DAMAGES; WHEN APPLICABLE; ARTICLE 2229

ALBERT M. CHING and ROMEO J. BAUTISTA vs. FELIX M. BANTOLO, ANTONIO O. ADRIANO and EULOGIO STA. CRUZ JR., substitut d b! "is #"i$d% n, % &% s nt d b! RAUL STA. CRUZ JR. G.R. N'. ())*+,- D # .b % /, 0*(0 DEL CASTILLO, J.: FACTS1 Respondents are owners of several parcels of land situated in Tagaytay City, to wit: Registered owner: (1) Bantolo - (OCT) os. !"!, !"", !"# $ !##% (&) 'ntonio O. 'driano - OCT os. !#(, ")*, ")+ $ ")!% (() ,ulogio -ta. Cru., /r. - OCT os. !#), !#1, ")) $ ")1. On 'pril (, &))), respondents e0ecuted in favor of petitioners a -1' aut2ori.ing petitioners to o3tain a loan using respondents4 properties as collateral. 5it2out notice to petitioners, respondents e0ecuted a Revocation of 1ower of 'ttorney effective at t2e end of 3usiness 2ours of /uly 1!, &))). On /uly 1", &))), t2e 12ilippine 6eterans Ban7 (16B) approved t2e loan application of petitioner C2ing in t2e a8ount of 1&* 8illion for a ter8 of five years su39ect to certain conditions. 1etitioner C2ing t2ru a letter infor8ed respondents of t2e approval of t2e loan. -o8eti8e in t2e first wee7 of 'ugust &))), petitioners learned a3out t2e revocation of t2e -1'. Conse:uently, petitioners sent a letter to respondents de8anding t2at t2e latter co8ply wit2 t2e agree8ent 3y annulling t2e revocation of t2e -1'. 1etitioners filed 3efore t2e RTC of ;ue.on City a Co8plaint for 'nnul8ent of Revocation of -1', ,nforce8ent of -1' and<or interest in t2e properties covered 3y said -1' and =a8ages against respondents. 1etitioners alleged t2at t2e -1' is irrevoca3le 3ecause it is a contract of agency coupled wit2 interest. 'ccording to t2e8, t2ey agreed to defray t2e costs or e0penses involved in processing t2e loan 3ecause respondents pro8ised t2at t2ey would 2ave an e:ual s2are in t2e proceeds of t2e loan or t2e su39ect properties. Respondents contended t2at petitioners 2ave no cause of action.Respondents alleged t2at t2ey e0ecuted t2e -1' in favor of petitioners 3ecause of t2eir assurance t2at t2ey would 3e a3le to get a loan in t2e a8ount of 1*) 8illion and t2at 1() 8illion would 3e given to respondents wit2in a 8ont24s ti8e. 52en t2e one-8ont2 period e0pired, respondents co8plained to petitioner C2ing and as7ed 2i8 to advance t2e a8ount of 1*)),))).)). 1etitioner C2ing acceded to t2eir re:uest on t2e condition t2at t2ey 2and over to 2i8 t2e original titles for safe7eeping. Respondents, in turn, as7ed petitioner C2ing to give t2e8 11 8illion in e0c2ange for t2e titles. 1etitioner C2ing agreed and so t2ey gave 2i8 t2e titles. >owever, 2e never gave t2e8 t2e 8oney. T2ey as7ed 2i8 to return t2e titles, 3ut 2e refused. ?ater, t2ey were infor8ed t2at t2e loan was approved in t2e a8ount of 1&* 8illion and t2at t2eir s2are would 3e 1+ 8illion. -ince it was not t2e a8ount agreed upon, respondents revo7ed t2e -1' and de8anded t2e return of t2e titles. T2e RTC rendered a =ecision in favor of petitioners. @t up2eld t2e validity of t2e -1' 3ut 2eld t2at it could no longer 3e enforced 3ecause t2e circu8stances present at t2e ti8e of its e0ecution 2ave c2anged. Aor t2is reason, t2e RTC found respondents lia3le for all t2e da8ages caused 3y t2e illegal revocation.T2e RTC also declared petitioners owners of one-2alf of t2e su39ect properties. 'ggrieved, respondents elevated t2e case to t2e C' w2ic2 8odified t2e =ecision of t2e RTC. T2e C' ruled t2at petitioners are not entitled to one-2alf of t2e su39ect properties 3ecause it is contrary to 2u8an e0perience for a person to give one-2alf of 2is property to so8eone 2e 3arely 7nows.T2e C' li7ewise ruled t2at petitioners are not entitled to rei83urse8ent 3ecause t2ey failed to s2ow t2at t2e receipts presented in evidence were incurred in relation to t2e loan application.'s to t2e award of e0e8plary da8ages, t2e C' deleted t2e sa8e 3ecause respondents did not act in a wanton, fraudulent, rec7less, oppressive or 8alevolent 8anner.

ISSUE1 52et2er or not petitioners are entitled to e0e8plary da8ages HELD1 eit2er are petitioners entitled to e0e8plary da8ages. 'rticle &&&# of t2e Civil Code provides t2at e0e8plary da8ages 8ay 3e i8posed B3y way of e0a8ple or correction for t2e pu3lic good, in addition to t2e 8oral, te8perate, li:uidated or co8pensatory da8ages.B T2ey are, 2owever, not recovera3le as a 8atter of rig2t. T2ey are awarded only if t2e guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, rec7less, oppressive or 8alevolent 8anner. @n t2is case, we agree wit2 t2e C' t2at alt2oug2 t2e revocation was done in 3ad fait2, respondents did not act in a wanton, fraudulent, rec7less, oppressive or 8alevolent 8anner. T2ey revo7ed t2e -1' 3ecause t2ey were not satisfied wit2 t2e a8ount of t2e loan approved. T2us, petitioners are not entitled to e0e8plary da8ages.

SALE OF REAL PROPERTY; ARTICLE 1358 LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA vs. S2OUSES BEATRIZ ZAMORA HIDALGO MIRANDA and ARTURO MIRANDA, ROSE MARIE MIRANDA GUANIO, MAR3 JULIE CRISTINA S. ANG, JESSIE JA3 S. ANG, JAS2ER JOHN S. ANG and t" REGISTER OF DEEDS 4'% Da5a' Cit! C.R. o. 1+&#()% =ece83er *, &)1& 2ERALTA, J.: FACTS1 Respondent Beatri. Diranda was t2e registered owner of t2e property in :uestion wit2 an area of 8ore or less *,)#) s:uare 8eters, covered 3y TCT o. 1*#E of t2e Register of =eeds for t2e City of =avao. 'ccording to petitioner, 2er fat2er-in-law, 'l3erto Fa8ora, t2roug2 an encargado, ,duardo Cecilio, was in possession of t2e property in :uestion. @n 1#*&, s2e (petitioner) was designated 3y 'l3erto Fa8ora as 2is assistant on land 8atters. T2e property in :uestion was turned over to 2er and s2e was introduced to Cecilio. 'fter t2e year 1#*&, 'l3erto Fa8ora told 2er t2at t2e property in :uestion was owned 3y respondent Beatri. w2ose fa8ily was per8anently residing in Danila. 1etitioner allegedly contacted respondent Beatri. and petitioner was given a calling card and was told to see 2er (Beatri.). @n Octo3er 1#!&, petitioner clai8ed t2at s2e went to t2e residence of respondent Beatri. Diranda in ;ue.on City. 52ile t2ere, t2ey tal7ed a3out t2e property in :uestion and respondent Beatri. drew a s7etc2 depicting t2e location of t2e property. T2ereafter, respondent Beatri. sold to 2er t2e said property for t2e su8 of 1*),))).)). 'n ac7nowledg8ent of t2e receipt of t2e a8ount of 1*),))).)) was prepared, and respondent Beatri. allegedly signed t2e sa8e. T2e receipt was dated Octo3er &(, 1#!&. @n t2e s7etc2, and ac7nowledg8ent, t2ere is a notation B=ocu8ents for 'gdao 1roperty follows.B T2is notation referred to t2e property in 'gdao, w2ic2 was t2e su39ect of negotiation. 1etitioner prepared t2e docu8ent relative to t2e 'gdao property. 1etitioner furt2er clai8ed t2at after 1#!&, s2e rented out portions of t2e property in :uestion. Cecilio allegedly continued to 3e 2erencargado as t2ere were s:uatters on t2e property. @n /anuary 1##+, t2e tenants reported t2at t2ere were two 8en w2o went to t2e property in :uestion. On t2e first wee7 of Ae3ruary 1##+, s2e (petitioner) 8et 'tty. Ca3e3e and Dr. /oe 'ng. -2e infor8ed t2e8 t2at s2e was t2e owner of t2e property in :uestion as s2e 3oug2t it in 1#!&. 'fter so8eti8e, s2e (petitioner) learned t2at t2e occupants of t2e property in :uestion were 3eing 2arassed and were told to vacate. -2e (petitioner)

went to Danila and confronted respondent Beatri. Diranda, and told 2er t2at s2e would file a case in court. 1etitioner filed wit2 t2e RTC of =avao City an action for specific perfor8ance, annul8ent of sale and certificate of title, da8ages, wit2 preli8inary in9unction and TRO. Respondent Diranda-Cuanio declared t2at 3efore t2e year 1#E1, 2er 8ot2er, respondent Beatri. , was a resident of =avao City. >er 8ot2er left =avao City in 1#E& and resided in Danila, and s2e went to =avao City for vacation only. >er 8ot2er owned t2e property in :uestion. 52en 2er 8ot2er left =avao City, s2e did not appoint anyone to ad8inister or ta7e care of 2er property. -2e disputed t2e clai8 of petitioner t2at t2e latter visited 2er 8ot2er in 1#!&. -2e alleged t2at on /une &+, 1#!&, s2e gave 3irt2 to 2er first c2ild and t2at s2e and 2er 8ot2er, Beatri., too7 care of 2er c2ild. -2e declared t2at t2e signature on t2e receipt dated Octo3er &(, 1#!&was not t2e signature of 2er 8ot2er. ' =ocu8ent ,0a8ination was conducted to deter8ine and reveal significant differences in 2andwriting c2aracteristics e0isting 3etween t2e :uestioned and t2e sa8ple signatures Beatri.. T2e :uestioned and t2e sa8ple signatures BBeatri. >. DirandaB were OT 5R@TT, 3y one and t2e sa8e person. 'tty. Ceorge Ca3e3e testified for respondents 'ng. >e declared t2at as t2e lawyer of Dr. /ose 'ng, t2e fat2er of respondents 'ng, 2is advice was soug2t regarding t2e purc2ase of t2e property in :uestion, w2ic2 was registered in t2e na8e of respondent Beatri. . >e as7ed for t2e copy of t2e title in t2e na8e of Beatri. and verified fro8 t2e Register of =eeds w2et2er or not t2ere was an encu83rance. 52en 2e found no encu83rance, 2e inspected t2e property and found t2ereon several s:uatters, w2o agreed to vacate provided t2ey were given financial assistance. >e reco88ended to proceed in purc2asing t2e propert. T2us, respondents 'ng purc2ased t2e property and t2ey were issued TCT. T2e s:uatters<occupants of t2e property in :uestion, including Cecilio, were given financial assistance and t2ey vacated t2e property in :uestion. T2e trial court rendered a decision dis8issing t2e co8plaint on t2e ground t2at t2e receipt dated Octo3er &(, 1#!& was a wort2less piece of paper, 3ecause it was esta3lis2ed t2at t2e signature appearing on t2e receipt was not t2e signature of respondent Beatri.. T2e trial court found t2at t2e =eed of -ale e0ecuted 3y respondent Rose Darie Diranda-Cuanio, as attorney-in-fact of Beatri., in favor of respondents 'ng was valid. 1etitioner appealed t2e trial courtGs decision to t2e Court of 'ppeals w2ic2 was affir8ed in toto.

ISSUE1 52et2er or not t2e Court of 'ppeals erred in affir8ing t2e decision of t2e trial court, dis8issing t2e co8plaint for specific perfor8ance, annul8ent of sale and certificate of title and da8ages

HELD1 'rticle 1(*" of t2e Civil Code provides t2at acts and contracts w2ic2 2ave for t2eir o39ect t2e trans8ission of real rig2ts over i88ova3le property or t2e sale of real property 8ust appear in a pu3lic docu8ent. @f t2e law re:uires a docu8ent or ot2er special for8, t2e contracting parties 8ay co8pel eac2 ot2er to o3serve t2at for8, once t2e contract 2as 3een perfected. @n Fule v. Court of Appeals, t2e Court 2eld t2at 'rticle 1(*" of t2e Civil Code, w2ic2 re:uires t2e e83odi8ent of certain contracts in a pu3lic instru8ent, is only for convenience, and registration of t2e instru8ent only adversely affects t2ird parties. Aor8al re:uire8ents are, t2erefore, for t2e 3enefit of t2ird parties. on-co8pliance t2erewit2 does not adversely affect t2e validity of t2e contract nor t2e contractual rig2ts and o3ligations of t2e parties t2ereunder. >owever, in t2is case, t2e trial court dis8issed petitionerGs co8plaint on t2e ground t2at t2e receipt dated Octo3er &(, 1#!& is a wort2less piece of paper, w2ic2 cannot 3e 8ade t2e 3asis of petitioner4s clai8 of

owners2ip over t2e property as Dr. 'rcadio Ra8os, an B@ 2andwriting e0pert, esta3lis2ed t2at t2e signature appearing on t2e said receipt is not t2e signature of respondent Beatri. Diranda.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT; REIMBURSEMENT 6ILLEM BEUMER vs. A7ELINA AMORES C.R. o. 1#*+!)% =ece83er (, &)1& 2ERLAS8BERNABE, J.:

FACTS1 1etitioner, a =utc2 ational, and respondent, a Ailipina, 8arried in Darc2 &#, 1#"). 'fter several years, t2e RTC of egros Oriental eclared t2e nullity of t2eir 8arriage ( ove83er &)))) on t2e 3asis of t2e for8er4s psyc2ological incapacity.Conse:uently, petitioner filed a 1etition for =issolution of Con9ugal 1artners2ip dated =ece83er 1E, &))) praying for t2e distri3ution of t2e following descri3ed properties clai8ed to 2ave 3een ac:uired during t2e su3sistence of t2eir 8arriage: '. By 1urc2ase: a. ?ot 1, Bloc7 ( of t2e consolidated survey of ?ots &1EE $ &1E! of t2e =u8aguete Cadastre, covered 3y TCT o. &&"E+% 3. ?ot &1E& covered 3y TCT o. &1#!E% c. ?ot *"E* covered 3y TCT o. &1()+% d. ?ot E, Bloc7 E of t2e consolidated survey of ?ots &1EE $ &1E! of t2e =u8aguete Cadastre, covered 3y TCT o. &1()!. By way of in2eritance: 1<! of ?ot &)**-' of t2e =u8aguete Cadastre and 1<1* of ?ot &)**-@ of t2e =u8aguete Cadastre, covered 3y TCT o. &(*!*. Respondent averred t2at, wit2 t2e e0ception of t2eir two (&) residential 2ouses on ?ots 1 and &1E&, s2e and petitioner did not ac:uire any con9ugal properties during t2eir 8arriage, t2e trut2 3eing t2at s2e used 2er own personal 8oney to purc2ase ?ots 1, &1E&, *"E* and E out of 2er personal funds and ?ots &)**-' and &)**-@ 3y way of in2eritance. -2e su38itted a 9oint affidavit e0ecuted 3y 2er and petitioner attesting to t2e fact t2at s2e purc2ased ?ot &1E& and t2e i8prove8ents t2ereon using 2er own 8oney. 'ccordingly, respondent soug2t t2e dis8issal of t2e petition for dissolution as well as pay8ent for attorney4s fees and litigation e0penses. =uring trial, petitioner testified t2at w2ile ?ots 1, &1E&, *"E* and E were registered in t2e na8e of respondent, t2ese properties were ac:uired wit2 t2e 8oney 2e received fro8 t2e =utc2 govern8ent as 2is disa3ility 3enefit since respondent did not 2ave sufficient inco8e to pay for t2eir ac:uisition. Respondent 8aintained t2at t2e 8oney used for t2e purc2ase of t2e lots ca8e e0clusively fro8 2er personal funds, in particular, 2er earnings fro8 selling 9ewelry as well as products fro8 'von, Triu8p2 and Tupperware. -2e furt2er asserted t2at after s2e filed for annul8ent of t2eir 8arriage in 1##+, petitioner transferred to t2eir second 2ouse and 3roug2t along wit2 2i8 certain personal properties, consisting of drills, a welding 8ac2ine, grinders, cla8ps, etc. -2e alleged t2at t2ese tools and e:uip8ent 2ave a total cost of 1*)),))).)). T2e RTC rendered its =ecision, dissolving t2e parties4 con9ugal partners2ip, awarding all t2e parcels of land to respondent as 2er parap2ernal properties% t2e tools and e:uip8ent in favor of petitioner as 2is e0clusive properties% t2e two (&) 2ouses standing on ?ots 1 and &1E& as co-owned 3y t2e parties. @t ruled t2at, regardless of t2e source of funds for t2e ac:uisition of ?ots 1, &1E&, *"E* and E, petitioner could not 2ave ac:uired any rig2t w2atsoever over t2ese properties as petitioner still atte8pted to ac:uire t2e8 notwit2standing 2is 7nowledge of t2e constitutional pro2i3ition against foreign owners2ip of private lands. 1etitioner elevated t2e 8atter to t2e C' w2ic2 affir8ed in toto t2e decision of t2e RTC. 1etitioner is contesting only t2e RTC4s award of ?ots 1, &1E&, *"E* and E in favor of respondent insisting t2at t2e 8oney used to purc2ase t2e foregoing properties ca8e fro8 2is own capital funds and t2at t2ey were registered in t2e na8e of 2is for8er wife only 3ecause of t2e constitutional pro2i3ition against foreign owners2ip. T2us, 2e prayed for rei83urse8ent of one-2alf (1<&) of t2e value of w2at 2e 2ad paid in t2e purc2ase of t2e said properties, waiving t2e ot2er 2alf in favor of 2is estranged e0-wife.

T2e C' stressed t2e fact t2at petitioner was Bwell-aware of t2e constitutional pro2i3ition for aliens to ac:uire lands in t2e 12ilippines.B >ence, 2e cannot invo7e e:uity to support 2is clai8 for rei83urse8ent. Conse:uently, petitioner filed t2e instant 1etition for Review on Certiorari. ISSUE1 H =,R T>, A'CT- ,-T'B?@->,=, T>, COHRT ,RR,= @ OT -H-T'@ @ C T>, 1,T@T@O ,R4'TT,D1T 'T -HB-,;H, T?I '--,RT@ C OR C?'@D@ C ' R@C>T OA >'?A OR 5>O?, OA T>, 1HRC>'-, 1R@C, H-,= @ T>, 1HRC>'-, OA T>, R,'? 1RO1,RT@,- -HB/,CT OA T>@C'-,. HELD1 Hndenia3ly, petitioner openly ad8itted t2at 2e Bis well aware of t2e a3ove-cited constitutional pro2i3ition and even asseverated t2at, 3ecause of suc2 pro2i3ition, 2e and respondent registered t2e su39ect properties in t2e latter4s na8e. Clearly, petitioner4s actuations s2owed 2is palpa3le intent to s7irt t2e constitutional pro2i3ition. On t2e 3asis of suc2 ad8ission, t2e Court finds no reason w2y it s2ould not apply t2e Duller ruling and accordingly, deny petitioner4s clai8 for rei83urse8ent. @n t2is case, petitioner4s state8ents regarding t2e real source of t2e funds used to purc2ase t2e su39ect parcels of land dilute t2e veracity of 2is clai8s: 52ile ad8itting to 2ave previously e0ecuted a 9oint affidavit t2at respondent4s personal funds were used to purc2ase ?ot 1,2e li7ewise clai8ed t2at 2is personal disa3ility funds were used to ac:uire t2e sa8e. ,vidently, t2ese inconsistencies s2ow 2is untrut2fulness. T2us, as petitioner 2as co8e 3efore t2e Court wit2 unclean 2ands, 2e is now precluded fro8 see7ing any e:uita3le refuge. @n any event, t2e Court cannot, even on t2e grounds of e:uity, grant rei83urse8ent to petitioner given t2at 2e ac:uired no rig2t w2atsoever over t2e su39ect properties 3y virtue of its unconstitutional purc2ase. @t is well-esta3lis2ed t2at e:uity as a rule will follow t2e law and will not per8it t2at to 3e done indirectly w2ic2, 3ecause of pu3lic policy, cannot 3e done directly. &# -urely, a contract t2at violates t2e Constitution and t2e law is null and void, vests no rig2ts, creates no o3ligations and produces no legal effect at all.() Corollary t2ereto, under 'rticle 1E1& of t2e Civil Code, (1 petitioner cannot 2ave t2e su39ect properties deeded to 2i8 or allow 2i8 to recover t2e 8oney 2e 2ad spent for t2e purc2ase t2ereof. T2e law will not aid eit2er party to an illegal contract or agree8ent% it leaves t2e parties w2ere it finds t2e8.(& @ndeed, one cannot salvage any rig2ts fro8 an unconstitutional transaction 7nowingly entered into.