ercise of original general /urisdiction.

Antecedent thereto, Article 1$7 of the Civil Code provided for consolidationas followsed in Article 16$5 of the same code.29

Article 1$4 of the Civil Code is designed primaril to curtail the evils broughtabout b contracts of sale with right of repurchase, such as the circumvention

of the laws against usur and pactum commissorium.%0

!n the present case

before us, to rule otherwise would contravene the legislative intent to accordthe vendor a retro ma2imum safeguards for the protection of his legal rightsunder the true agreement of the parties. The /udicial e2perience in cases ofthis nature and the rationale for the remedial legislation are worth reiterating,considering that such nefarious practices still persistal, allowed the redemption and she paid the sum of -6$9,99#.4 and apercentage fee in the sum of -6,751.9 as shown b Official 'eceipt "os.1#%#954 and 1#%%657 both dated April 4, 19%$ 3$ollo, p. 69 and in thename of "orberto Tiba/ia, et al. 3;2hibits &1& and &4&.

On April 1#, 19%$, upon learning of the offer to redeem b petitioner Aurora8ito, private respondent Aileen Bo filed a &0anifestation and 0otion&opposing the offer to redeem on the ground that she was not the /udgmentdebtor or among those authori>ed to effect redemption under 'ule 69 of the'ules of Court, and further, the tender was not addressed to the proper partspecified under the 'ules, which is the purchaser.

!n an e%'partemotion, received b the Court on April 1%, 19%$, Aileen Bo

praed for the issuance of a final deed of sale as the 14 months redemptionperiod had alread e2pired and no valid redemption had been made b the

/udgment debtors. Aurora 8ito filed an opposition thereto, maintaining thatshe is a coowner of the properties sub/ect matter of the action that sheoffered to redeem the same in her own capacit as well as in her capacit asrepresentative of her copetitioners and that she is )ualified to e2ercise theright of redemption as provided for in *ection 49, 'ule 69 of the 'ules ofCourt and under Article 1$4 of the Civil Code.

At the hearing of the incidents on April 4#, 19%$, Aurora 8ito informed thecourt that she was authori>ed b her copetitioners to redeem, as per specialpower of attorne allegedl e2ecuted in "ew Ior? on April 1$, 19%$, 2ero2cop of which was submitted to the court on 0a 4, 19%$. On the other hand,it is the position of private respondent Aileen Bo that the 6$ das from theregistration of the certificate of sale with the 'egister of (eeds on April 15,19%5 had e2pired on April 1, 19%$.

The 'egional Trial Court of 'i>al, in its order of August 15, 19%$ found theredemption valid M

Considering that Aurora 8ito is e2ercising the right of redemption in her ownright as a coowner as well as attorneinfact of "orberto Tiba/ia, the Courtfinds the redemption in accordance with law, hence, the 0anifestation and0otion filed b Aileen Bo is hereb denied and the ;2Officio -rovincial*heriff of this Court is ordered to issue the corresponding certificate ofredemption.

Aileen Bo filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied b the

court in an Order dated April 15, 19%7 3$ollo, pp. #1#4.

On 0a 1%, 19%7, private respondent Aileen Bo 3as the auction vendee fileda "otice of Appeal from the abovementioned orders of the 'egional TrialCourt 3$ollo, p. #6.

The 'egional Trial Court of -asig, in an order dated +une 4$, 19%7, deniedsaid notice of appeal, on the grounds that< 31 the /udgment has long becomefinal and e2ecutor and 34 the auctionvendee is not a part to the case.

Alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac? of /urisdiction on thepart of the 'TC presiding /udge, private respondent Aileen Bo elevated thecase to the Court of Appeals on Certiorariand Mandamuswith praer forpreliminar in/unction, for the purpose of 3a annuling the order of the 'TC of-asig, @ranch 15#, dated +une 4$, 19%7, which denied due course to herappeal and 3b compelling the -residing +udge of the 'TC to reinstate theappeal interposed b her from the order of August 15, 19%$ and from theorder of the same court issued on April 15, 19%7.

!n an order dated (ecember 4, 19%7 3$ollo, pp. 4765, respondent Court ofAppeals found the order dening the notice of appeal arbitrar and

whimsical, fraught with abuse of discretion and granted the -etition for =ritof Certiorari.

-etitioner Aurora 8itos motion for reconsideration of said decision wasdenied 3Court of Appeals, $ollo, pp. $1$7.

ence, this petition, which b Court 'esolution has been given due course.

-etitioner raises two issues, to wital allowed the redemption and she paid the sum of-6$9,99#.4 and a percentage fee in the sum of -6,751.9 and was issuedOfficial 'eceipt "os. 1#%#954 and 1#%%657, both dated April 4, 19%$ 3$ollo,p. 61 and in the name of "orberto Tiba/ia, et al. 38bid.,p. 41. "evertheless,private respondent Bo, on April 1#, 19%$, in a 0anifestation and 0otion,opposed the offer to redeem on the ground that 8ito was not the /udgmentdebtor.

The records show that the redemption amount was paid on April 4, 19%$,

prior to the e2piration date of the redemption on April 1, 19%$%

and that theredemption was made for the /udgment debtors as evidenced b the receiptsissued in the name of "orberto Tiba/ia, et al. Conversel, it was not shownthat "orberto Tiba/ia, et al. opposed 8itos claim to be a coowner of the)uestioned propert or her capacit as representative of said owners PP the

/udgment debtors. :n)uestionabl, such redemption is allowed under *ec.49, 'ule 69 of the 'ules of Court. 0indful that the polic of the law is to aidrather than to defeat the right of redemption 3Tioseco v. Court of Appeals,1#6 *C'A 75, 71 D19%$E citingthe case of +avellana v. 0irasol and"uLe>, # -hil. 7$1, the ends of /ustice would be better served to give duecourse to the redemption.

-';0!*;* CO"*!(;';(, the (ecember 4, 19%7 decision of the Court ofAppeals is hereb *;T A*!(;, and the August 15, 19%$ order of the

'egional Trial Court of -asig, @ranch 15#, is ';!"*TAT;(.*O O'(;';(.

Melencio'5errera, #adilla, &armiento and $egalado, JJ., concur.

3OS#!$NA A5AG, R$CARDO GAL$C$A, #R#S$A GAL$C$A, ##L5NGAL$C$A, 3UAN GAL$C$A, 3R. and RODR$GO GAL$C$A, petitioners,vs.COUR O! A""#ALS and ALR$G$DO L#5A, respondents.

"acundo :. autista for petitioners.

Jesus :. Garcia for private respondent.

M#LO, J.:

The deed of conveance e2ecuted on 0a 4%, 1975 b +uan Balicia, *r.,prior to his demise in 1979, and Celerina abuguin, in favor of Albrigidoeva involving the undivided onehalf portion of a piece of land situated at-oblacion, Buimba, "ueva ;ci/a for the sum of -5,. under thefollowing termsed the fran? representationalong this line of +osefina Taag before the trial court 3T*", *eptember l,19%6, pp. 6# p. 5, (ecision in CAB.'. C8 "o. 16669, p. 5, $ollo p. 6,(ecision in Civil Case "o. $%1B, p. $$, $ollo, petitioners chose to remaincompletel mute even at this stage despite the opportunit accorded to them,for clarification. Conse)uentl, the pre/udicial aftermath of +osefina Taagsspontaneous reaction ma no longer be obliterated on the basis of estoppel

34rticle 0


12/59

*O O'(;';(.

CR#S#NC$O, MAG$N, 3UAN$O, SOCRA#S, and $M#LDA, a-- )rnamed#L#Z, #etitioners, 6. HON. C#LSO A#L$NO, "re)dn7 3d7e, C!$ Cebranc $$$, ALD$NG AC#D#RA, !A$ANA ALL$SON, RA!A#LAL:U$SALAS, $COR AL!A!ARA, !ORUNAO ARGA5O,NA$$DAD A3AR$AS, #L$S#O #LARMA, MAURA #LARMA, $DALUSAMAN#, MARC$AL URGOS, MA$MO CAAHUG, !LOROCOROCOO, H$LAR$O GA$OLA, ROS$A GARC$A, L#O"OLDO L$N#S,

MAGDAL#NA #SORO, RAMON #3ANO, "LAC$DA #3ANO, 3UAN$A#RGARA, and AMROS$O $LLAC#S, $espondents.

#. ". Gabre-, 3r., ;or #etitioners.

"edro L. A-bno ;or #rivate $espondents.

S5LLAUS

1. C!8! A= -'O-;'TI ACC!O" -:@!C!A"A "AT:'; T;';O A*

(!;';"T!AT;( 'O0 O'C!@; ;"T'I A"( :"A=: (;TA!";'CA*; AT @A'. M =hether or not respondent +udge acted with grave abuseof discretion must be resolved in the affirmative. !t should be recalled that thisis a case of accion publiciana, the purpose of which is being to establish whohave a better right to possess. 3@ernabe, ;t. Al. v. +udge (arit, ;t Al., B.'."o. 5%699, Oct. 47, 19%6. There is no allegation of forcible entr in thecomplaint. "either is it a case of unlawful detainer because thepreponderance of evidence shows that the occupanc of private respondentson the lot in )uestion is due to the tolerance of the owners thereof andagainst the latterQs will. -rivate respondents admit that the have no writtencontract of lease with the petitioners not with petitionersQ predecessor ininterest. Onl 0arcial @urgos alleged that he had an oral agreement with

'odrigo 8ele>, all others surprisingl failed to testif that the had such anoral agreement of lease. The li?ewise admit that their houses wereconstructed without building permits. !n the true sense of the word,respondents are s)uatters. As such, their possession is b tolerance.3-angilinan v. Aguilar, #6 *C'A 16$. Although respondents had been paingnominal rentals ranging from -#. to -14. per month for some time, thedid not thereb ac)uire the legal status of tenants. *)uatting is unlawful andno amount of ac)uiescence converts it into a lawful act. !llegal constructionsconstitute public nuisance per se. The pose problems of health andsanitation. 3Cf. Cit of 0anila v. Barcia, ;t Al., 19 *C'A #16.

4. !(. ;A*; ;+;CT0;"T :"(;' -';*!(;"T!A (;C';; "O. 4

"O"-AI0;"T O ';"TA, A B'O:"( T;';O' CA*; AT @A'. M

;ven if the case were to be decided as an e/ectment case, the insistence ofrespondents that the are lessees and, therefore, under the protective mantleof -residential (ecree "o. 4 loses ground when =e consider the finding offact that respondents had not been paing an consideration for theoccupanc of their respective premises. *aid -residential (ecree "o. 4suspended e/ectment when the lease is for an indefinite period. !t did notsuspend e/ectment on other grounds li?e lac? of pament of the rentalstipulated.

6. !(. !(. !(. !(. ';0;(I O ;**;;* =;" O=";'* O OT A!TO CO;CT O' ';:*; TO ACC;-T ';"TA*. M The failure of theowners to collect, or their refusal to accept the rentals are not valid defenses.Article 145$ of the Civil Code provides that &if the creditor to whom tender ofpament has been made refuses without /ust cause to accept it, the debtorshall be released from responsibilit b the consignation of the thing or sumdue.&cralaw virtua1aw librar

#. !(. !(. !(. ";;( O O=";'G;**O' TO ';-O**;** -'O-;'TIO' !* O=" :*; O' O' T; :*; O A"I 0;0@;' O !* A0!IA* A ';*!(;"T!A :"!T, A B'O:"( T;';O' CA*; AT @A'. M ThepetitionersQ need of the premises for their own use or for the use of anmember of his famil as a residential unit entitles them to the possession ofthe lots in )uestion. @atas -ambansa @lg. 45, which too? effect on April 1,1979, provides as additional ground for /udicial e/ectment the need of theownerGlessor to repossess his propert for his own use or for the use of anmember of his famil as a residential unit, such owner or immediate membernot being the owner of an other available residential unit.

D # C $ S $ O N

GU#RR#RO,J./

This is a petition for certiorarifiled b Cresencio, 0agin, +uanito, *ocratesand !melda, all surnamed 8ele>, see?ing the reversal, for grave abuse ofdiscretion, the decision dated 0a 44, 197% of the Court of irst !nstance ofCebu, @ranch N!!! dismissing their complaint for recover of possession offive parcels of land pursuant to -residential (ecree "o. 4.

The evidence shows that the five parcels of land all located at Fatipunan*treet, Cebu Cit, then assessed at -17,. and ?nown as ots 5611A4A, 5611A4@, 5611A4C, 5611A4( and 5611A4, were formerl

owned b 'odrigo 8ele>, the father of petitioners. !n an e2tra/udicial partition,the said lots were ad/udicated to petitioners herein on +une 1$, 197. As


13/59

earl as 197, petitioners made a demand to vacate upon respondents whoas?ed an e2tension of one ear but thereafter, respondents changed theirminds and refused to vacate. Around the end of 1976, petitioners againadvised respondents that the needed the premises for their own use andordered them to vacate the premises b removing their dwelling units fromthe lots. :pon their refusal, petitioners filed an e/ectment case before the CitCourt of Cebu, which case was doc?eted as Civil Case "o. '1711. Onmotion of respondents, the Cit Court dismissed the case without pre/udice inan Order dated August 6, 197# on the ground that there e2ists no cause ofaction, following the suspension of /udicial e/ectment b -residential (ecree"o. 4. On +ul 6, 197$, petitioners made again an e2tra/udicial demand in aletter which re)uired respondents to vacate the premises within 15 das atthe same time threatening them with prosecution under -residential (ecree"o. 774 for the crime of s)uatting. On August 5, 197$, petitioners filed thecomplaint for recover of possession of the aforesaid five parcels of landalleging that e2cept for 0agin 8ele>, the have no other lot of their own andare living on other personsQ premises that respondents are not onloccuping the premises but also accepting boarders andGor using the samefor commercial purposes and that several demands have been made to give

wa to the needs of petitioners and their respective families but respondentsmaliciousl, abusivel and defiantl refused to accede to petitionersQ lawful

demands.chanrobles.com < virtual law librar

!n their answer, respondents admitted the ownership of the land bpetitioners. @ut in their special and affirmative defenses, the alleged thatthe have been occuping portions of the lots b virtue of oral agreements oflease for an indefinite period, paing monthl rentals for their respectiveportions ranging from -#. to -14. that the present action is barred bres /udicata and or prior /udgment and that the present action, if at all there isan cause of action, is essentiall one for unlawful detainer since the lastdemand to vacate was made less than a ear ago.

;ight of the twent respondents testified that the are the original occupants

of the lots while two of them, *egundo 0acatol and ilario Baviola, claimedto have bought their houses from third persons with the understanding thatthe should pa rentals to the landowner, 'odrigo 8ele>. The also testifiedthat the have been paing rentals for their respective portions ranging from-#. to -14.. !n support of their claim of pament of rentals, at least si2 ofthem presented one or two receipts dated 1976 or earlier 3;2hibits 4, 4A to4! and claimed that other receipts were lost. @ut all respondents admittednot having paid rentals since 1976, some reasoning out that nobodcollected and others claiming that abiola 8ele> Barganera, 'odrigo 8ele>Qdaughter, refused to accept their rentals. At least one of them, ilarioBaviola, produced what he claimed as a building permit but the same turnedout to be a mere application.chanrobles virtual lawlibrar

After the case was submitted for decision, the trial courtruled


14/59

e2cept 0agin 8ele> 3who nevertheless wants to recover his propert for theuse of one of his children who is married, constitutes a denial of saidconstitutional provision.chanrobles law librar < red

=hether or not respondent +udge acted with grave abuse of discretion mustbe resolved in the affirmative. !t should be recalled that this is a case ofaccion publiciana, the purpose of which is being to establish who have abetter right to possess. 3@ernabe, ;t. Al. v. +udge (arit, ;t Al., B.'. "o.5%699, Oct. 47, 19%6. There is no allegation of forcible entr in thecomplaint. "either is it a case of unlawful detainer because thepreponderance of evidence shows that the occupanc of private respondentson the lot in )uestion is due to the tolerance of the owners thereof andagainst the latterQs will. -rivate respondents admit that the have no writtencontract of lease with the petitioners not with petitionersQ predecessor ininterest. Onl 0arcial @urgos alleged that he had an oral agreement with'odrigo 8ele>, all others surprisingl failed to testif that the had such anoral agreement of lease. The li?ewise admit that their houses wereconstructed without building permits. !n the true sense of the word,respondents are s)uatters. As such, their possession is b tolerance.3-angilinan v. Aguilar, #6 *C'A 16$. Although respondents had been paingnominal rentals ranging from -#. to -14. per month for some time, the

did not thereb ac)uire the legal status of tenants. *)uatting is unlawful andno amount of ac)uiescence converts it into a lawful act. !llegal constructionsconstitute public nuisance per se. The pose problems of health andsanitation. 3Cf. Cit of 0anila v. Barcia, ;t Al., 19 *C'A #16.

;ven if the case were to be decided as an e/ectment case, the insistence ofrespondents that the are lessees and, therefore, under the protective mantleof -residential (ecree "o. 4 loses ground when =e consider the finding offact that respondents had not been paing an consideration for theoccupanc of their respective premises. *aid -residential (ecree "o. 4suspended e/ectment when the lease is for an indefinite period. !t did notsuspend e/ectment on other grounds li?e lac? of pament of the rental

stipulated.chanrobles virtual lawlibrar

The failure of the owners to collect, or their refusal to accept the rentals arenot valid defenses. Article 145$ of the Civil Code provides that & if the creditorto whom tender of pament has been made refuses without /ust cause toaccept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibilit b the consignationof the thing or sum due.&cralaw virtua1aw librar

!ndependentl of the foregoing, the petitionersQ need of the premises for theirown use or for the use of an member of his famil as a residential unitentitles them to the possession of the lots in )uestion. @atas -ambansa @lg.45, which too? effect on April 1, 1979, provides as additional ground for

/udicial e/ectment the need of the ownerGlessor to repossess his propert for

his own use or for the use of an member of his famil as a residential unit,such owner or immediate member not being the owner of an other availableresidential unit.chanrobles.com.ph < virtual law librar

;ven before the effectivit of @atas -ambansa @lg. 45, -residential (ecree"o. 4 had been held to be not without e2ception. !n Ongchengco v. CitCourt of Jamboanga, 95 *C'A 616, this Court ruled that &e2treme necessitfor personal use of the propert entitles the owner to e2emption from theoperation of -( 4 which suspends the provision of Article 1$76 of the CivilCode on /udicial e/ectment.& The case of @etts v. 0atias, 97 *C'A #69,reaffirmed that &-residential (ecree "o. 4 does not sanction the deprivationof a lessor of residential propert in e2treme need of the leased premises forhis own use of his right to terminate the lease and recover possession of hispropert.& Then, in *inclair v. Court of Appeals, 115 *C'A 61%, this Courtheld that &a strict and rigid compliance with -residential (ecree "o. 4 is notin order, for an e2emption from its provisions is warranted for humanitarianreasons.& Again, in Tan To? ee v. C! of Faloocan Cit, 141 *C'A #6%, thisCourt said that &petitionersQ reliance on the provision of -residential (ecree"o. 4 is not well ta?en. !t could not have been the intention of the saiddecree to deprive the owner of the rightful use of her home, more so, whenpetitioners reneged on their promise to loo? for another house in the

mista?en belief that -( 4 gave them a preferential right over that of theowner. To den the owner of the use and possession of her propert wouldbe tantamount to depriving her of her constitutional right to abode.& !n'antael v. Court of Appeals, ;t Al., 97 *C'A #56, this Court upheld the rightof the lessor to /udiciall e/ect the lessee on the ground not onl that&e2piration of period of written lease contract is manifestl present& but alsobecause @atas -ambansa @lg. 45 which superseded -.(. 4 &buttresses theright of respondent lave to /udiciall e/ect petitioner 'antael from the leasedpremises.& !n *antos v. Court of Appeals and -araguas, B.'. "o. #571,0a 6, 19%6, this Court held that &the retroactive application of @atas-ambansa @lg. 45 to pending e/ectment cases is alread a settled matterand ma no longer be )uestioned. 3Ale/andro 0elchor, +r., etc. v. on. +ose

. 0or/a, etc., ;t Al., B.'. "o. 6545$, 0arch 17, 19%6 Butierre> v.Cantada, 9 *C'A 1 Ongchengco v. Cit Court of Jamboanga, 95 *C'A616 @etts v. 0atias, 97 *C'A #69. !t was also held therein that &the right ofthe private respondents over the propert which the own in order to use thesame as their residence, not being owners of an other dwelling place, manot be denied. *uch right is e2pressl recogni>ed b @atas -ambansa @lg.45. ;lemental sense of /ustice and fairness dictates that it must be so.&chanrobles.com.ph < virtual law librar

=;';O';, the petition for certiorariis granted. The decision of thedefunct Court of irst !nstance of Cebu, @ranch N!!!, dismissing the complaintof petitioners, is hereb ';8;'*;( and *;T A*!(;. A new /udgment is

hereb entered in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate the


15/59

premises in )uestion and to remove their respective constructions andGorimprovements therefrom within si2t 3$ das from notice.

*O O'(;';(.DOLOR#S L$GA5A D# M#SA, petitioner,vs.H# COUR O! A""#ALS, OSSA HOUS#, $NC. AND D##LO"M#NAN< O! H# "H$L$""$N#S, respondents.

"UR$S$MA, J.:At bar is a -etition for 'eview on Certiorariunder 'ule #5 of the 'evised

'ules of Court )uestioning the (ecision1

of the Court of Appeals2

dated0arch 61, 1994 in CAB.'. "os. 191#5 and 191#$, which modified thedecision of @ranch 16% of the 'egional Trial Court of 0a?ati in Civil Case"os. #159 and #46%1.

The antecedent facts are as followsationplan, with a first )uarterl installment of -15,#75.17.

-rivate respondent O**A paid (@- the first to eight )uarterl installmentsfrom April 11, 1979 to 0a %, 1991, in the total amount of -167,595.61,

which installment paments were applied to petitioners obligation with (@-pursuant to the (eed of Conditional *ale.

On 0arch 11, 19%1, petitioner de 0esa notified private respondent O**Athat she was rescinding the (eed of *ale with Assumption of 0ortgage shee2ecuted in favor of the latter on the ground that O**A failed to compl withthe terms and conditions of their agreement, particularl the pament ofinstallments to the (evelopment @an? of the -hilippines, the discharge andcancellation of the mortgage on the propert listed in item !8 of the first

whereas clause, and the pament of the balance of more or less -#5,.to petitioner, representing the difference between the purchase price ofsub/ect properties and the actual obligation to the (@-.

On April 11, 19%1, O**A offered to pa the amount of -6#,6$6,%, which isthe difference between the purchase price of -5,. and the mortgage

obligation to (@- of -#55,$6$.94, after deducting the downpament of-1,. stipulated in said (eed of *ale with Assumption of 0ortgage, butthe petitioner refused to accept such pament. *o, on April 4%, 19%1, O**Abrought a Complaint for Consignation against the petitioner, doc?eted as CivilCase "o. #159 before the then Court of irst !nstance of 'i>al, @ranch N8,and at the same time, deposited the amount of -6#,6$6.% with said court.

On August 5, 19%1, (@- refused to accept the 9th )uarterl installment paidb O**A, prompting the latter to file against (@- and the petitioner, onAugust 11, 19%1, Civil Case "o. #46%1 for specific performance andconsignation, with the then Court of irst !nstance of -asig, 'i>al, depositingin said case the amount of -15,%4#.94.

On October 41, 19%1, upon petitioner de 0esas motion, Civil Case "os.#159 and #46%1 were consolidated before the then Court of irst !nstanceof 'i>al, @ranch N8, 0a?ati, 0etro 0anila, now 'egional Trial Court of0a?ati Cit, @rach CNNN8!!! 316%.

!n an Order dated +ul 46, 19%4, the lower court allowed O**A to depositwith the Court a Buo b wa of consignation, all future )uarterl installmentswithout need of formal tenders of pament and service of notices ofconsignation. Correspondingl and over the period of time stipulated, O**Adeposited with the lower court the 1th to the 4th installments in theaggregate amount of -174,5$4.11.

After trial, the lower court came out with a (ecision for the private respondent

O**A, holding thusH#R#!OR#, the instant petition for review is B'A"T;(. The Decisionofthe Court of Appeals in CAB.'. C8 "o. 54756 is ';8;'*;( and *;TA*!(; and the Decisionof the 'egional Trial Court, @ranch 65, Beneral*antos Cit in Civil Case "o. 55#5 is hereb ';!"*AT;(. Costs againstrespondent.

*O O'(;';(.

G.R. No. 1'9&01 3ne 8, 200(.#. SAN D$#GO, $NC.,petitioner,vs.ROSAR$O . ALZUL,respondent.

( ; C ! * ! O "

#LASCO, 3R., J.:

e Ca)e

This -etition for 'eview on Certiorari1under 'ule #5 )uestions the ebruar

1%, 45 (ecision4

of the Court of Appeals 3CA in CAB.'. *- "o. %16#1,

which granted respondent Al>ul the right to pa the balance of the purchaseprice within five 35 das from receipt of the CA (ecision despite the lapse ofthe original period given to said part through the final 'esolution of thisCourt in an earlier case. The CA ruling reversed the *eptember 1%, 46

'esolution6and (ecember 4, 46 Order#of the Office of the -resident3O- in O.-. Case "o. 1197, which upheld the dismissal of respondentAl>ulQs complaint for consignation and specific performance before theousing and and :se 'egulator @oard 3:'@ in :'@ Case "o.';0A99971$7. i?ewise challenged is the August 61, 45 CA

'esolution5re/ecting petitionerQs 0otion for 'econsideration.

e !ac?)

The facts culled b the CA are as followsul. Costs against plaintiffappellees.

*O O'(;';(.&

:pon filing of an appeal to the *upreme Court doc?eted as B' "o. 197%,the above decision was affirmed on (ecember 4$, 1995. A motion forreconsideration was filed, but this was denied b the ighest Tribunal onebruar 5, 199$.

On +une 17, 199$, a resolution was issued b the *upreme Court, ordering,as followsul is hereb given a none2tendible period of thirt36 das from entr of /udgment, within which to ma?e full pament for theproperties in )uestion. 222& 3;mphasis supplied.

On +ul 14, 199$, an ;ntr of +udgment was issued. !n an attempt to complwith the *upreme CourtQs directive, herein DrespondentE tried to servepament upon DpetitionerE on August 49, 199$, August 6, 199$ and*eptember 4%, 199$. On all these dates, however, DpetitionerE allegedlrefused to accept pament from DrespondentE.

On "ovember 11, 199$, DrespondentE filed a 0anifestation in B' "o. 197%informing the *upreme Court that DpetitionerE, on three 36 occasions, refused

to accept DherE pament of the balance in the amount of S1%7,6%.. On+anuar 49, 1997, a 'esolution was issued b the *upreme Court referringthe case to the court of origin for appropriate action, on account ofDrespondentQsE manifestation.

On October 41, 1997, DrespondentQsE counsel wrote a letter to DpetitionerEciting the latterQs refusal to accept her pament on several occasions. !t wasalso mentioned therein that due to its refusal, DrespondentE would /ustconsign the balance due to DpetitionerE before the proper /udicial authorit.

On +anuar 1#, 199%, a repl was sent b DpetitionerE through a certain lora*an (iego. D'espondentQsE re)uest was re/ected on account of the followingation as per contract.

4. *he sold her rights to 0r. =ilson Iu who failed to pa his monthlamorti>ations, too.

6. =e are not and have never been a part of the case ou are alluding tohence we cannot be bound b the same.

#. The propert in )uestion is now under process to be reconveed to us asordered b the court b virtue of a compromised 3sic agreement entered intoin Civil Case "o. 4$55 0" of the 0alabon 'TC @ranch entitled *pousesCarlos 8entura and *andra 8entura vs. @.;. *an (iego, !nc. 222

Thin?ing that an action for consignation alone would not be sufficient to allowfor the e2ecution of a final /udgment in her favor, DrespondentE decided to filean action for consignation and specific performance against DpetitionerEbefore the ousing and and :se 'egulator @oard on 0arch 14, 199%. Thecomplaint, doc?eted as ';06149%169, praed that a DrespondentE beconsidered to have full paid the total purchase price of the sub/ectproperties b TCT "os. "1555#5 to #% which were declared void in CA B'"o. 197% be cancelled c new certificates of title over the sub/ectproperties be issued in the name of DrespondentE and d DpetitionerE beordered to reimburse DrespondentE the sum of ift Thousand -esos3S5,. as attorneQs fees and litigation e2penses.

On +ul 14, 1999, a decision was rendered b the :'@ through ousingand and :se Arbiter (unstan T. *an 8icente. !t was held, thusulE is hereb ordered to pa Dpetitioner @.;. *an(iego, !nc.E the balance due for the sale of the sub/ect four parcels of land

within five 35 das from receipt of this decision. D-etitioner @.;. *an (iego,!nc.E, on the other hand, is ordered to accept such pament from DrespondentAl>ulE, after which, the corresponding (eed of *ale must be issued.

*O O'(;';(.9

The CA agreed with the :'@ that no valid consignation was made brespondent but found that /ustice would be better served b allowingrespondent Al>ul to effect the consignation, albeit belatedl. !t cited therespondentQs right over the disputed lots as confirmed b this Court in B.'."o. 197%, which, if ta?en awa on account of the dela in completing thepament, would amount to a grave in/ustice.

0oreover, the CA pointed out that respondentQs counsel concededl lac?ed

the vigilance and competence in defending his clientQs right when he failed toconsign the balance on time nonetheless, such ma be disregarded in theinterest of /ustice. !t considered the failure of respondentQs counsel to avail ofthe remed of consignation as a procedural lapse, citing the principle that

where a rigid application of the rules will result in a manifest failure ormiscarriage of /ustice, technicalities can be ignored.

A cop of the ebruar 1%, 45 CA (ecision was received b respondentAl>ul through her counsel on ebruar 4#, 45.

On 0arch #, 45, respondent filed a Compliance and 0otion for ;2tension

of Time to Compl with the (ecision of the DCAE1praing that she be givenan e2tension of ten 31 das or from 0arch 4 to 11, 45 to compl with theCA (ecision. On the other hand, on 0arch %, 45, petitioner filed its 0otionfor 'econsideration with Opposition to -etitionerQs &0otion for ;2tension of

Time to Compl with the (ecision of the DCAE.&11

Through its assailed August 61, 45 'esolution, the CA denied petitionerQs0otion for 'econsideration, and finding that respondent dul e2erted effortsto compl with its (ecision and a valid consignation was made brespondent, it granted the re)uested 1da e2tension of time to compl withthe ebruar 1%, 45 (ecision and her motion for consignation. The fallo ofsaid 'esolution readsulQs subse)uent motion for e2tension of time to compl withthe 1% ebruar 45 decision and motion for consignation and

6. =hether or not the 1% ebruar 45 (ecision and 61 August 45'esolution of the Court of Appeals in CAB.'. *- "o. %16#1 ought to be

annulled and set aside, for being contrar to law and /urisprudence.16

e Cor?@) R-n7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt13


26/59

On the procedural issue, petitioner @.;. *an (iego, !nc. assails thesufficienc of respondent Al>ulQs CA petition as the latter, in violation of therules, allegedl lac?ed the essential and relevant pleadings filed with the:'@ and the O-.

*ection $ of 'ule #6, 1997 'ules of Civil -rocedure pertinentl providesul is stillentitled to consignation despite the lapse of the period provided b the Courtin B.'. "o. 197% entitled Iu v. Court of Appeals.

-etitioner stresses the fact that respondent Al>ul did not compl with this

CourtQs +une 17, 199$ 'esolution4which gave a none2tendible period ofthirt 36 das from entr of /udgment within which to ma?e full pament forthe sub/ect properties. The entr of /udgment shows that the (ecember 4$,

1995 'esolution41in B.'. "o. 197% became final and e2ecutor on +ul4, 199$. 'espondent Al>ul received through counsel a cop of the entr of

/udgment on August 41, 199$. Thus, respondent had until *eptember 4,199$ within which to ma?e the full pament.

After three 36 unsuccessful tenders of pament, respondent Al>ul made noconsignation of the amount to the court of origin. !t was onl on 0arch 14,199% or about a ear and a half later that respondent offered to consign saidamount in an action for consignment before the :'@. 'eling on the case

of *t. (ominic Corporation v. !ntermediate Appellate Court,44petitionerstrongl asserts that upon its refusal to accept the tendered pament,respondent ought to have consigned it with the court of origin also within the6da period or within a reasonable time thereafter. 'espondent failed to dothis as she waited for a ear and a half before instituting the instant action for

specific performance and consignment before the :'@.0oreover, petitioner argues that respondentQs dela of a ear and a half topursue full pament must be regarded as a waiver on her part to claim

whatever residual remedies she might still have for the enforcement of the+une 17, 199$ 'esolution in B.'. "o. 197%.

-etitioner further contends that even if the action before the :'@ wasmade on time, that is, within the 6da period, still it is fatall defective asrespondent did not deposit an amount with the :'@ which violated therules for consignment which re)uire actual deposit of the amount allegedldue with the proper /udicial authorit.

-remised upon these considerations, petitioner faults the appellate court for

its grant of respondentQs petition for review which nullified the denial b the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt22


28/59

:'@ Arbiter, :'@ irst (ivision, and the O- of respondentQs action.

On the other hand, respondent contends that the +une 17, 199$ 'esolutionof this Court should not be construed against her inabilit to effect pamentdue to the obstinate and un/ust refusal b petitionerMa superveningcircumstance beond her control. 'espondent underscores that within the6da period, she repeatedl attempted to effect the pament to no avail.0oreover, the much delaed response of petitioner embodied in its +anuar

1#, 199% letter46

confirming its refusal was based on untenable, baseless,

and contrived grounds.

0oreover, she argues that the (ecember 4$, 1995 'esolution in B.'. "o.197% granting her proprietar rights over the sub/ect lots has long becomefinal and e2ecutor.

Anent the issue of laches and estoppel, respondent strongl contends thatsuch do not appl in the instant case as incontrovertible circumstances showthat she has relentlessl pursued the protection and enforcement of herrights over the disputed lots for over a )uarter of a centur.

After a careful stud of the factual milieu, applicable laws, and /urisprudence,we find the petition meritorious.

'espondent Al>ul was accorded legal rights over sub/ect properties

!n B.'. "o. 197%, finding no reversible error on the part of the CA, wedenied =ilson -. IuQs petition and affirmed the appellate courtQs ruling that asbetween =ilson -. Iu, the 8entura spouses, petitioner @.;. *an (iego, !nc.,and respondent Al>ul, respondent has inchoate proprietar rights over thedisputed lots. =e upheld the CA ruling declaring as &null and void& the titlesissued in the name of the 8entura spouses and reinstating them in the nameof @.;. *an (iego, !nc., with the corresponding notices of lis pendensannotated on them in favor of respondent until such time that ownership ofthe sub/ect parcels of land is transferred to respondent 'osario Al>ul.

!t is thus clear that we accorded respondent Al>ul e2pectant rights over the

disputed lots, but such is conditioned on the pament of the balance of thepurchase price. aving been conceded such rights, respondent had theobligation to pa the remaining balance to vest absolute title and rights ofownership in his name over the sub/ect properties.

!n our +une 17, 199$ 'esolution, we clearl specified thirt 36 das fromentr of /udgment for respondent to promptl effect the full pament of thebalance of the purchase price for the sub/ect properties, thusul is hereb given a none2tendible period of thirt

36 das from entr of /udgment, within which to ma?e full pament for the

properties in )uestion.4#

3;mphasis supplied.

The noncompliance with our +une 17, 199$ 'esolution is fatal to respondentAl>ulQs action for consignation and specific performance

:nfortunatel, respondent failed to effect such full pament of the balance ofthe purchase price for the sub/ect properties.

"o consignation within the 6da period or at a reasonable time thereafter

!t is clear as da that respondent did not attempt nor pursue consignationwithin the 6da period given to her in accordance with the prescribed legalprocedure. *he received a cop of the entr of /udgment on August 41, 199$and had 6 das or until *eptember 4, 199$ to pa the balance of thepurchase price to petitioner. *he made a tender of pament on August 49,199$, August 6, 199$, and *eptember 4%, 199$, all of which were refusedb petitioner possibl because the latter is of the view that it is not bound bthe "ovember 47, 1994 (ecision in CAB.'. C8 "o. 66$19 nor the(ecember 4$, 1995 'esolution in B.'. "o. 197%, and the fact thatrespondent has forfeited her rights to the lots because of her failure to pathe monthl amorti>ations.

!t must be borne in mind however that a mere tender of pament is notenough to e2tinguish an obligation. !n 0eat -ac?ing Corporation of the-hilippines v. *andiganbaan, we distinguished consignation from tender ofpament and reiterated the rule that both must be va lidl done in order toeffect the e2tinguishment of the obligation, thusul, et al., the fallo of which readsul. Costs against plaintiffappellees.

*O O'(;';(.64

On (ecember 4$, 1995, this Court issued the 'esolution in B.'. "o. 197%wherein it found no reversible error in the actions of the CA in its afore)uoteddisposition in CAB.'. C8 "o. 66$19, and resolved to den the petition forlac? of merit. On ebruar 5, 199$, this Court denied with finalit the 0otionfor 'econsideration filed b petitioner =ilson Iu.

owever, on +une 17, 199$, this Court, in resolving the 0otion for'econsideration of private respondents *pouses Carlos and *andra 8entura,granted respondent Al>ul &a none2tendible period of thirt 36 das fromentr of /udgment, within which to ma?e full pament for the properties in

)uestion.&66

The )uestion isMcan the Court, the CA, or the 0alabon Cit 'TC orderpetitioner @.;. *an (iego, !nc. to accept the tender of pament made b

respondent Al>ul

(efinitel, the cannot. The reason is that petitioner was not impleaded as apart in the 0alabon Cit 'TC civil case, CAB.'. C8 "o. 66$19, nor in B.'."o. 197% and hence is not under the /urisdiction of said courts. =hat weredetermined and decided in the CA (ecision in CAB.'. C8 "o. 66$19 werethe annulment of the titles of spouses Carlos and *andra 8entura, thereinstatement of said titles to the name of petitioner, and the declaration thatthe ownership of the lots sub/ect of said titles will be transferred to

respondent. There is no directive to respondent granting her the right to pathe balance of the price to petitioner and, more importantl, there is no orderfor petitioner to accept the pament. The dispositive or fallo of the decision is

what actuall constitutes the /udgment or resolution of the court that can bethe sub/ect of e2ecution. =here there is a conflict between the dispositiveportion of the decision and its bod, the dispositive portion controls

irrespective of what appears in the bod of the decision.6#*uch being thecase, petitioner is not dut bound to accept an tender of pament fromrespondent precisel because such di?tat is absent in the fallo of the CA(ecision which was affirmed b this Court in its (ecember 4$, 1995'esolution in B.'. "o. 197%.

The lacuna in the CA (ecision was sought to be corrected in its +une 17,199$ 'esolution in B.'. "o. 197% where respondent was given &a none2tendible period of thirt 36 das from entr of /udgment, within which toma?e full pament for the properties in )uestion.& -ursuant to this 'esolution,

what was established was the right of respondent to pa the balance of thepurchase price within 6 das. Again, the )uer isMcan this Court, the CA, orthe trial court compel petitioner to accept the tender of pament fromrespondent

The answer is no. The reason is obvious as /urisdiction was never ac)uiredover the person of petitioner. The action for )uieting of title is characteri>edas )uasi in rem. !n 'ealt *ales ;nterprise, !nc. v. !ntermediate AppellateCourt, it was held thated as )uasi in rem. 30c(aniel v. 0c;lv,1% *o. %4 D194$E. The /udgment in such proceedings is conclusive onl

between the parties. 3;mphasis supplied.65

"ot being impleaded as a necessar or indispensable part, petitioner is notbound b the dispositions in the CA (ecision in CAB.'. C8 "o. 66$19 andthe 'esolutions of this Court in B.'. "o. 197%. 0oreover, there is noe2plicit and clear directive for petitioner to accept the pament of the balanceof the price.

!t is for this reason that respondent cannot as? for a writ of e2ecution fromthe trial court where the complaint was originall instituted as said court has
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_169501_2007.html#fnt35


31/59

no /urisdiction over the person of petitioner. ;ven if a writ is issued, it shouldconform to the /udgment, and the fallo of the CA (ecision does not imposethe dut or obligation on the part of petitioner to accept the pament fromrespondent. !t is the settled doctrine that a writ of e2ecution must conform tothe /udgment and if it is different from or e2ceeds the terms of the /udgment,

then it is a nullit.6$

!n addition, *ec. 1, 'ule 69 provides the procedure for e2ecution of/udgments for specific acts, thuse leaving onl 'ooms

44, 4#, 64, 66, 6# and 65 as sub/ects of the lease contracts.9=hile thecontracts were in effect, petitioners dealt with rancis -acheco 3-acheco,then Beneral 0anager of private respondent. Thereafter, -acheco was

replaced b 'oswinda @autista 30s. @autista.1-etitioners religiousl paid

the monthl rentals until 0a 1994.11After that, however, despite repeateddemands, petitioners continuousl refused to pa the stipulated rent.Conse)uentl, respondent was constrained to refer the matter to its lawer

who, in turn, made a final demand on petitioners for the pament of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt11


33/59

accrued rentals amounting to -91$,5%5.5%.14@ecause petitioners stillrefused to compl, a complaint for e/ectment was filed b private respondentthrough its representative, 0s. @autista, before the 0etropolitan Trial Court

30eTC of 0anila.16The case was raffled to @ranch N!N and was doc?etedas Civil Case "o. 1#65%C8.

-etitioners admitted their failure to pa the stipulated rent for the leasedpremises starting +ul until "ovember 1994, but claimed that such refusal

was /ustified because of the internal s)uabble in respondent compan as to

the person authori>ed to receive pament.1#

To further /ustif their nonpament of rent, petitioners alleged that the were prevented from using theunits 3rooms sub/ect matter of the lease contract, e2cept 'oom 65.-etitioners eventuall paid their monthl rent for (ecember 1994 in theamount of -6,., and claimed that respondent waived its right to collectthe rents for the months of +ul to "ovember 1994 since petitioners were

prevented from using 'ooms 44, 4#, 64, 66, and 6#.15

owever, the againwithheld pament of rents starting +anuar 1996 because of respondentQs

refusal to turn over 'ooms 6$, 67 and 6%.1$To show good faith andwillingness to pa the rents, petitioners alleged that the prepared the chec?

vouchers for their monthl rentals from +anuar 1996 to +anuar 199#.17

-etitioners further averred in their Amended Answer

1%that the complaint for

e/ectment was prematurel filed, as the controvers was not referred to thebaranga for conciliation.

or failure of the parties to reach an amicable settlement, the pretrialconference was terminated. Thereafter, the submitted their respectiveposition papers.

On "ovember 4#, 199#, the 0eTC rendered a (ecision dismissing the

complaint for e/ectment.19

!t considered petitionersQ nonpament of rentalsas un/ustified. The court held that mere willingness to pa the rent did not

amount to pament of the obligation petitioners should have deposited theirpament in the name of respondent compan. On the matter of possession ofthe sub/ect premises, the court did not give credence to petitionersQ claim thatprivate respondent failed to turn over possession of the premises. The court,however, dismissed the complaint because of 0s. @autistaQs alleged lac? ofauthorit to sue on behalf of the corporation.

(eciding the case on appeal, the 'egional Trial Court 3'TC of 0anila,@ranch 1, in Civil Case "o. 9#74515, reversed and set aside the 0eTC(ecision in this wiseer,

!nc. v. Balan,#1

we upheld the sufficienc of a petition verified b anemploment specialist despite the total absence of a board resolutionauthori>ing her to act for and on behalf of the corporation. astl, in China

@an?ing Corporation v. 0ondragon !nternational -hilippines, !nc,#4werela2ed the rules of procedure because the corporation ratified the managerQsstatus as an authori>ed signator. !n all of the above cases, we brushedaside technicalities in the interest of /ustice. This is not to sa that wedisregard the re)uirement of prior authorit to act in the name of acorporation. The rela2ation of the rules applies onl to highl meritoriouscases, and when there is substantial compliance. =hile it is true that rules ofprocedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of /ustice,and while the swift unclogging of court doc?ets is a laudable ob/ective, weshould not insist on strict adherence to the rules at the e2pense of substantial

/ustice.#6Technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, not

suppress, the cause of /ustice and a deviation from the rigid enforcement of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_136409_2008.html#fnt43


35/59

the rules ma be allowed to attain that prime ob/ective, for, after all, the

dispensation of /ustice is the core reason for the e2istence of courts.##

As to the denial of the motion to inhibit +ustice 'ees, we find the same to bein order. irst, the motion to inhibit came after the appellate court renderedthe assailed decision, that is, after +ustice 'ees had alread rendered hisopinion on the merits of the case. !t is settled that a motion to inhibit shall bedenied if filed after a member of the court had alread given an opinion onthe merits of the case, the rationale being that &a litigant cannot be permitted

to speculate on the action of the court 2 2 2 3onl to raise an ob/ection of this

sort after the decision has been rendered.*econd, it is settled that meresuspicion that a /udge is partial to one of the parties is not enough thereshould be evidence to substantiate the suspicion. @ias and pre/udice cannotbe presumed, especiall when weighed against a /udgeQs sacred pledgeunder his oath of office to administer /ustice without regard for an personand to do right e)uall to the poor and the rich. There must be a showing ofbias and pre/udice stemming from an e2tra/udicial source, resulting in anopinion on the merits based on something other than what the /udge learned

from his participation in the case.#$=e would li?e to reiterate, at this point,the polic of the Court not to tolerate acts of litigants who, for /ust about an

conceivable reason, see? to dis)ualif a /udge 3or /ustice for their ownpurpose, under a plea of bias, hostilit, pre/udice or pre/udgment.

#7

=e now come to the more substantive issue of whether or not the petitionersma be validl e/ected from the leased premises.

:nlawful detainer cases are summar in nature. !n such cases, the elementsto be proved and resolved are the fact of lease and the e2piration or violation

of its terms.#%

*pecificall, the essential re)uisites of unlawful detainer areed that pursuant to Articles 117# and 14$4 ofthe "ew Civil Code, liabilit attaches even if the loss was due to a fortuitous

event if &the nature of the obligation re)uires the assumption of ris?&.14

Carnapping is a normal business ris? for those engaged in the repair ofmotor vehicles. or /ust as the owner is e2posed to that ris? so is the repairshop since the car was entrusted to it. That is wh, repair shops are re)uired

to first register with the (epartment of Trade and !ndustr 3(T!1&

and tosecure an insurance polic for the &shop covering the propert entrusted b

its customer for repair, service or maintenance& as a prere)uisite for such

registrationGaccreditation.1'

8iolation of this statutor dut constitutes

negligenceper se.1(

aving ta?en custod of the vehicle private respondentis obliged not onl to repair the vehicle but must also provide the customer

with some form of securit for his propert over which he loses immediatecontrol. An owner who cannot e2ercise the seven 37 ;usesor attributes ofownership M the right to possess, to use and en/o, to abuse or consume, toaccessories, to dispose or alienate, to recover or vindicate and to the fruits M18

is a crippled owner. ailure of the repair shop to provide securit to amotor vehicle owner would leave the latter at the merc of the former.0oreover, on the assumption that private respondents repair business isdul registered, it presupposes that its shop is covered b insurance from

which it ma recover the loss. !f private respondent can recover from itsinsurer, then it would be un/ustl enriched if it will not compensate petitionerto whom no fault can be attributed. Otherwise, if the shop is not registered,then the presumption of negligence applies.

One last thing. =ith respect to the value of the lost vehicle and itsaccessories for which the repair shop is liable, it should be based on the fairmar?et value that the propert would command at the time it was entrusted toit or such other value as agreed upon b the parties subse)uent to the loss.*uch recoverable value is fair and reasonable considering that the value ofthe vehicle depreciates. This value ma be recovered without pre/udice to

such other damages that a claimant is entitled under applicable laws.=;';O';, premises considered, the decision of the Court Appeals is';8;'*;( and *;T A*!(; and the decision of the court a Buois';!"*TAT;(.

*O O'(;';(.

G.R. No. 10(9'8 Oc?ober %0, 199'

#L$AS S. C$"R$ANO andor #.S. C$"R$ANO #N#R"R$S#S, petitioner,vs.H# COUR O! A""#ALS and MACL$N #L#CRON$CS, $NC.,respondents.


39/59

M#NDOZA, J.:p

This is a petition for review of the decision1of the Court of Appeals in CA

B.'. C8 "o. 6$#5 which affirmed in toto the decision of @ranch 5%2of the

Hue>on Cit 'egional Trial Court, ordering the petitioner to pa -454,155.to private respondent for the loss of the latters vehicle while undergoingrustproofing and -1,. in attornes fees.

The facts of the case are as followsedthe assets of the @an? of Taiwan, td. which belonged to an enem countr.The confiscation of the assets of the @an? of Taiwan, td. being an

involuntar act of war, and sanctioned b international law, the :nited *tatessucceeded to the rights and interests of said @an? of Taiwan, td. over theassets of said ban?. As successor in interest in, and transferee of, thepropert rights of the :nited *tates of America over the loans in )uestion, the'epublic of the -hilippines had thereb become a priv to the originalcontracts of loan between the @an? of Taiwan, td. and the appellant. !tfollows, therefore, that the 'epublic of the -hilippines has a legal right tobring the present action against the appellant +ose Bri/aldo.

The appellant li?ewise maintains, in support of his contention that theappellee has no cause of action, that because the loans were secured b achattel mortgage on the standing crops on a land owned b him and thesecrops were lost or destroed through enem action his obligation to pa the

loans was thereb e2tinguished. This argument is untenable. The terms ofthe promissor notes and the chattel mortgage that the appellant e2ecuted infavor of the @an? of Taiwan, td. do not support the claim of appellant. Theobligation of the appellant under the five promissor notes was not to delivera determinate thing namel, the crops to be harvested from his land, or thevalue of the crops that would be harvested from his land. 'ather, hisobligation was to pa a generic thing M the amount of mone representingthe total sum of the five loans, with interest. The transaction between theappellant and the @an? of Taiwan, td. was a series of five contracts ofsimple loan of sums of mone. &@ a contract of 3simple loan, one of theparties delivers to another ... mone or other consumable thing upon thecondition that the same amount of the same ?ind and )ualit shall be paid.&

3Article 1966, Civil Code The obligation of the appellant under the five


45/59

promissor notes evidencing the loans in )uestions is to pa the valuethereof that is, to deliver a sum of mone M a clear case of an obligation todeliver, a generic thing. Article 14$6 of the Civil Code providesor)E petitioners,vs.H# COUR O! A""#ALS and MAN"H$L $N#SM#N COR"ORA$ON,respondents.

M#NDOZA, J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision1of the Court of Appeals affirming

in toto the decision of the 'egional Trial Court of 0anila 3@ranch 1#9,ordering petitioners to pa private respondent the amount of -4$$,1#$.%%plus interest, service charge, penalt fees, and attornes fees and the costs,otherwise the chattel mortgage given to secure pament of the loan would beforeclosed.

The following are the factst(e? e%tent of t(eir applicable loan values. 3'ollo, p. 155 ;mphasissupplied

-etitioner claims that the above offer of settlement or compromise is not anadmission that anthing is due and is inadmissible against the part ma?ingthe offer 3*ec. 4#, 'ule 16, 'ules of Court. :nfortunatel, this is not anironclad rule.

To determine the admissibilit or nonadmissibilit of an offer to compromise,the circumstances of the case and the intent of the part ma?ing the offer

should be considered. Thus, if a part denies the e2istence of a debt butoffers to pa the same for the purpose of buing peace and avoidinglitigation, the offer of settlement is inadmissible. !f in the course thereof, thepart ma?ing the offer admits the e2istence of an indebtedness combined

with a proposal to settle the claim amicabl, then, the admission is admissibleto prove such indebtedness 30oran, Comments on the 'ules of Court, 8ol. 5,p. 466 D19% ed. rancisco, 'ules of Court, 8ol. 8!!, p. 645 D1976 ed.E citing0c"iel v. olbroo?, 14 -ac. 3:* %#, 9 .ed. 19. !ndeed, an offer ofsettlement is an effective admission of a borrowers loan balance 3.0.andicraft 0anufacturing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 1%$ *C'A $# D199E.;2actl, this is what petitioner did in the case before us for review.

inall, respondent court is faulted in awarding attornes fees in favor of

Associated @an?. True, attornes fees ma be awarded in a case of clearlunfounded civil action 3Art. 44% D#E, CC. owever, petitioner claims that it

was compelled to file the suit for damages in the honest belief that it has fulldischarged its obligations in favor of respondent ban? and therefore notunfounded.

=e believe otherwise. As petitioner would rather vehementl den,undisputed is the fact of its admission regarding the unpaid balance of-#94,1. representing interests. !t cannot also be denied that petitioneropted to sue for specific performance and damages after consultation with alawer 3'ollo, p. 99 who advised that not even the claim for interests couldbe recovered hence, petitioners attempt to see? refuge under Art. 1471

3CC. As previousl discussed, the presumption generated b Art. 1471 is notconclusive and was successfull rebutted b private respondent. :nder thecircumstances, i.e., outright and honest letters of admission vis'a'viscounselinduced recalcitrance, there could hardl be honest belief. !n thisregard, we )uote with approval respondent courts observation and ordered titled in the latters name.

The antecedent facts are as follows, see?ing the cancellation of TCT "o. #769 367795 and the

issuance in his name of a new certificate of title. :pon verification through his

lawer, rancia discovered that a inal @ill of *ale had been issued in favorof o ernande> b the Cit Treasurer on (ecember 11, 197%. The auctionsale and the final bill of sale were both annotated at the bac? of TCT "o.#769 367795 b the 'egister of (eeds.

On 0arch 4, 1979, rancia filed a complaint to annul the auction sale. elater amended his complaint on +anuar 4#, 19%.

On April 46, 19%1, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portionof which readson Cit and @inondo @ranch, *ta. Cru>,0anila, be ordered to pa the amount of -45,. each, and the main

office of the petitioner ban? at -aseo de 'o2as, 0a?ati, 0etro 0anila, be

ordered to pa the amount of -$4 $6 %6 in order to answer for the claim of 15#171 !t pointed out the erasures alterations andGor additions in the bond


58/59

ordered to pa the amount of -$4,$6.%6 in order to answer for the claim ofprivate respondent amounting to -1,$4,$6.%6.

Thereupon, on +anuar 1, 19%5, the trial court issued an Order 3Anne2 &8&,'ollo, p. 149 granting the abovementioned praers.

Acting on the e%'parte motion b the plaintiff 3now private respondent, thetrial court, on +anuar 11, 19%#, ordered the -resident of defendant!nternational Corporate @an? 3now petitioner and all its emploees andofficials concemed to deliver to the sheriff the 4 motor vehicles levied b

virtue of the =rit of ;2ecution dated (ecember 14, 19%# 3Anne2 &=&, 'ollo,p. 161.

The petitioner having failed to compl with the abovecited Order, therespondent trial court issued two 34 more Orders< the +anuar 1$, 19%53Anne2 &CC,& 'ollo, p. 19 and +anuar 41, 19%5 Orders 3Anne2 &((&,'ollo, p. 191, directing several emploees mentioned therein to show cause

wil the should not be cited in contempt.

ence, this petition for review on certiorari with praer for a restraining orderand for a writ of preliminar in/unction.

Three das after this petition was filed, or specificall on +anuar 1%, 19%5,petitioner filed an urgent motion reiterating its praer for the issuance of an

e%'parte restraining order 3'ollo, p. 164.

*imultaneous with the filing of the present petition, petitioner, as defendant,filed with the trial court an e%'partemotion to suspend the implementation ofan and all orders and writs issued pursuant to Civil Case "o. %%# 3Anne2&A&, 'ollo, p. 165.

This Courts resolution dated +anuar 41, 19%5, without giving due course tothe petition, resolved 3a to re)uire the respondents to comment< 3b to issue,effective immediatel and until further orders from this Court, a Temporar'estraining Order en/oining the respondents from enforcing or in an mannerimplementing the )uestioned Orders dated ebruar 16, 19%#, 0arch 9,19%#, +anuar 1, 19%5 and +anuar 11 and 1$, 19%5, issued in Civil Case

"o. %%#.

The corresponding writ was issued on the same da 3'ollo, pp. 1691#.

As re)uired, the Comment of private respondent was filed on +anuar 4%,19%5 3'ollo, pp. 1#1 15.

Thereafter, petitioner moved for leave to file a supplemental petition on theground that after it had filed this present petition, petitioner discovered thatthe bond filed with, and approved b, the respondent lower court showednumerous material erasures, alterations andGor additions 3'ollo, p. 151,

which the issuing insurance compan certified as having been done withoutits authorit or consent 3Anne2 &J&, 'ollo, p. 17%.

The *upplemental -etition was actuall filed on ebruar 1, 19%5 3'ollo, pp.

15#171. !t pointed out the erasures, alterations andGor additions in the bondas follows

Cases from Articles 1251-1279 for Oblicon

Documents

Transcript of Cases from Articles 1251-1279 for Oblicon