This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
182963 June 3, 2013
SPOUSES DEO AGNER and MARICON AGNER, Petitioners, vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., Respondent. DECISION PERALTA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the April 30, 2007 Decision1 and May 19, 2008 Resolution2of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 86021, which affirmed the August 11, 2005 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Manila City. On February 15, 2001, petitioners spouses Deo Agner and Maricon Agner executed a Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage in favor of Citimotors, Inc. The contract provides, among others, that: for receiving the amount of Php834, 768.00, petitioners shall pay Php 17,391.00 every 15th day of each succeeding month until fully paid; the loan is secured by a 2001 Mitsubishi Adventure Super Sport; and an interest of 6% per month shall be imposed for failure to pay each installment on or before the stated due date.4 On the same day, Citimotors, Inc. assigned all its rights, title and interests in the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage to ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc. (ABN AMRO), which, on May 31, 2002, likewise assigned the same to respondent BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.5 For failure to pay four successive installments from May 15, 2002 to August 15, 2002, respondent, through counsel, sent to petitioners a demand letter dated August 29, 2002, declaring the entire obligation as due and demandable and requiring to pay Php576,664.04, or surrender the mortgaged vehicle immediately upon receiving the letter.6 As the demand was left unheeded, respondent filed on October 4, 2002 an action for Replevin and Damages before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC). A writ of replevin was issued.7 Despite this, the subject vehicle was not seized.8 Trial on the merits ensued. On August 11, 2005, the Manila RTC Br. 33 ruled for the respondent and ordered petitioners to jointly and severally pay the amount of Php576,664.04 plus interest at the rate of 72% per annum from August 20, 2002 until fully paid, and the costs of suit.
Petitioners appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA affirmed the lower court’s decision and, subsequently, denied the motion for reconsideration; hence, this petition. Before this Court, petitioners argue that: (1) respondent has no cause of action, because the Deed of Assignment executed in its favor did not specifically mention ABN AMRO’s account receivable from petitioners; (2) petitioners cannot be considered to have defaulted in payment for lack of competent proof that they received the demand letter; and (3) respondent’s remedy of resorting to both actions of replevin and collection of sum of money is contrary to the provision of Article 14849 of the Civil Code and the Elisco Tool Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals10 ruling. The contentions are untenable. With respect to the first issue, it would be sufficient to state that the matter surrounding the Deed of Assignment had already been considered by the trial court and the CA. Likewise, it is an issue of fact that is not a proper subject of a petition for review under Rule 45. An issue is factual when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation.11 Time and again, We stress that this Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew evidence which lower courts have passed upon. As to the second issue, records bear that both verbal and written demands were in fact made by respondent prior to the institution of the case against petitioners.12 Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that no demand letter was sent by respondent, there is really no need for it because petitioners legally waived the necessity of notice or demand in the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage, which they voluntarily and knowingly signed in favor of respondent’s predecessor-in-interest. Said contract expressly stipulates: In case of my/our failure to pay when due and payable, any sum which I/We are obliged to pay under this note and/or any other obligation which I/We or any of us may now or in the future owe to the holder of this note or to any other party whether as principal or guarantor x x x then the entire sum outstanding under this note shall, without prior notice or demand, immediately become due and payable. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) A provision on waiver of notice or demand has been recognized as legal and valid in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals,13 wherein We held: The Civil Code in Article 1169 provides that one incurs in delay or is in default from the time the obligor demands the fulfillment of the obligation from the obligee. However, the law expressly provides that demand is not necessary under certain circumstances, and one of these circumstances is when the parties expressly waive demand. Hence, since the co-signors expressly waived demand in the promissory notes, demand was unnecessary for them to be in default.14
Further, the Court even ruled in Navarro v. Escobido15 that prior demand is not a condition precedent to an action for a writ of replevin, since there is nothing in Section 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court that requires the applicant to make a demand on the possessor of the property before an action for a writ of replevin could be filed. Also, petitioners’ representation that they have not received a demand letter is completely inconsequential as the mere act of sending it would suffice. Again, We look into the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage, which provides: All correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters, summonses, subpoenas, or notifications of any judicial or extrajudicial action shall be sent to the MORTGAGOR at the address indicated on this promissory note with chattel mortgage or at the address that may hereafter be given in writing by the MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE or his/its assignee. The mere act of sending any correspondence by mail or by personal delivery to the said address shall be valid and effective notice to the mortgagor for all legal purposes and the fact that any communication is not actually received by the MORTGAGOR or that it has been returned unclaimed to the MORTGAGEE or that no person was found at the address given, or that the address is fictitious or cannot be located shall not excuse or relieve the MORTGAGOR from the effects of such notice.16 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Court cannot yield to petitioners’ denial in receiving respondent’s demand letter. To note, their postal address evidently remained unchanged from the time they executed the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage up to time the case was filed against them. Thus, the presumption that "a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail"17 stands in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary. Petitioners cannot find succour from Ting v. Court of Appeals18 simply because it pertained to violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. As a higher quantum of proof – that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt – is required in view of the criminal nature of the case, We found insufficient the mere presentation of a copy of the demand letter allegedly sent through registered mail and its corresponding registry receipt as proof of receiving the notice of dishonor. Perusing over the records, what is clear is that petitioners did not take advantage of all the opportunities to present their evidence in the proceedings before the courts below. They miserably failed to produce the original cash deposit slips proving payment of the monthly amortizations in question. Not even a photocopy of the alleged proof of payment was appended to their Answer or shown during the trial. Neither have they demonstrated any written requests to respondent to furnish them with official receipts or a statement of account. Worse, petitioners were not able to make a formal offer of evidence considering that they have not marked any documentary evidence during the presentation of Deo Agner’s testimony.19 Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.20 When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, proof of non-payment is not needed for it is presumed.21 Respondent's possession of the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage strongly buttresses its claim
that the obligation has not been extinguished. As held in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Spouses Royeca:22 x x x The creditor's possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment. A promissory note in the hands of the creditor is a proof of indebtedness rather than proof of payment. In an action for replevin by a mortgagee, it is prima facie evidence that the promissory note has not been paid. Likewise, an uncanceled mortgage in the possession of the mortgagee gives rise to the presumption that the mortgage debt is unpaid.23 Indeed, when the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor.24 The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.25 Lastly, there is no violation of Article 1484 of the Civil Code and the Court’s decision in Elisco Tool Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals.26 In Elisco, petitioner's complaint contained the following prayer: WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that judgment be rendered as follows: ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Ordering defendant Rolando Lantan to pay the plaintiff the sum of P39,054.86 plus legal interest from the date of demand until the whole obligation is fully paid; ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION To forthwith issue a Writ of Replevin ordering the seizure of the motor vehicle more particularly described in paragraph 3 of the Complaint, from defendant Rolando Lantan and/or defendants Rina Lantan, John Doe, Susan Doe and other person or persons in whose possession the said motor vehicle may be found, complete with accessories and equipment, and direct deliver thereof to plaintiff in accordance with law, and after due hearing to confirm said seizure and plaintiff's possession over the same; PRAYER COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. Ordering the defendant Rolando Lantan to pay the plaintiff an amount equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of his outstanding obligation, for and as attorney's fees; 2. Ordering defendants to pay the cost or expenses of collection, repossession, bonding fees and other incidental expenses to be proved during the trial; and 3. Ordering defendants to pay the costs of suit.
Plaintiff also prays for such further reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.27 The Court therein ruled: The remedies provided for in Art. 1484 are alternative, not cumulative. The exercise of one bars the exercise of the others. This limitation applies to contracts purporting to be leases of personal property with option to buy by virtue of Art. 1485. The condition that the lessor has deprived the lessee of possession or enjoyment of the thing for the purpose of applying Art. 1485 was fulfilled in this case by the filing by petitioner of the complaint for replevin to recover possession of movable property. By virtue of the writ of seizure issued by the trial court, the deputy sheriff seized the vehicle on August 6, 1986 and thereby deprived private respondents of its use. The car was not returned to private respondent until April 16, 1989, after two (2) years and eight (8) months, upon issuance by the Court of Appeals of a writ of execution. Petitioner prayed that private respondents be made to pay the sum of P39,054.86, the amount that they were supposed to pay as of May 1986, plus interest at the legal rate. At the same time, it prayed for the issuance of a writ of replevin or the delivery to it of the motor vehicle "complete with accessories and equipment." In the event the car could not be delivered to petitioner, it was prayed that private respondent Rolando Lantan be made to pay petitioner the amount of P60,000.00, the "estimated actual value" of the car, "plus accrued monthly rentals thereof with interests at the rate of fourteen percent (14%) per annum until fully paid." This prayer of course cannot be granted, even assuming that private respondents have defaulted in the payment of their obligation. This led the trial court to say that petitioner wanted to eat its cake and have it too.28 In contrast, respondent in this case prayed: (a) Before trial, and upon filing and approval of the bond, to forthwith issue a Writ of Replevin ordering the seizure of the motor vehicle above-described, complete with all its accessories and equipments, together with the Registration Certificate thereof, and direct the delivery thereof to plaintiff in accordance with law and after due hearing, to confirm the said seizure; (b) Or, in the event that manual delivery of the said motor vehicle cannot be effected to render judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant(s) ordering them to pay to plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum ofP576,664.04 plus interest and/or late payment charges thereon at the rate of 72% per annum from August 20, 2002 until fully paid; (c) In either case, to order defendant(s) to pay jointly and severally: (1) the sum of P297,857.54 as attorney’s fees, liquidated damages, bonding fees and other expenses incurred in the seizure of the said motor vehicle; and
SO ORDERED.31 While Central Bank Circular No. if not against the law. to be reckoned from May 16. Plaintiff further prays for such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.29 Compared with Elisco. effectively removed the ceiling on interest rates for both secured and unsecured loans. which took effect on January 1." Certainly. it cannot be said that petitioners were deprived of the use and enjoyment of the mortgaged vehicle or that respondent pursued. We are of the opinion that the interest of 6% per month should be equitably reduced to one percent (1%) per month or twelve percent (12%) per annum. Settled is the principle which this Court has affirmed in a number of cases that stipulated interest rates of three percent (3%) per month and higher are excessive. respondent BPI Family Savings Bank. rightfully granted the alternative prayer for sum of money. 86021. it is as if there was no express contract on said interest rate. the vehicle subject matter of this case was never recovered and delivered to respondent despite the issuance of a writ of replevin. commenced or concluded its actual foreclosure.33 WHEREFORE. 2002 with interest at one percent ( 1 o/o) per month from May 16. iniquitous. 905-82. Inc. therefore. ( 1) the remaining outstanding balance of their auto loan obligation as of May 15. 2002 until fully paid.1âwphi1 All the foregoing notwithstanding. 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. jointly and severally. the petition is DENIED and the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the April 30.32 Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void for being contrary to morals. CV No. The trial court. nothing in the said circular could possibly be read as granting carte blanche authority to lenders to raise interest rates to levels which would either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets.R. there is no double recovery or unjust enrichment30 to speak of. As there was no seizure that transpired. regardless of maturity. unconscionable. the interest rate may be reduced as reason and equity demand. 1983. 2007 Decision and May 19. 2002 until full payment and with the remaining outstanding balance of their car loan as of May 15. Petitioners spouses Deo Agner and Maricon Agner are ORDERED to pay. and (2) costs of suit. . which is equivalent to the remedy of "exacting fulfillment of the obligation. and exorbitant.(2) the costs of suit. thus. 2002 as the base amount.
Petitioners.: In a contract to sell. Bukidnon covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 2006 Resolution4 denying petitioner-spouses Delfin O. Rowena Gay T. through a deed of sale10 for an unconscionable amount of P95.R. 1997.6 Factual Antecedents On March 23. and the February 10. The case was raffled to Branch 9 and docketed as Civil Case No. TUMIBAY-deceased. In their Complaint. which reversed the January 6.171692 June 3. Tumibay’s Motion for Reconsideration. petitioners filed a Complaint7 for declaration of nullity ab initio of sale. the seller retains ownership of the property until the buyer has paid the price in full. A -buyer who covertly usurps the seller's ownership of the property prior to the full payment of the price is in breach of the contract and the seller is entitled to rescission because the breach is substantial and fundamental as it defeats the very object of the parties in entering into the contract to sell. Malaybalay.000. CV No. Visitacion Lopez (respondent Rowena). 2013 SPOUSES DELFIN O.00. J. TUMIBAY and AURORA T. 2759-98.000. for these fraudulent . GRACE JULIE ANN TUMIBAY MANUEL. 2759-98. and that. DECISION DEL CASTILLO. Branch 9 in Civil Case No. 2005 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. petitioners alleged that they are the owners of a parcel of land located in Sumpong. vs. LOPEZ and ROWENA GAY T. T-253348 (subject land) in the name of petitioner Aurora.00 although said property had a market value of more than P2. and recovery of ownership and possession of land with the RTC of Malaybalay City. that they are natural born Filipino citizens but petitioner Delfin acquired American citizenship while his wife. petitioner Aurora. SPOUSES MELVIN A. The Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the May 19. No.000.9 that on July 23.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G. that petitioner Aurora is the sister of Reynalda Visitacion (Reynalda). 1998. 79029. remained a Filipino citizen. Tumibay and Aurora5 T. legal representative. VISITACION LOPEZ. Respondents.R. 2003 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay City. that the subject sale was done without the knowledge and consent of petitioners. Reynalda sold the subject land to her daughter.
acting with evident bad faith. the Clerk of Court of the RTC and ex-officio Provincial Sheriff to execute such Deed of Reconveyance. respondent Rowena. that. in furtherance of the agreement. that sometime in 1994. T-62674 in the name of the respondent Rowena Gay T. (2) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Bukidnon to cancel TCT No.000. a deed of sale was executed and the corresponding title was issued in favor of respondent Rowena. Visitacion-Lopez and to issue a new TCT in the name of the petitioners. (2) the subject land be reconveyed to petitioners.00 to be paid on installment. viz: WHEREFORE. . 2003. that the subject sale was done with the knowledge and consent of the petitioners as evidenced by the receipt of payment by petitioners. petitioners filed an Answer to Counterclaim. respondent Rowena and petitioners agreed that the former would buy the subject land for the price of P800. respondents should be held liable for damages. (3) Ordering respondents. Respondents averred that on December 12.acts.000.00. 1995. and (3) respondents be ordered to pay damages. that on January 25. Decision is hereby rendered. 1998. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court On January 6. executed the deed of sale in her favor but placed it in the name of her daughter. 1990. and that petitioners should be held liable for damages for filing the subject Complaint in bad faith.00 at the present rate of exchange less the expenses to be incurred for the transfer of the property in question under the name of the petitioners. or if said respondents should refuse to do so or are unable to do so. Petitioners also claimed that the monthly payments from 1995 to 1997 were mere deposits as requested by respondent Rowena so that she (Rowena) would not spend the same pending their agreement as to the purchase price.13 Petitioners admitted the existence of the SPA but claimed that Reynalda violated the terms thereof when she (Reynalda) sold the subject land without seeking the approval of petitioners as to the selling price. spouses Melvin and Rowena Gay Lopez. jointly and severally. Petitioners prayed that (1) the deed of sale dated July 23. to return the said amount of $12. respondent Rowena paid the monthly installments thereon as evidenced by money orders. and that Reynalda. the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners. respondents filed their Answer11 with counterclaim. 1998. Respondents prayed that the Complaint be dismissed and that petitioners be ordered to pay damages. which sale is null and void because an agent cannot purchase for herself the property subject of the agency. respondent Rowena paid in cash to petitioners the sum of $1. On May 19. (1) Ordering the petitioners.000. as follows. to execute a Deed of Reconveyance in favor of the petitioners. On May 25. petitioners executed a special power of attorney (SPA)12 in favor of Reynalda granting the latter the power to offer for sale the subject land. that from 1995 to 1997. 1997 be declared void ab initio.
must pay the costs of this suit. SO ORDERED. SO ORDERED. to pay the legal rate of interests [sic] at 12% per annum until fully paid. connived with her daughter. paragraph 2. the appealed Decision of the Court a quo is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. without first seeking the approval of petitioners as to the selling price thereof. Under the principle of unjust enrichment. Petitioners filed a partial motion for reconsideration15 praying for the award of attorney’s fees. respondent Rowena. The trial court further ruled that petitioners are not entirely free from liability because they received from respondent Rowena deposits totaling $12. Thus. (4) Reynalda. In its January 14.00) to the petitioners effective within 30 days from receipt of this Decision and in case of delay. viz: WHEREFORE. Accordingly. through fraud and with bad faith. (2) although there is no direct evidence of petitioners’ approval of the selling price of the subject land.000. the CA rendered the assailed Decision reversing the judgment of the trial court. Both parties are deemed mutually compensated and must bear their own expenses. The trial court held that Reynalda. premises considered. (3) the SPA does not sufficiently confer on Reynalda the authority to sell the subject land. acted outside the scope of her authority under the SPA. the trial court held: (1) the SPA merely authorized Reynalda to offer for sale the subject land for a price subject to the approval of the petitioners. (5) the sale contravenes Article 1491. Ruling of the Court of Appeals On May 19. the sale is null and void and the subject land should be reconveyed to petitioners. petitioners should.00 in favor of respondents was without interest because there was also no award of rental income in favor of petitioners. and. of the Civil Code which prohibits the agent from acquiring the property subject of the agency unless the consent of the principal has been given. the trial court clarified that the reimbursement of $12. The latter and her spouse MELVIN LOPEZ are directed to pay the balance of Four Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Pesos (P488. From this Decision. jointly and severally. (2) Reynalda violated the terms of the SPA when she sold the subject land to her daughter. to sell the subject land to the latter. the appellate court ruled that: (1) the SPA sufficiently conferred on Reynalda the authority to sell the subject land. be ordered to reimburse the same without interest.00. title to the subject property shall remain in the name of the Appellant ROWENA GAY VISITACION-LOPEZ. .000. respondent Rowena.14 In ruling in favor of petitioners. respondents appealed to the CA. 2005. 2003 Order16 denying the aforesaid motion. thus.000. as agent.17 In reversing the trial court’s Decision. The respective parties must bear their own expenses except that respondents.(4) No x x x damages are awarded.
000.000. (6) the selling price of P800.000. Thus.00 selling price was already received by petitioners.petitioner Aurora’s acts of receiving two money orders and several dollar checks from respondent Rowena over the span of three years amount to the ratification of any defect in the authority of Reynalda under the SPA. this Petition. the existence of the alleged contract of sale was not proven because the parties failed to agree on the purchase price as stated by petitioner Aurora in her testimony. in cash and checks. (4) the sale is not contrary to public policy because there is no rule or law which prohibits the sale of property subject of the agency between the agent and his children unless it would be in fraud of creditors which is not the case here. given to petitioners from 1995 to 1997 were mere deposits until the parties could agree to the purchase price. Issues Petitioners raise the following issues for our resolution: I. Reynalda acted beyond the scope of her authority under the SPA because she was merely authorized to look for prospective buyers of the subject land.000. V. The money. Considering that respondent Rowena proved that she remitted a total of $12.00. IV.00 selling price of the subject land. Even assuming that she had the power to sell the subject land under the SPA. and.000. she did not secure the . II. the appellate court ruled that P312.00. Further.00 to petitioners and pegging the exchange rate at that time at P26.00 per dollar.00 of the P800. respondents are only liable for the balance ofP488. Whether the CA erred in resolving the issue in the case at bar. 1997 for being executed by Reynalda beyond the scope of her authority under the SPA.18 Petitioners’ Arguments Petitioners argue that the appellate court went beyond the issues of this case when it ruled that there was a contract of sale between respondent Rowena and petitioner Aurora because the issues before the trial court were limited to the validity of the deed of sale dated July 23. (3) petitioners are estopped from repudiating the sale after they had received the deposits totaling $12. Whether the CA erred in adopting the testimony of respondent Rowena as to the P800. Hence.000. Moreover. (5) petitioners impliedly ratified the subject SPA and contract of sale as well as its effects.000. Whether the CA erred in not declaring the sale void on grounds of public policy. III. Whether under the SPA Reynalda had the power to sell the subject land.00 for the subject land is deemed reasonable based on the testimony of respondent Rowena as this was the selling price agreed upon by her and petitioner Delfin. Whether the actuations of petitioner Aurora in receiving money from respondent Rowena amounted to the ratification of the breach in the exercise of the SPA.
Reynalda appeared and signed as attorney-in-fact of petitioner Aurora. as seller. respondent Rowena called her mother.00. while respondent Rowena appeared as buyer. Reynalda then transferred the title to the subject land in respondent Rowena’s name through a deed of sale dated July 23. 1997. However. this case falls under one of the recognized exceptions thereto because the factual findings of the trial court and appellate court are conflicting. hence. On January 25. the sale is null and void. as a dummy to acquire the subject land. claiming that she had already bought the subject land from petitioners. Petitioners also contend that there was no ratification of the subject sale through petitioners’ acceptance of the monthly checks from respondent Rowena because the sale occurred subsequent to the receipt of the aforesaid checks. they reiterate the findings of the appellate court that the receipt of monthly installments constitutes an implied ratification of any defect in the SPA and deed of sale dated July 23.. hence.19 Our review of the records leads us to conclude that the following are the relevant factual antecedents of this case. Reynalda. Reynalda merely used her daughter.20 to thesubject land was issued in the name of respondent Rowena. .000. petitioners question the determination by the appellate court that the fair market value of the subject land is P800.00 to petitioner Aurora which was followed by 22 intermittent monthly installments of $500. They emphasize that petitioners received a total of $12. Using the aforesaid SPA. Petitioners were the owners of the subject land covered by TCT No.00 for lack of any factual and legal basis. After which.000. In the aforesaid deed. a new title. after having paid a total of $10. TCT No. we do not disturb the factual findings of the appellate court. Our Ruling The Petition is meritorious. They further claim that the sale was void because it was not only simulated but violates Article 1491 of the Civil Code which prohibits the agent from acquiring the property subject of the agency.00 as consideration for the subject land. T-25334 in the name of petitioner Aurora. petitioners and respondent Rowena agreed to enter into an oral contract to sell over the subject land for the price of P800. Respondents’ Arguments Respondents counter that the issue as to whether there was a perfected contract of sale between petitioners and respondent Rowena is inextricably related to the issue of whether the deed of sale dated July 23. On December 12. the appellate court properly ruled on the former. 1995. Furthermore.approval as to the price from petitioners before executing the subject deed of sale. executed an SPA in favor of Reynalda. 1997 without the knowledge and consent of petitioners. Here. as agent.000. As a general rule. among others. respondent Rowena paid the first monthly installment of $1. Sometime in 1997. Finally. offer for sale the subject land provided that the purchase price thereof should be approved by the former.00 spanning almost three years. petitioners. to. i. as principals and sellers.000.00 to be paid in 10 years through monthly installments. respondent Rowena. 1997 is valid. Sometime in 1994. 1990.000.e. 62674.
00 500. They claim that the payments received from respondent Rowena were for safekeeping purposes only pending the final agreement as to the purchase price of the subject land.00 . 1996 December 31..We explain these factual findings and the consequences thereof below. First. 1997 February 28.00 500.00 500. 1995 June 30.00 500. Petitioners do not deny that they received 23 monthly installments over the span of almost three years. the payment of monthly installments was duly established by the evidence on record consisting of money orders21 and checks22 payable to petitioner Aurora. 1996 January 31. the date of the last monthly installment). As of November 30.00 500.00. 1997 March 31. to wit: Date January 25. 1995 May 29. 1996 500.000. 1996 August 31.000. 1995 March 27. 1995 July 31.00 500.00 500. 1997 Amount Paid (in dollars) 1. 1995 June 1. Petitioners and respondent Rowena entered into a contract to sell over the subject land.00 500. We are inclined to give credence to the claim of the respondents for the following reasons.00 500.00 September 30.00 500. 1995 April 25.000. 1996 June 30.e. 1997 (i. 1996 October 29. 1996 July 31.00 500.00 payable in 10 years through monthly installments.00 500.00 500. Petitioners deny that they agreed to sell the subject land to respondent Rowena for the price of P800. 1995 February 21. the payments already totaled $12.00 500.0023 500.
"ownership is retained by the seller and is not to pass until the full payment of the price x x x. she thereafter accepted from respondent Rowena 22 intermittent monthly installments in the amount of $500. through a deed of sale."25 In a contract to sell.00 12. that is.000. 1997 August 31. 1995 was a mere deposit until the purchase price of the subject land would have been finally agreed upon by both parties."26 It is "commonly entered into so as to protect the seller against a buyer who intends to buy the property in installments by withholding ownership over the property until the buyer effects full payment therefor. binds himself to sell the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon.00 500.00 Second.00.000.24 However. indeed. in the name of respondent Rowena prior to or at the time of the first payment of $1. its existence and partial execution were sufficiently established by. 1995. to wit: (1) the title to the subject land was not immediately transferred.00 in cash that she received from respondent Rowena on January 25.00. after receiving this initial sum of $1. Third. through a formal deed of conveyance. it strains credulity that respondent Rowena would make such monthly installments for a substantial amount of money and for a long period of time had there been no agreement between the parties as to the purchase price of the subject land.29 and that she was entitled thereto as a form of security for the installments she had already paid.May 31. 1997 July 19. while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer. A contract to sell has been defined as "a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller. petitioners received 22 intermittent monthly installments from respondent Rowena in the sum of $500. inclined to rule that there was. thus. petitioner Aurora claimed that the $1. and may be reasonably inferred from the actuations of the parties.00.28 (2) after this initial payment. and. because she believed that she had substantially paid the purchase price thereof.30 .00 September 30.00 500. 1997 500. 1997.00 by respondent Rowena to petitioner Aurora on January 25. in her testimony. 1997 Total 500. respondent Rowena admitted that she had the title to the subject land transferred in her name only later on or on July 23.000. (3) in her testimony. petitioner Aurora failed to explain why. a contractual agreement between the parties for the purchase of the subject land and that this agreement partook of an oral contract to sell for the sum ofP800.000.00 November 30. while there was no written agreement evincing the intention of the parties to enter into a contract to sell. We are.00 500. 1997 500.00."27 In the case at bar. No attempt was made on the part of petitioners to return these amounts and it is fair to assume that petitioners benefited therefrom. full payment of the purchase price.000. 1997 October 31.
141.983. 1996 October 29. 1997 March 31.50 13. the full price of the subject land was yet to be paid.58%38 of theP800. we find that respondent Rowena was in breach thereof because. 1997 July 19.00 500.5750 25.1880 26.0270 25. 1995 March 27. 1997 May 31.00 13.902. 1997 or prior to the execution of the deed of sale dated July 23.374036 28.00 500.626.9670 26.00 14.787.101.50 13. 1997 February 28.00 12. as published by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.8040 25.00 500.00 260. 1995 April 25.183.3670 26.287. That the full price was yet to be paid at the time of the subject transfer of title was admitted by respondent Rowena on cross-examination.7700 25.50 13.557.00 500. we take judicial notice31 of the prevailing exchange rates at the time. as supported by the evidence on record.2570 26. as of July 19.166.000.770.203033 26.00 500.00 500. viz: .5850 26.2280 26.50 Thus. 1995 May 29.00 500.128.00 13.Respondent Rowena was in breach of the contract to sell.3330 26.3440 26. 1996 January 31. 1996 July 31.000.172.00 13.101.00 500.00 12.1140 25.574037 Total Peso Equivalent 24.094.00 13.50 13.00 purchase price. In arriving at this conclusion.288035 26.50 13. 1995 June 1.00 500.00 500.00 500. 1995 February 21.00 500. the total amount of monthly installments paid by respondent Rowena to petitioners was only P260.792.50 12.50 13. 1996 September 30. Although we rule that there was a contract to sell over the subject land between petitioners and respondent Rowena.00 12.00 500.114. 1995 June 30.013.00 13.144.50 or 32. 1996 December 31. 1996 August 31.202034 26.32 and multiply the same with the monthly installments respondent Rowena paid to petitioners.00 500. 1995 July 31. 1997.00 500. at the time the aforesaid deed of sale was executed on July 23.00 Exchange Rate (peso per dollar) 24. 1997.00 500. 1997 Amount Paid (in dollars) 1.626. 1996 June 30.2830 26.00 500. to wit: Date January 25.50 12.50 13.00 500.187.
You now admit that x x x you agreed to buy the lot at eight hundred thousand.My mother is equipped with the SPA to transfer the lot to me only for security purposes but actually there is no full payment. Significantly. the evidence on record indicates that the premature transfer of title in the name of respondent Rowena was done without the knowledge and consent of petitioners. her own evidence clearly showed that she had. BARROSO: Q .000. Now based on the dollar rate. she failed to prove that petitioners agreed to amend or novate the contract to sell in order to allow her to acquire title over the subject land even if she had not paid the price in full.58% thereof. what did you do with the land subject of this case? [sic] . by that time.39 (Emphasis supplied) Respondent Rowena tried to justify the premature transfer of title by stating that she had substantially paid the full amount of the purchase price and that this was necessary as a security for the installments she had already paid.Since notwithstanding the fact this eight hundred thousand which you have agreed is not fully paid why did your mother finalize the deed of sale? A . your total payment did not reach x x x eight hundred thousand pesos? Is that correct? [sic] A . OKIT: Q .Why is this check (in the amount of $1. Verily.Yes. Reynalda.This is the check I paid to her (referring to petitioner Aurora) which is in cash. to which the Plaintiff x x x agreed.Let us make this clear. Q . [sic] ATTY. viz: COURT: Q.00) in your possession now? A.00 dollar to him (referring to petitioner Delfin)? A . never sought the consent of petitioners prior to said transfer of title. In particular. paid only 32. respondent Rowena’s narration of the events leading to the transfer of title showed that she and her mother.ATTY.Now having stated substantially paid. However.Now did you continue x x x paying the $500. Neither can we accept her justification that the premature transfer of title was necessary as a security for the installments she had already paid absent proof that petitioners agreed to this new arrangement.Yes. xxxx Q .
if the latter should become impossible. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones. so she transferred the land to me. The terms of the SPA are clear. Article 1191 of the Civil Code provides: Art. The injured party may choose between fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation. The court shall decree the rescission claimed. The contract to sell is rescissible. "rescission will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach of the contract. The SPA could not have amended or novated the contract to sell to allow respondent Rowena to acquire the title over the subject land despite non-payment of the price in full for the reason that the SPA was executed four years prior to the contract to sell. [sic] Q .A . without the knowledge and consent of petitioners and despite non-payment of the full price thereof."41 In the case at bar.After two years my mother called me if how much I have paid the land and being equipped with SPA. in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.I called my mother who has equipped with SPA to my Uncle that I have already bought the land. as unjustified.Yes. x x x As a general rule. constitutes a substantial and fundamental breach of the contract to sell.Then what transpired next? A . He may also seek rescission even after he has chosen fulfillment. we find that respondent Rowena’s act of transferring the title to the subject land in her name. with the payment of damages in either case. 1191. the main object or purpose of a seller in entering into a contract to sell is to protect himself against a buyer who intends to buy the property in installments by withholding ownership over the property until the buyer . but only for such breaches as are substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties in making the agreement. the tenor of her testimony indicates that respondent Rowena made a unilateral determination that she had substantially paid the purchase price and that she is entitled to the transfer of title as a form of security for the installments she had already paid. [sic]40 (Emphases supplied) Respondent Rowena’s reliance on the SPA as the authority or consent to effect the premature transfer of title in her name is plainly misplaced. reasons. unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.And you called your mother? A . As previously noted. we previously noted. xxxx Q . It merely authorized Reynalda to sell the subject land at a price approved by petitioners. In fine.
44 In the case at bar. under Article 2208(2)46 of the Civil Code. thus. the award of attorney’s fees is proper where the plaintiff is compelled to litigate with third persons or incur expenses to protect his interest because of the defendant’s act or omission.47 Anent the monthly installments respondent Rowena paid to petitioners.43 Indeed. respondent Rowena took advantage of the SPA. Put simply. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud. the seller’s obligation to convey and the buyer’s right toconveyance of the property arise only upon full payment of the price. commits a substantial and fundamental breach which entitles the seller to rescission of the contract. or delay. Although respondent Rowena was clearly unjustified in prematurely and covertly transferring the title to the subject land in her name. and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof. find respondent Rowena liable for moral damages and attorney’s fees which we fix at P100.45 Further. our review of the records leads us to conclude that respondent Rowena is entitled to the reimbursement of the same with legal interest.00. in the name of her mother and executed four years prior to the contract to sell. as sellers. respectively. and (2) she orchestrated the aforesaid transfer of title without the knowledge and consent of petitioners.00 and P50.000. Her own testimony and documentary evidence established this fact.effects full payment therefor. Reynalda. as buyer.42 As a result. incompatible with good faith. We. Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides: Art. Fraud or malice (dolo) has been defined as a "conscious and intentional design to evade the normal fulfillment of existing obligations" and is. thus. are liable for damages. the award of moral damages is proper. rule that petitioners are entitled to the rescission of the subject contract to sell. considering that these acts betrayed in no small measure the trust reposed by petitioners in her and her mother. thus. to effect the transfer of title to the subject land in her (Rowena’s) name without the knowledge and consent of petitioners and despite non-payment of the full price. a buyer who willfully contravenes this fundamental object or purpose of the contract.000. 1170. Here. negligence. Thus. we deplore petitioners’ lack of candor in prosecuting their claims before the trial . Where fraud and bad faith have been established. by covertly transferring the ownership of the property in his name at a time when the full purchase price has yet to be paid. respondent Rowena’s aforesaid acts caused petitioners to incur expenses in litigating their just claims.58% thereof) when she had the title to the subject land transferred to her name. Petitioners are entitled to moral damages and attorney’s fees while respondent Rowena is entitled to the reimbursement of the monthly installments with legal interest. We. it would be highly iniquitous for us to rule that petitioners. we find that respondent Rowena was guilty of fraud in the performance of her obligation under the subject contract to sell because (1) she knew that she had not yet paid the full price (having paid only 32. should continue with the contract to sell even after the discovery of the aforesaid breach committed by respondent Rowena.
141.902.00 Exchange Rate (peso per dollar) 24.114.00 500.00 13.00 12.770. in their Complaint.50 13. petitioners made no mention of the fact that they had entered into a contract to sell with respondent Rowena and that they had received 23 monthly installments from the latter.1140 25.00 500.983. thus. The records indicate that.00 500.00 500. 1995 June 30.50 13.2880 26. 1997 March 31.00 13.50 13.287.172.50 12.3670 26.187.00 12. 1995 May 29.50 12.013. when respondent Rowena presented the proof of payment of the monthly installments in her Answer to the Complaint.5750 25.557. The total amount to be reimbursed by petitioners to respondent Rowena is computed as follows: Date January 25.3740 28. that this was brought to light to which petitioners readily admitted. 1997 Amount Paid (in dollars) 1. 1996 June 30. 1995 February 21.00 13.00 500.787. 1997 July 19.00 500.0270 25.00 500. 1996 October 29.00 13. 1995 March 27. be returned to her with legal interest.128. 1996 September 30.00 13.2570 26.2030 26.00 500.00 12.00 .183.101.00 500.00 500. 1995 June 1.8040 25.000.00 500.00 500.094. the sums paid by respondent Rowena as monthly installments to petitioners should. The Complaint merely alleged that the subject sale was done without the knowledge and consent of petitioners. 1997 February 28.00 500.7700 25.00 500.50 13.5740 Peso Equivalent 24.2830 26. 1996 August 31.792.00 500. It was only later on.00 500. In view of the foregoing. 1996 December 31.144.50 13. 1995 July 31.00 14. 1997 May 31. Further.3330 26.9670 26. 1996 January 31.00 500. 1995 April 25.101.3440 26.50 13.166. no evidence was presented to prove that respondent Rowena occupied the subject land or benefited from the use thereof upon commencement of the contract to sell which would have justified the setting off of rental income against the monthly installments paid by respondent Rowena to petitioners.00 500.2020 26.50 13.court and intent to evade recognition of the monthly installments that they received from respondent Rowena. 1996 July 31.5850 26.2280 26.1880 26.
00 with an interest of 6% per annum computed from May 19.00 500. effected through the deed of sale dated July 23. executed an SPA in favor of Reynalda.9380 34. 1997 October 31. Town of Malaybalay. Court of Appeals. v.469. as principals and sellers. 1997. AURORA TUMIBAY and DELFIN TUMIBAY. xxxx To sign all papers and documents on our behalf in a contract of sale x x x.00 30. (2) seek the approval of petitioners as to the selling price thereof. of legal age and presently residing at 36 Armstrong Drive.50 16. As can be seen. Philippines. The SPA stated in part: That we spouses. ordered to pay respondent Rowena the sum of P327. 1998 until finality of judgment and thereafter of 12% per annum until fully paid.327. Town of Quezon. among others. and (3) sign the contract of sale on behalf of petitioners upon . of legal age and residing at Don Carlos. Clark.8730 34. New Jersey. widow. Inc. place and stead and for our use and benefit to do and perform the following acts and deed: To administer our real property located in the Province of Bikidnon.936. we now rule on the validity of the deed of sale dated July 23. is void. It will be recalled that on December 12. 1997 September 30. for us and in our name. Barrio of Bantaunon. The sale of the subject land. 1997 500. petitioners. the selling price of which will be subject to our approval.August 31.442.50 17. To offer for sale said properties.6550 Total 15. constitute and appoint REYNALDA VISITACION. 199849 until finality of judgement and thereafter at 12% per annum until fully paid in accordance with our ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines. Paradise.442.1650 33.082. 1997 November 30.51. we set the interest rate at 6% per annum computed from the time of the filing of the Answer48 to the Complaint on May 19. 1990. the SPA gave Reynalda the power and duty to. Maramag and Barrio of Kiburiao.00 500.50 Petitioners are. Towns of Maramag.00 17. Having ruled that respondent Rowena was in substantial breach of the contract to sell because she had the title to the subject land transferred in her name without the knowledge and consent of petitioners and despite lack of full payment of the purchase price.50 327. 1997 which was used to effect the aforesaid transfer of ownership. (1) offer for sale the subject land to prospective buyers. as agent.00 500. thus.00 Since this amount is neither a loan nor forbearance of money. to be our true and lawful Attorney-in-fact. 07066 name. Bukidnon.
had paid only 32. however. We disagree. nonetheless. as buyer. ruled that whatever defect attended the sale of the subject land should be deemed impliedly ratified by petitioners’ acceptance of the monthly installments paid by respondent Rowena. under Article 1898 of the Civil Code. That petitioners continued to receive four monthly installments even after the premature titling of the subject land in the name of respondent Rowena. by itself. done beyond the scope of the latter’s authority.58% of the purchase price. as attorney-in-fact of petitioner Aurora. when Reynalda. .00. As stated earlier. signed the subject deed of sale dated July 23. there would have been no obstacle to its use by Reynalda had the ensuing sale been consummated according to its terms.00 which was not approved by the latter.00 (which may be treated as the approved price) was not yet fully paid because respondent Rowena at the time had paid only P260. September 30. respondent Rowena cannot deny that she was aware of the limits of Reynalda’s power under the SPA because she (Rowena) was the one who testified that the agreed price for the subject land was P800. the fact that petitioners continued to receive the aforesaid monthly installments tended to establish that they had yet to discover the covert transfer of title in the name of respondent Rowena.262. For her part. 1997.000. as previously discussed.000. acted beyond the scope of her authority because she signed the subject deed of sale. Article 1898 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1898.. Though not clearly stated in its Decision.000. at a price of P95. the evidence on record established that the subject sale was done without petitioners’ knowledge and consent which would explain why receipt or acceptance by petitioners of the aforementioned four monthly installments still occurred. In this case. August 31. therefore. would forego the reservation or retention of the ownership over the subject land. and the principal does not ratify the contract. However. establish that petitioners ratified such sale. the appellate court seemed to rely on the four monthly installments (i. Although the SPA was executed four years prior to the contract to sell. 1997. the agent is liable if he undertook to secure the principal’s ratification. October 31. the agreed price of P800. and November 30. especially so in this case where respondent Rowena. may cure the defect in the contract entered into between the agent and a third person. The appellate court conceded that there was no evidence that respondents sought the approval of petitioners for the subject sale but it. Further. on behalf of petitioners. It should be noted that. exceeding the scope of his authority. which was intended to guarantee the full payment of the price under the contract to sell.e. 1997. it shall be void if the party with whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the powers granted by the principal. it runs contrary to common human experience and reason that petitioners. On the contrary. did not. This seems to be the line of reasoning adopted by the appellate court in upholding the validity of the subject sale. as sellers.locating a buyer willing and able to purchase the subject land at the price approved by petitioners.50. the principal’s ratification of the acts of the agent. 1997) respondent Rowena paid to petitioners which the latter presumably received and accepted even after the execution of the deed of sale dated July 23. If the agent contracts in the name of the principal. through the deed of sale dated July 23.52 Reynalda.
without the knowledge and consent of petitioners. impliedly or expressly. as buyer. the Petition is GRANTED. between petitioners. 4. as buyer. Respondent Rowena is ordered to pay petitioners the sum of P100.1âwphi1 3. represented by Reynalda as her attorney-infact.00 as attorney’s fees. 2759-98 is REINSTATED and MODIFIED to read as follows: 1. as agent. The January 6. 1998 until finality of this Decision.In a contract to sell. therefore. The deed of sale dated July 23. 2005 Decision and February 10. (2) respondent Rowena was aware of the limits of the authority of Reynalda under the SPA. 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Petitioners are ordered to pay respondent Rowena the sum of P327. 1997 over the subject land.442. T-62674. entitled to the reconveyance of the subject land. acted beyond the scope of her authority under the SPA when she executed the deed of sale dated July 23.000. Based on the foregoing. between petitioner Aurora. T-25334 in the name of petitioner Aurora. we rule that (1) Reynalda. WHEREFORE. T-25334. The May 19. T-62674 in the name of respondent Rowena and to reinstate TCT No. Under Article 1898 of the Civil Code. covered by TCT No. No costs.R. In case petitioners fail to pay the amount due upon finality of this Decision. the sale is void and petitioners are. 2. as principals and sellers. and respondent Rowena.00 with legal interest of 6% per annum from May 19. and conveyed the subject land to respondent Rowena at a price not approved by petitioners. they shall pay legal interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum until fully paid. SO ORDERED. The contract to sell over the subject land.00 as moral damages andP50. 79029 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. as sellers. is declared rescinded. 5. it would be unusual for the seller to consent to the transfer of ownership of the property to the buyer prior to the full payment of the purchase price because the reservation of the ownership in the seller is precisely intended to protect the seller from the buyer. Branch 9 in Civil Case No. the acts of Reynalda. 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City. CV No. We. find that petitioners’ claim that they did not ratify the subject sale. and respondent Rowena is declared void. To rule otherwise would be to reward respondent Rowena for the fraud that she committed on petitioners. covered by TCT No. The Register of Deeds of Malaybalay City is ordered to cancel TCT No. 1997 in favor of respondent Rowena.000. . thus. and (3) petitioners did not ratify. and that the subsequent discovery of the aforesaid fraudulent sale led them to promptly file this case with the courts to be more credible and in accord with the evidence on record. which was done without their knowledge and consent.
00 as evidenced by Promissory Note (PN) No.54 for PN No.a. sent a demand letter to the former for them to pay their obligations. of the total amount due. a loan in the amount of P300. BD 84-055 and P2. J. No. The antecedent facts are as follows: On December 11. petitioner Florentino T. through its lawyer. but was renewed up to February 17. 2013 SPOUSES FLORENTINO T.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. 1985.294. DECISION PERALTA. 197861 June 5. a penalty and collection charges of 12% p. Mallari (Florentino) obtained from respondent Prudential Bank-Tarlac Branch (respondent bank). the loan was subject to an interest rate of 21% per annum (p. 1985. BDS 606-89. thus. which when computed up to January 31. the latter.R. amounted to P571. in case of default. BDS 606-895 with a maturity date of March 22.991. MALLARI.a. The loan had a maturity date of January 10. On December 22. T-215175 of the Register of Deeds of Tarlac to answer for the said loan. Petitioner Florentino executed a Deed of Assignment4 wherein he authorized the respondent bank to pay his loan with his time deposit with the latter in the amount ofP300. attorney's fees equivalent to 15% of the total amount due but not less than P200. attorney's fees equivalent to 15% p.. . assailing the Decision1 dated June 17. 1989. 65993.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.000.00 and.218. 1990. 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. 1984.3 Under the promissory note. Petitioners.82 for PN No. BD 84-055.00. They stipulated that the loan will bear 23% interest p. Petitioners failed to settle their loan obligations with respondent bank. of the total amount due.a. Petitioners executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage6 in favor of respondent bank covering petitioners' property under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. and penalty and collection charges of 12% p. but not less than P200.7 million as evidenced by PN No.00. 2010 and the Resolution2 dated July 20. Respondent. PRUDENTIAL BANK (now BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS).000. 1992.a. CV No.a. vs. petitioners spouses Florentino and Aurea Mallari (petitioners) obtained again from respondent bank another loan of P1.R. MALLARI and AUREA V.).
1993.043. 1992. that: (1) the P300. In an Order8 dated November 10. the RTC issued its Order13 denying respondent bank's Motion to Dismiss Complaint. and (3) the statement of account as of April 10.171. On April 20. deeds.000.18.7 million loan obligation for purposes of applying the proceeds of the auction sale. which the RTC granted in its Order10 dated March 9. On July 7. Respondent bank filed its Answer with counterclaim arguing that: (1) the interest rates were clearly provided in the promissory notes. (2) respondent bank still added theP300.000. and that the extrajudicial foreclosure was sought for the satisfaction of the second loan in the amount of P1. (2) as early as January 1986.700. .700. injunction.7 million covered by PN No. petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage. the RTC denied the Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.00 was increased to P594. 1993. 1992 provided for a computation of interest and penalty charges only from May 26.00 loan obligation should have been considered paid. and (3) they realized that there were onerous terms and conditions imposed by respondent bank when it tried to unilaterally increase the charges and interest over and above those stipulated.00 loan was already P3.00. the auction sale was set by the Provincial Sheriff on April 23.7 On April 10. 84-055. 1992.. Respondent bank filed its Motion to Lift Restraining Order. respondent bank filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint11 for failure to prosecute action for unreasonable length of time to which petitioners filed their Opposition.54. 1998. a petition for the extrajudicial foreclosure of petitioners' mortgaged property for the satisfaction of the latter's obligation ofP1. preliminary injunction.000.000. 284051 had already been assigned to respondent bank. i. because the time deposit with the same amount under Certificate of Time Deposit No. 1992. temporary restraining order and damages claiming. a Certificate of Sale was issued to respondent bank being the highest bidder in the amount ofP3. Subsequently.000.500. the loan of P300. in petitioners' Supplemental Motion for Issuance of a Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction to enjoin respondent bank and the Provincial Sheriff from effecting or conducting the auction sale.e. Respondent bank then proceeded with the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property. 1992.00 loan. Petitioners asked the court to restrain respondent bank from proceeding with the scheduled foreclosure sale.00 loan covered by another PN No. while the P1. 1992. However.000. Respondent bank also claimed that petitioners were fully apprised of the bank's terms and conditions. 1992. and not the P300. since the proceeds of petitioners' time deposit was applied to the payment of interest and penalty charges for the preceding period. BDS 606-89 and the real estate mortgage. respondent bank filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac. thus. petitioners' time deposit was made to apply for the payment of interest of their P300.00 secured by such mortgage.000. 1989.836.00 loan to the P1.On February 25. respondent bank's Assistant Manager sent petitioners two (2) separate Statements of Account as of April 23. among others. 1993.12 On November 19. which were used in computing for interest charges. the RTC reversed itself and issued the restraining order in its Order9 dated January 14.000.
00 loan. which was then the prevailing loan rate of interest could not be considered unconscionable. and that contrary to petitioners' claim.043.00 as penalty charges was unjust and without basis.Trial thereafter ensued. the Court need not order the plaintiffs to pay damages under the general concept that there should be no premium on the right to litigate.18 per Statement of Account dated April 27. The RTC found that the 23% interest rate p.7 million loan obligation for purposes of applying the proceeds of the auction sale.5 million. this case is hereby ordered DISMISSED..000. the CA issued its assailed Decision. since petitioners had not paid any single centavo of the P1. the amount of P292.82 as of January 31.00 loan to the P1. hence.5 million as of the auction sale. 1993 added to the loan already amounted to P3. Petitioner Florentino was presented as the lone witness for the plaintiffs. but the certificate of sale was executed by the sheriff only on July 7. 1992. On June 17. which maturity coincided with petitioners' loan maturity. It found that since petitioners' obligation had reached P2. 1992 to July 7. 2010. Petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the CA. NO COSTS.8 million.7 million loan which showed they had not complied with any part of the obligation.000. On November 15. the dispositive portion of which reads: . if the loan was unpaid.836.991.000. Subsequently. the latter should return to petitioners the difference of P1.15 The RTC found that as to the P300. respondent bank filed a Demurrer to Evidence.00 in favor of respondent bank. However.00 loan.600. 1985. respondent bank should had just applied the time deposit to the loan. 1993. As to the P1. which was computed based on the 23% interest rate and 12% penalty charge agreed upon by the parties.294. it had reached the amount of P3.a. respondent bank did not. 1999.7 million loan which petitioners obtained from respondent bank after the P300. after the restraining order was lifted.7 million and respondent bank's bid price was P3. the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED. the RTC issued its Order14 granting respondent's demurrer to evidence. A Comment was filed by respondent bank and petitioners filed their Reply thereto. 1993.000. Thus. 1992.54 as of April 10. respondent bank did not add the P300. The RTC found no legal basis for petitioners' claim that since the total obligation was P1. which was later extended to February 17. the stipulated interest and penalty charges from January 31. petitioners had assigned petitioner Florentino's time deposit in the amount of P300. and allowed the loan interest to accumulate reaching the amount of P594. since banks are not hospitable or equitable institutions but are entities formed primarily for profit. It also found that Article 1229 of the Civil Code invoked by petitioners for the reduction of the interest was not applicable. Considering there is no evidence of bad faith.171.
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient. respectively. COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE RTCBRANCH 64. clauses.00 and would not be sufficient to cover the interest.23 where the stipulated interest rates were 7% and 5% a month. or a 5. morals.a. since such contract is the law between the parties.00 loan was added to the P1. In Medel v. which are equivalent to 84% and 60% p.a.000. Court of Appeals. Spouses Ganzon-Olan.22 the stipulated interest rates involved were 3% and 3. 7550 is hereby AFFIRMED.000. imposed by respondent bank is excessive or unconscionable. thus. which the CA denied in a Resolution dated July 20. good customs. petitioners and respondent bank agreed upon on a 23% p.21 we found the stipulated interest rate of 66% p. 1992. Parties are free to enter into agreements and stipulate as to the terms and conditions of their contract.a. 2011. in Civil Case No. interest rate on the P1. Spouses Ganzon-Olan. if the stipulations in the contract are valid. DATED NOVEMBER 15.a. TARLAC CITY. Tarlac City. public order.16 The CA found that the time deposit of P300. 1999. in the Statement of Account dated April 10.a. likewise. Timan. petitioners filed this petition for review arguing that: THE HON. 1999 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). the outstanding balance of petitioners' loan was P594. but such freedom is not absolute. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER.19 and Chua v.00 was equivalent only to the principal amount of the loan ofP300. collection charges and attorney's fees agreed upon.81% per month on a P10 million loan. Hence. we had reduced the same to 1% per month or 12% p. The Order dated November 15.000.54. In this case. contrary to morals if not against the law and declared such stipulation void. Branch 64. the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.a. invoking our ruling in Medel v. provided they are not contrary to law.000. We said that we . While in Chua v. petitioners now contend that the interest rate of 23% p.18 Toring v. penalty charge on petitioners'P1. found that the interest rates and penalty charges imposed were not unconscionable and adopted in toto the findings of the RTC on the matter. Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration. interest rate and the 12% p. or public policy.700. the parties thereto are bound to comply with them. Timan. It also found not persuasive petitioners' claim that the P300. penalty.17 The issue for resolution is whether the 23% p.000." Hence..7 million loan.a. Court of Appeals.WHEREFORE.7 million loan.00 loan to which they agreed upon is excessive or unconscionable under the circumstances.043. As Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides. The CA. In Toring v. which we find under the circumstances excessive and reduced the same to 1% per month. However. unconscionable and exorbitant.5% per month on aP500.20 We are not persuaded.00 loan excessive. "The contracting parties may establish such stipulations. hence.
this Court sustained the agreement of the parties to a 24% per annum interest on an P8. the stipulation was void for being contrary to morals. It is an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the part of an obligor in case of breach of an obligation. We do not consider the interest rate of 23% p. agreed upon by petitioners and respondent bank to be unconscionable.a. the Court finds that the 24% per annum interest rate. may not be considered unconscionable. or less than 2% per month.25 where the issue raised was whether the 24% p.00.649. hence. agreed upon by the parties.need not unsettle the principle we had affirmed in a plethora of cases that stipulated interest rates of 3% per month and higher are excessive.00 loan finding the same to be reasonable and clearly evidenced by the amended credit line agreement entered into by the parties as well as two promissory notes executed by the borrower in favor of the lender. Also referred to as a penalty clause.1âwphi1 This surcharge or penalty stipulated in a loan agreement in case of default partakes of the nature of liquidated damages under Art. In Villanueva v. we answered in the negative and held: In Spouses Zacarias Bacolor and Catherine Bacolor v. We also do not find the stipulated 12% p. In Ruiz v. which are much lower than those interest rates agreed upon by the parties in the above-mentioned cases. it is expressly recognized by law. CA. there is no similarity of factual milieu for the application of those cases.a. Court of Appeals.26 Clearly. unconscionable and exorbitant. Dagupan City Branch.a.00.27 we held: The 1% surcharge on the principal loan for every month of default is valid. the same is the law between them and they are bound to comply with the provisions contained therein. the 23% p. Court of Appeals.000.a. 2227 of the New Civil Code. thus. stipulated interest rate was not considered unconscionable.. this Court held that the interest rate of 24% per annum on a loan of P244. interest rate imposed on petitioners' loan in this case can by no means be considered excessive or unconscionable. The obligor would then be bound to pay . the Court ruled that the borrowers cannot renege on their obligation to comply with what is incumbent upon them under the contract of loan as the said contract is the law between the parties and they are bound by its stipulations. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank. Also. may not be considered as unconscionable and excessive. penalty charge excessive or unconscionable. Thus.a. the interest rate agreed upon by the parties was only 23% p. Moreover.250.24 In this case. Based on the above jurisprudence. and is separate and distinct from interest payment. As such. in Garcia v. considering that the mortgage agreement was freely entered into by both parties. provided for in the subject mortgage contracts for a loan of P225. stipulated interest rate is unreasonable under the circumstances.a.000. jurisprudence establish that the 24% p.
Family Foods Manufacturing Co... . 2010 and the Resolution dated July 20. A contract is the law between the parties and they are bound by the stipulations therein. The non-performance gives rise to the presumption of fault. the debtor has the burden of proving an excuse .the failure of the performance was due to either force majeure or the acts of the creditor himself. The Decision dated June 17. penalty charge. and since there was no showing that petitioners' failure to perform their obligation was due to force majeure or to respondent bank's acts. the petition for review is DENIED. in order to avoid the payment of the penalty.the stipulated amount of indemnity without the necessity of proof on the existence and on the measure of damages caused by the breach. x x x28 And in Development Bank of the Philippines v. SO ORDERED.30 Here. Ltd.a. 2011 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.29 we held that: x x x The enforcement of the penalty can be demanded by the creditor only when the non-performance is due to the fault or fraud of the debtor. WHEREFORE. petitioners cannot now back out on their obligation to pay the penalty charge. petitioners defaulted in the payment of their loan obligation with respondent bank and their contract provided for the payment of 12% p.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY. Respondent. 2006. ordering respondent Local Government of Quezon City (the City) to pay petitioner Henry L. Subsequently.. 1996. 2012 Resolution3of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. was enacted on April 12. 1997. 7160 (RA 7160). including P200. 1994.500. through then Mayor Ismael Mathay. Sp-181.R.00 as exemplary damages and attorney’s fees equivalent to one percent (1%) of the total amount due. 2008 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Sy did not question the City’s right to expropriate the subject property.000. m. 2012 Decision2 and July 16. Victor Salinas (Commissioner Salinas) and Atty. 2013 HENRY L. SY. day-care center. 91964 which affirmed with modification the August 22. playground and community activity center for the benefit of the residents of Barangay Balingasa. Ordinance No. Sy (Sy) just compensation set as P5. representing 15% of the fair market value of the subject property based on its tax declaration. owned and registered under the name of Sy (subject property). Petitioner.5 which was intended to be used as a site for a multi-purpose barangay hall. pursuant to Section 198 of Republic Act No. 2008.7 On March 18. vs. the City.00 with the Office of the Clerk of Court. recommended the payment . Commissioners Ostaco and Alcantara. 202690 June 5.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.000 sq.: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the January 20. No." the City deposited the amount of P241.10 On July 6. Jr. m. Balintawak. J. CV No. Thus. parcel of land. Quezon City. The Facts On November 7. 2006.090. the RTC appointed Edgardo Ostaco (Commissioner Ostaco).00 per square meter (sq.R. DECISION PERLAS-BERNABE. otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991.). only the amount of just compensation remained at issue. Branch 80 (RTC) in Civil Case No. Carlo Alcantara (Commissioner Alcantara) as commissioners to determine the proper amount of just compensation to be paid by the City for the subject property.6 The requisite ordinance to undertake the aforesaid expropriation namely. filed a complaint for expropriation with the RTC in order to acquire a 1. Engr. in a Report dated February 11.9 During the preliminary conference on November 8. Q-96-29352. s-94.
m. 1996. citing the case of Manila International Airport Authority v. or on November 7. held that the just compensation for the subject property should be set at P5. m. On the other hand. for the 1.12 the RTC.18 (b) the market value of the subject lot in the amount of P2. 2012. Accordingly.000.of P5. while legal interest was not claimed. 2008. it observed that the expropriation would not leave the rest of Sy’s properties useless as they would still be accessible through a certain Lot 8 based on the Property Identification Map. m.00 per sq. 2008.050. respectively.00 per sq.20 stating that the subject property has a total market value of P2.00. Likewise. it found no basis for the award of damages and back rentals in favor of Sy.24 It. m. Sy filed an appeal with the CA.00 per sq.000. 1996 until full payment of just compensation.15 Dissatisfied. adopted the findings of Commissioners Ostaco and Alcantara and thus.00 and attorney’s fees equivalent to one percent (1%) of the amount due because of the City’s taking of the subject property without even initiating expropriation proceedings. m. It found the appraisal of Commissioners Ostaco and Alcantara for the subject property to be more believable than the P13.00 per sq. m. 1996 recommendation of the City Appraisal Committee.19 and (c) Sy’s own tax declaration for 1996. Rodriguez (MIAA). based on several sworn statements made by Sy himself. however.500.00 per sq. m. m.. for equity considerations.23 it awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P200. denied Sy’s claim of back rentals considering that the RTC had already granted legal interest in his favor..500.000. ordering the City to pay Sy the amount of P200.000. as just compensation. subject property arrived at by Commissioners Ostaco and Alcantara was more than fair and reasonable. citing the principle that just compensation must be fair not only to the owner but to the expropriator as well. finding no sufficient evidence to support the same.21 The CA also denied Sy’s assertion that he should be entitled to damages on account of the purported shelving of his housing project. based on the September 4.00 as exemplary damages and attorney’s fees equivalent to one percent (1%) of the total amount due. recommending the higher amount ofP13.500.500.500.13 Further.000.00 per sq. it held that the fair market value ofP5. computed from November 7.00 per sq.11 The RTC Ruling In the Order dated August 22.000. it awarded six percent (6%) legal interest.14 Finally.17 the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling but modified the same. to be computed from the date of the filing of the expropriation complaint.000 sq. considering that it was arrived at after taking into account: (a) the fair market value of the subject property in the amount of P4.272. valuation made by independent appraisers Cuervo and Asian Appraisers in 1995 and 1996. or P5. Commissioner Salinas filed a separate Report dated March 7.00 in total.25 .22 Nonetheless.16 The CA Ruling In the Decision dated January 20.
the party invoking such should be able to show that the procedural oversight or lapse is attended by a genuine miscalculation or unforeseen fortuitousness which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against so as to justify the relief sought. The Court’s Ruling The petition is partly meritorious. 2012. the Court cannot excuse Atty. excusable negligence. Meris). 201226 for being filed out of time. the erroneous stamping of the Notice of Decision could have been averted if only he had instituted a credible filing system in his office to .31 which thus. this petition. 2012. any motion for reconsideration therefrom should have been filed not later than fifteen (15) days from receipt.Aggrieved.35 In this accord. Verily.27 The City also filed a motion for reconsideration which was equally denied for lack of merit. it is apt to mention that Sy’s counsel.32 In this regard. instead of January 26.30 However. was properly dismissed by the CA.29 or on February 10. on the Notice of Decision33 constitutes excusable negligence which should therefore.36 Applying these principles. The assertion is untenable.28 Hence. claims that his secretary’s inadvertent placing of the date January 27. A. (b) upheld the amount of just compensation as determined by the RTC as well as its grant of six percent (6%) legal interest. or on February 13. Failure to seasonably move for reconsideration. 2012 Decision was received by Sy on January 26. and (c) awarded exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Sy filed his motion for reconsideration (subject motion) a day late. Atty. justify a relaxation of the rules. the duty rests on every counsel to see to adopt and strictly maintain a system that will efficiently take into account all court notices sent to him. 2012 and as such. Records show that. Tranquilino F. Sy moved for reconsideration which was denied in the Resolution dated July 16. Issues Before The Court The present controversy revolves around the issue of whether the CA correctly: (a) dismissed Sy’s motion for reconsideration for being filed out of time. A claim of excusable negligence does not loosely warrant a relaxation of the rules. Meris’ misstep based on his proffered reasons. 2012.34 The standard of carerequired is that which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his important business. renders the CA decision final and executory. relaxation of procedural rules At the outset. Evidently. 2012. the Court observes that Sy’s motion for reconsideration was filed out of time and thus. the CA’s January 20. as per the Postmaster’s Certification. Meris (Atty.
it fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. bar the instant petition – is incommensurate to the injustice which Sy may suffer.account for oversights such as that committed by his secretary. be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons in order to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. were incorrectly adjudged by both the RTC and the CA. as well as the time of its accrual. the final compensation must include interests on its just value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred.37 Corollarily. The Bulacan trial court. Thus. the rule. In the case of Republic v. ordinary prudence could have prevented such mistake.39 the Court ruled that the debt incurred by the government on account of the taking of the property subject of an expropriation constitutes an effective forbearance which therefore. or where the interest of justice so requires. CA. In fine. if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case. nonetheless. at 12% per annum should help . may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property. was correct in imposing interests on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September 1969. the Court deems it proper to relax the rules of procedure and thus. B. 2012 Decision already final and executory and hence. owing to the nature of the City’s obligation as an effective forbearance. the Court finds that the procedural consequence of the abovediscussed one-day delay in the filing of the subject motion – which.38 As applied in this case. in its 1979 decision. In this respect. viz: The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property. as a matter of course. proceed to resolve these substantive issues. warrants the application of the 12% legal interest rate. between the taking of the property and the actual payment. the rate of legal interest. should render the CA’s January 20. being an effective forbearance. which states that the mistakes of counsel bind the client. contrary to existing jurisprudence. procedural rules may. Be that as it may. This allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the property as of the time of the taking computed. the Court holds that the correct rate of legal interest to be applied is twelve percent (12%) and not six percent (6%) per annum. This is in line with the Court’s observation that the amount of just compensation. and one who desires to sell. broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who receives. Indeed. Rate of legal interest and time of accrual Based on a judicious review of the records and application of jurisprudential rulings.
Accordingly."44 Notably. the Court.eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over time. i. 1996. as it previously admitted. in its January 20. s-94. as of the date of the taking. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In similar regard. the property was actually taken during that time and from thereon. when there is a practical destruction or a material impairment of the value of his property or when he is deprived of the ordinary use thereof. Judge Lolita Contreras-Besana . the Court has held that:43 x x x [T]he final compensation must include interests on its just value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. however. However. 2012 Decision. legal interest should have already accrued. the lack of proper authorization.47 wherein the Court said: . the same should be computed from the time of the taking of the subject property in 1986 and not from the filing of the complaint for expropriation on November 7. it already commenced with the taking of the subject property as early as 1986. the legal character of the City’s action as one of "taking" did not change.45 did not affect the character of the City’s taking of the subject property in 1986 as the CA.. the CA noted that the City enacted Ordinance No."42 Thus. in Land Bank of the Philippines v. "a burden was already imposed upon the owner of the subject property x x x. The MIAA ruling was applied in the more recent case of City of Iloilo v. Sp-181. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) As to the reckoning point on which the legal interest should accrue. resolution to effect expropriation.41 it has been repeated time and again that the award of 12% interest is imposed in the nature of damages for delay in payment which in effect makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance. Records show that the City itself admitted in its Appellee’s Brief filed before the CA that as early as 1986.46 Therefore. interest must run from such time. Case law dictates that there is "taking" when the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property.1âwphi1 As correctly observed by the CA. proceed without any consequence. Rivera. suggests.e. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees should be awarded to the landowner if the government takes possession of the property for a prolonged period of time without properly initiating expropriation proceedings. This is to ensure prompt payment of the value of the land and limit the opportunity loss of the owner that can drag from days to decades. notwithstanding the lack of proper authorization. 1996. considering that the expropriated property was already being used as Barangay day care and office. This irregularity does not. x x x (Emphasis supplied) This is based on the principle that interest "runs as a matter of law and follows from the right of the landowner to be placed in as good position as money can accomplish. 1994 and filed its expropriation complaint on November 7. only on April 12. citing as basis the MIAA case. In this light. In this relation.40 pronounced that: In many cases decided by this Court.
as just compensation which was set by the RTC and upheld by the CA. To our mind. as of the date of the taking x x x.500. the case must be remanded to the RTC in order to properly determine the amount of just compensation during such time the subject property was actually taken. Accordingly. however. The said valuation was actually arrived at after considering: (a) the September 4.00 as well as attorney’s fees equivalent to 1% of the total amount due amply justified. the award of exemplary damages and attorneys fees is in order.R. the case is REMANDED to the trial court for the proper determination of the amount of just compensation in accordance with this Decision. the Court cannot sustain the amount of P5. its valuation in 1996. the above-stated documents do not reflect the value of the subject property at the time of its taking in 1986 but rather.00/sq. the Court finds the grant of exemplary damages in the amount of P200.000. square as it is with existing jurisprudence. 1996 recommendation of the City Appraisal Committee. the trial court is hereby ordered to fix the just compensation for petitioner Henry L. the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Amount of just compensation Finally. Consequently. C.000. respondent Local Government of Quezon City is ordered to PAY exemplary damages in the amount ofP200.We stress.49 However. these are wanton and irresponsible acts which should be suppressed and corrected. 91964 are hereby SET ASIDE. the MIAA occupied the subject lot without the benefit of expropriation proceedings and without the MIAA exerting efforts to ascertain ownership of the lot and negotiating with any of the owners of the property. (b) several sworn statements made by Sy himself. Finally. that the City of Iloilo should be held liable for damages for taking private respondent’s property without payment of just compensation. Sy's property with dispatch and report to the Court its compliance.00 and attorney's . WHEREFORE. The January 20. x x x. Rodriguez. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied. CV No. This is based on the principle that interest "runs as a matter of law and follows from the right of the landowner to be placed in as good position as money can accomplish. To forestall any further delay in the resolution of this case. from said point up to full payment by the MIAA. 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. the Court held that a government agency’s prolonged occupation of private property without the benefit of expropriation proceedings undoubtedly entitled the landowner to damages: Such pecuniary loss entitles him to adequate compensation in the form of actual or compensatory damages. In Manila International Airport Authority v. m. xxxx For more than twenty (20) years. which in this case should be the legal interest (6%) on the value of the land at the time of taking. 2012 Decision and July 16.48 It is well-settled that the amount of just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking. citations omitted) All told. Hence. and (c) Sy’s own tax declaration for 1996.
fees equivalent to one percent (1%) of the amount due. . SO ORDERED. after final determination of the amount of just compensation.
..R. (ii) the parties had initially agreed on the terms of payment. defendants-appellants engaged the services of plaintiff-appellee by buying aggregates materials from plaintiff-appellee. represented by defendantsappellants Rogelio Espiritu and Rolando Macasaet. as follows: The present case involves a simple purchase transaction between defendant-appellant Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC). or "Check Before Delivery.. alleging that (i) in March 1998. represented by CESAR M. CJ. defendants-appellants requested from plaintiff-appellee a 30-day term from the delivery date within which to pay. ONG. JR. and (iii) after making deliveries pursuant to the purchase orders and despite demands by plaintiff-appellee.80 "plus legal interest at the rate of not less than 6% monthly. we hereby adopt the CA’s findings. 190957 June 5. which plaintiff-appellee accepted. The Antecedent Facts Considering that there are no factual issues involved." among others. The complaint prayed for payment of the amount of P782.296. No. involving crushed basalt rock delivered by plaintiffappellee to defendant-appellant PNCC. defendants appellants failed and refused to pay and settle their overdue accounts.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G. 1999 until the full obligation is completely settled and paid. Jr. the primordial issue to be resolved is whether the Court of Appeals (CA)1 correctly affirmed the court a quo2 in holding petitioner liable to respondent for attorney’s fees. vs. Petitioner. 2013 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. DECISION SERRENO. On August 17. represented by Cesar M. whereby defendants-appellants would issue the check corresponding to the value of the materials to be delivered. APAC MARKETING CORPORATION.: In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedures. Respondents." but prior to the implementation of the said payment agreement. and plaintiff-appellee APAC. plaintiff-appellee filed with the trial court a complaint against defendants-appellees for collection of sum of money with damages. 1999. Branch 96. as the Court of Appeals (CA) adopted the findings of fact of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Ong. for which the latter had delivered and supplied good quality crushed basalt rock. to start in April.
After the submission of the respective pre-trial briefs of the parties. In an Order dated January 17.000. SO ORDERED. alleging that the obligation of defendantappellant PNCC was only with respect to the balance of the principal obligation that had not been fully paid which. judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff. trial was held. only plaintiff-appellee presented its evidence. SO ORDERED. the decision dated July 10. based on the latest liquidation report. the trial court rendered a Decision. 2000. the principal obligation was fully paid and hence. alleging that the complaint was premature considering that defendant-appellant PNCC had been faithfully paying its obligations to plaintiff-appellee. 3. 2006 is hereby modified.80 was without factual and legal bases. plus P3. 1999.80 as actual damages. P782. 2006." . For their repeated failure to attend the hearings. Defendants-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration. defendants-appellants filed their answer. defendants-appellants filed a motion to dismiss. plus P3. Thus. the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. P50.On November 16.095. Cost of Suit. by ordering defendants jointly and solidarily to pay plaintiff as follows.269. 2006.083 2.00 as attorney’s fees. to wit: 1. defendants-appellants were deemed to have waived the presentation of their evidence. P50. the trial court considered defendants-appellants’ claim of full payment of the principal obligation. 2.00 per court appearance.296.000. the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. amounted to onlyP474. In an Order dated October 6. P220. ordering defendants jointly and solidarily to pay: 1.92.000.234. Cost of suit.00 per court appearance. the award by the trial court of actual damages in the amount ofP782. as can be seen from the substantial reduction of its overdue account as of August 1999. alleging that during the pendency of the case. Thus: "WHEREFORE.00 as attorney’s fees.000. However. On July 10. 3. but still it ordered them to pay legal interest of twelve per cent (12%) per annum.
Thus.4 It should be noted that in said motion. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING DEFENDANTS ROGELIO ESPIRITU AND ROLANDO MACASAET JOINTLY AND SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH DEFENDANT PNCC. which raised the lone issue of the propriety of the award of attorney’s fees in favor of respondent. In the absence on such stipulation. petitioner now assails before us the 9 July 2009 Decision of the CA by raising the sole issue of whether the CA gravely erred in awarding attorney’s fees to respondent. this article restrictively enumerates the instances when these fees may be recovered. Defendants-appellants Rogelio Espiritu and Rolando Macasaet are absolved from liability. the parties may stipulate the recovery of attorney’s fees. 2006 is affirmed in all other respects. the main focus of the Motion for Reconsideration was on the CA’s affirmation of the court a quo’s Decision awarding attorney’s fees in favor of respondent. herein petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. the appealed Order dated October 6. THE COURT’S RULING The Petition is impressed with merit.6 THE SOLE ISSUE Aggrieved. II. THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS On 9 July 2009. computed from January 8.R. to wit: .083 AND ATTORNEY’S FEES IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE. CV No. 88827.Defendants-appellants filed the present appeal which is premised on the following assignment of errors: I. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% PER ANNUM AMOUNTING TO P220. petitioner fully agreed with the CA Decision imposing 6% legal interest per annum on the principal obligation and absolving Rogelio Espiritu and Rolando Macasaet from any liability as members of the board of directors of PNCC. subject to the modification that defendant-appellant PNCC is ordered to pay legal interest at six per cent (6%) per annum on the principal obligation. 2006 is affirmed. the Special Fourth Division of the CA promulgated a Decision3 in CAG. On 29 July 2009. the appellate court’s Former Special Fourth Division denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated 18 January 2010.234. However. 1999 until its full payment in January 2001. Article 2208 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines states the policy that should guide the courts when awarding attorney’s fees to a litigant. The Order dated October 6. As a general rule. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE. affirming with modification the assailed Decision of the court a quo.
the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. and equitable justification. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime. (6) In actions for legal support. cannot be recovered. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid. The general rule is that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.7 this Court had the occasion to expound on the policy behind the grant of attorney’s fees as actual or compensatory damages: (T)he law is clear that in the absence of stipulation. still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause. except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. In the absence of stipulation. (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded. legal. CA. laborers and skilled workers. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights. just and demandable claim. (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. The power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 demands factual. 2208. (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. In all cases.Art. attorney’s fees may be recovered as actual or compensatory damages under any of the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. . (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. v. other than judicial costs. In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.
attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. The CA merely adopted the RTC’s rational for the award. We do not put a premium on the right to litigate.12 We have perused the assailed CA’s Decision. Hence. . legal. considering the dual concept of these fees as ordinary and extraordinary: It is settled that the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule. counsel's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. it is imperative that they clearly and distinctly set forth in their decisions the basis for the award thereof. We have consistently held that an award of attorney’s fees under Article 2208 demands factual. and in all cases it must be reasonable. We can glean from the above ruling that attorney’s fees are not awarded as a matter of course every time a party wins. the basis for the grant must be clearly expressed in the decision of the court.11 It bears reiteration that the award of attorney’s fees is an exception rather than the general rule. while in its extraordinary concept.10 Due to the special nature of the award of attorney’s fees. Villaflores. a rigid standard is imposed on the courts before these fees could be granted. it alleges that the court a quo has not given any factual. or equitable justification for the award of attorney’s fees in favor of respondent. but cannot find any factual. which in this case we find to be sorely inadequate. as part of damages. Attorney's fees. Further. The appellate court simply quoted the portion of the RTC Decision that granted the award as basis for the affirmation thereof. or equitable justification for applying paragraph 11 of Article 2208 as basis the latter’s exercise of discretion in holding petitioner liable for attorney’s fees. Attorney's fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. are not necessarily equated to the amount paid by a litigant to a lawyer. thus. there must be compelling legal reason to bring the case within the exceptions provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code to justify the award. legal.9 We agree with petitioner on these points. In the ordinary sense. As such. On occasions that those fees are awarded.1âwphi1 Petitioner contends that the RTC’s Decision has no finding that would fall under any of the exceptions enumerated in Article 2208 of the new Civil Code. and equitable justification to avoid speculation and conjecture surrounding the grant thereof.In Benedicto v. they may be awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. There is therefore an absence of an independent CA finding of the factual circumstances and legal or equitable basis to justify the grant of attorney’s fees. legal. It is not enough that they merely state the amount of the grant in the dispositive portion of their decisions. it is necessary for the court to make findings of fact and law that would bring the case within the ambit of these enumerated instances to justify the grant of such award. There was no elaboration on the basis.8 we explained the reason behind the need for the courts to arrive upon an actual finding to serve as basis for a grant of attorney’s fees.
we find that there is an obvious lack of a compelling legal reason to consider the present case as one that falls within the exception provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. CV No. Absent such finding. The assailed Decision dated 9 July 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.000.R. is hereby DELETED.000 as acceptance fee and P3. 88827 is MODIFIED. SO ORDERED.000. the foregoing Petition is GRANTED.The RTC found as follows: x x x since it is clear that plaintiff was compelled to hire the services of a counsel. in that the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of P50. as complainant in the civil case.00 which it paid as acceptance fee and P3. we hold that the award of attorney’s fees by the court a quo.000 as appearance fee. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila . in favor of respondent APAC Marketing Incorporated. WHEREFORE. to litigate and to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party. as sustained by the appellate court. was improper and must be deleted. was forced to litigate to protect the latter’s interest.13 The only discernible reason proffered by the trial court in granting the award was that respondent.00 as appearance fee. No pronouncement as to costs. Thus. plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in the amount of P50.
68791. CV No. INC.: Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.R. Vertex wrote FEDGI a letter demanding the issuance of a stock certificate in its name..R. VERTEX SALES AND TRADING. Respondent. 2000). No. Inc.000. During the pendency of the rescission action (or on . plus interest. For this reason. was issued several shares of stock of Forest Hills. As the demand went unheeded. FEGDI sold. INC. 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. 2013 FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT. J. (FELl).00. the share remained in the name of FEGDI. to RS Asuncion Construction Corporation (RSACC) one Class "C" Common Share of Forest Hills for P1. RSACC advised FEGDI of the sale to Vertex and FEGDI. Seventeen (17) months after the sale (or on July 28. 202079 June 10. 89296. Sometime in August 1997. Inc.. FEGDI was the developer of the Forest Hills Golf and Country Club (Forest Hills) and. Petitioners.SECOND DIVISION G. Inc. FELI replied. in turn. It averred that the petitioners defaulted in their obligation as sellers when they failed and refused to issue the stock certificate covering the subject share despite repeated demands. 2001. On the basis of its rights under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. Vertex prayed for the rescission of the sale and demanded the reimbursement of the amount it paid (or P1. but is engaged in real estate development. Branch 161. 1999. filed by petitioners Fil-Estate Golf and Development.000. This prompted Vertex to make a final demand on March 17. FELI is also a stock corporation. 2002 a Complaint for Rescission with Damages and Attachment against FEGDI. 2012 and the resolution3 dated May 31. in Civil Case No. DECISION BRION. and FILESTATE LAND. on installment. The assailed CA rulings reversed the decision dated March 1.00). Although Vertex complied with the request. FELI and Forest Hills.100. (FEGDI) and Fil-Estate Land. initially requested Vertex to first pay the necessary fees for the transfer. vs. 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. Vertex enjoyed membership privileges in Forest Hills. assailing the decision2 dated February 22.4 THE FACTS FEGDI is a stock corporation whose primary business is the development of golf courses. RSACC sold. on February 11. in consideration for its financing support and construction efforts. Vertex filed on January 7. no certificate was issued. instructed Forest Hills to recognize Vertex as a shareholder. Despite Vertex’s full payment.5 the Class "C" Common Share to respondent Vertex Sales and Trading. (Vertex).100. Prior to the full payment of the purchase price. INC.
then it should be considered a substantial breach warranting the rescission of the sale. FEGDI argued that the delay cannot be considered a substantial breach because Vertex was unequivocally recognized as a shareholder of Forest Hills. In light of these circumstances. 7 The CA ordered the petitioners to return the amounts paid by Vertex by reason of the sale. The first was when their counsel used the letterhead of FELI instead of FEGDI in its reply-letter to Vertex.January 23. the issuance of the stock certificate is just a collateral matter to the sale and the stock certificate is not essential to "the creation of the relation of shareholder.8 Vertex alleged that the fulfillment of its obligation to pay the purchase price called into action the petitioners’ reciprocal obligation to deliver the stock certificate. They contend that the CA erred when it reversed the RTC’s dismissal of Vertex’s complaint. It argued that it was just recklessly dragged into the action due to a mistake committed by FEGDI’s staff on two instances. RULING OF THE RTC The RTC dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. the CA reversed the RTC and rescinded the sale of the share. In its decision. For its part. Vertex’s nominees became members of Forest Hills and fully enjoyed and utilized all its facilities. It also observed that notwithstanding the delay in the issuance of the stock certificate. FELI stated that it is not a party to the contract sought to be rescinded. 2002). THE ISSUE . In fact. Vertex further alleged that its use and enjoyment of Forest Hills’ facilities cannot be considered delivery and transfer of ownership. It ruled that delay in the issuance of stock certificates does not warrant rescission of the contract as this constituted a mere casual or slight breach. the sale had already been consummated. but Vertex refused to accept it. the CA held that there can be no valid transfer of shares where there is no delivery of the stock certificate. the second was when they used the receipt of FELI for receipt of the documentary stamp tax paid by Vertex."6 RULING OF THE CA Vertex appealed the dismissal of its complaint. Since there was delay in the issuance of a certificate for more than three years. a certificate of stock was issued in Vertex’s name. It added that RSACC also used its shareholder rights and eventually sold its share to Vertex despite the absence of a stock certificate. Citing Section 63 of the Corporation Code. delay in the issuance of a stock certificate cannot be considered a substantial breach. In its comment to the petition. declaring that the delay in the issuance of a stock certificate constituted as substantial breach that warranted a rescission. THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS FEGDI and FELI filed the present petition for review on certiorari to assail the CA rulings. It considered the prolonged issuance of the stock certificate a substantial breach that served as basis for Vertex to rescind the sale.
– The capital stock of stock corporations shall be divided into shares for which certificates signed by the president or vice-president. In this case. Court of Appeals. Certificate of stock and transfer of shares." In that case. Trans-Phil and Garcia filed an action first for specific performance. It is not entirely correct to say that a sale had . Vertex fully paid the purchase price by February 11. 1999 but the stock certificate was only delivered on January 23. THE COURT’S RULING The petition lacks merit. the sole issue for the Court to resolve is whether the delay in the issuance of a stock certificate can be considered a substantial breach as to warrant rescission of the contract of sale. however. Physical delivery is necessary to transfer ownership of stocks The factual backdrop of this case is similar to that of Raquel-Santos v. Section 63 of the Corporation Code provides: SEC.9 where the Court held that in "a sale of shares of stock. countersigned by the secretary or assistant secretary. The Court ruled that Finvest Securities’ failure to deliver the shares of stock constituted substantial breach of their contract which gave rise to a right on the part of Trans-Phil and Garcia to rescind the sale. Inc. representing the shares of stock purchased by Vertex. within a reasonable time from the point the shares should have been delivered. the date of the transfer.Given the parties’ arguments. which was later on amended to an action for rescission.1âwphi1 No transfer. No shares of stock against which the corporation holds any unpaid claim shall be transferable in the books of the corporation. until the transfer is recorded in the books of the corporation showing the names of the parties to the transaction. considered in relation to the governing law. physical delivery of a stock certificate is one of the essential requisites for the transfer of ownership of the stocks purchased. the number of the certificate or certificates and the number of shares transferred. Since Finvest Securities failed to deliver the stock certificates.. FEGDI clearly failed to deliver the stock certificates. shall be valid. Inc.. 63. (Trans-Phil) and Roland Garcia bought Piltel shares from Finvest Securities Co. Trans-Phil Marine Ent. except as between the parties. Shares of stock so issued are personal property and may be transferred by delivery of the certificate or certificates indorsed by the owner or his attorney-in-fact or other person legally authorized to make the transfer. (Finvest Securities) in February 1997. This was a substantial breach of their contract that entitles Vertex the right to rescind the sale under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. and sealed with the seal of the corporation shall be issued in accordance with the by-laws. Under these facts. 2002 after Vertex filed an action for rescission against FEGDI.
as seller. [the contract] is perfected.R.10 Accordingly. subject matter and cause. SO ORDERED. Moreover. thus.1âwphi1 The Civil Code upholds the spirit over the form. we hereby DENY the petition. the CA is correct in not awarding damages since Vertex failed to prove by sufficient evidence that it suffered actual damage due to the delay in the issuance of the certificate of stock. the parties are only FEGDI. "Mutual restitution is required in cases involving rescission under Article 1191" of the Civil Code. CV No. is ABSOLVED from any liability. and Vertex. it deems an agreement to exist. The decision dated February 22. As can be seen from the records. FELl was only dragged into the action when its staff used the wrong letterhead in replying to Vertex and issued the wrong receipt for the payment of transfer taxes. by its express terms. Regarding the involvement of FELI in this case. Thus FELl should be absolved from any liability. On the amount of damages. From the moment there is a meeting of minds between the parties. 2012 and the resolution dated May 31. such restitution is necessary to bring back the parties to their original situation prior to the inception of the contract. 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. a contract is a meeting of minds between two persons. the amount paid to FEGDI by reason of the sale should be returned to Vertex. provided the essential requisites are present. "As a general rule."11 In the sale of the Class "C" Common Share. as buyer. WHEREFORE. requires a specific form to transfer ownership. 89296 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that Fil-Estate Land. no privity of contract exists between Vertex and FELI. The enjoyment of these rights cannot suffice where the law. Inc. .already been consummated as Vertex already enjoyed the rights a shareholder can exercise. it is generally obligatory in whatever form it may have been entered into. A contract is upheld as long as there is proof of consent.
9 also in blank. or sometime in July 2004. 202247 June 19. DECISION CARPIO. Petitioner. CV No.5 The share.: The Case Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated 30 March 2012 and Resolution3dated 6 June 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.000. Before the sale could push through. Mendoza endorsed the Club Share Certificate8 in blank and executed a Deed of Assignment. When Mendoza retired in April 1995. the sale did not push through and Sime Darby was compelled to return the payment to the prospective buyer. and distribution of the company's tires and rubber products. However. Respondent. 2013 SIME DARBY PILIPINAS.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.000. Sime Darby bought a Class "A" club share4 in Alabang Country Club (ACC) from Margarita de Araneta as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. MENDOZA. INC. Mendoza (Mendoza) as sales manager to handle sales.000.R. Nine years later. JESUS B. Sime Darby found an interested buyer of the club share for P1. Sime Darby fully paid Mendoza his separation pay amounting to more thanP3. Sime Darby claimed that it was the practice of the company to extend to its senior managers and executives the privilege of using and enjoying the facilities of .101.363. From the time of purchase in 1987.64. Mendoza refused to sign the required authority to sell or special power of attorney unless Sime Darby paid him the amount ofP300. On 13 September 2005. (Sime Darby) employed Jesus B. however. As a result. was placed under the name of Mendoza in trust for Sime Darby since the By-Laws6 of ACC state that only natural persons may own a club share. 89178. Branch 132. and handed over the documents to Sime Darby. claiming that this represented his unpaid separation benefits. marketing. The Facts Petitioner Sime Darby Pilipinas. vs. Sime Darby filed a complaint10 for damages with writ of preliminary injunction against Mendoza with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. J. Sime Darby paid for the monthly dues and other assessments on the club share.7 As part of the arrangement. No. the broker required Sime Darby to secure an authorization to sell from Mendoza since the club share was still registered in Mendoza’s name. On 3 July 1987. Inc..
e. Manila Golf and Country Club. A-1880 at the back and to sign the assignment of rights. Mendoza stated that Sime Darby purchased the Class "A" club share and placed it under his name as part of his employee benefits and bonus for past exemplary service. the trial court denied the motion. who testified that she asked Mendoza to endorse ACC Stock Certificate No. to the damage and prejudice of Sime Darby. Thus. who confirmed that the club share could not be sold to a corporation like Sime Darby. Mendoza presented two witnesses: (1) himself. ACC’s Membership Department Supervisor. enjoining Mendoza from availing of the club’s facilities and privileges as if he is the owner of the club share. Sime Darby prayed that a restraining order be issued. he only started paying . Cascon. Further. On 3 January 2006. On 13 March 2006. Mendoza filed an Answer alleging ownership of the club share. On 15 November 2005. Mendoza resumed using the facilities and privileges of ACC. Sime Darby alleged that Mendoza sent a letter11 dated 9 August 2004 to ACC and requested all billings effective September 2004 be sent to his personal address. the same employee of ACC who also testified for Sime Darby.000. pending the hearing on the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.000 as additional retirement benefit and that Sime Darby was compelled to institute the case and incurred legal expenses of P200. Ronald E. Sime Darby’s Treasurer since 1998. as required by Sime Darby. i. Sime Darby presented three witnesses: (1) Atty. Wack Wack Golf Club. Thereafter. and (2) Ranel Villar. Mendoza filed a separate Opposition to Sime Darby’s application for restraining order and preliminary injunction stating that there was no showing of grave and irreparable injury warranting the relief demanded. and (3) Ira F. (3) as a condition for membership in ACC. Villar. Sime Darby’s VicePresident for Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary. Sime Darby failed to give some of his retirement benefits amounting to P300. (4) though he retired in 1995. On the other hand. Sime Darby then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment explaining that a trial was no longer necessary since there was no issue as to any material fact.000. he had to personally undergo an interview with regard to his background and not the company’s. Sime Darby added that during Mendoza’s employment with the company until his retirement in April 1995. Sime Darby regularly paid for the monthly dues and other assessments on the ACC Class "A" club share. Mendoza admitted endorsing in blank the stock certificate covering the club share and signing a blank assignment of rights only for the purpose of securing Sime Darby’s right of first refusal in case he decides to sell the club share. Javier. who testified that Mendoza refused to give Sime Darby his authorization to sell the club share unless he was paid P300. Makati Sports Club. trial on the merits ensued. Mendoza also alleged that when he retired in 1995. In his testimony.various club memberships. (2) Ranel A. Quezon City Sports Club. the RTC denied Sime Darby’s prayer for restraining order and preliminary injunction. and Baguio Golf and Country Club. Despite having retired from Sime Darby for less than 10 years and long after the employment contract of Mendoza with the company has been severed. Mendoza testified that (1) he owns the disputed club share. who testified that the club share was registered under the name of Mendoza since ACC’s By-Laws prohibits juridical persons from acquiring a club share and attested that Sime Darby paid for the monthly dues of the share since it was purchased in 1987. (2) Sime Darby allowed him to personally choose the share that he liked as part of his benefits.
SO ORDERED. The Issues The issues for our resolution are: (1) whether Sime Darby is entitled to damages and injunctive relief against Mendoza. its former employee. SO ORDERED.. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. premises considered. and P250. and (6) ACC recognizes him as the owner of the club share.000.000. in view of all the foregoing. and (2) whether the appellate court erred in declaring that Mendoza is the owner of the club share. is hereby DISMISSED.13 The appellate court ruled that Sime Darby failed to prove that it has a clear and unmistakable right over the club share of ACC. Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. Section 3.00 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. The dispositive portion states: WHEREFORE. 05821. judgment is hereby rendered enjoining defendant Jesus B.12 Mendoza filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.14 Sime Darby filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution15 dated 6 June 2012. The Court’s Ruling The petition has merit. he migrated to the United States until he came back in 1999 and since then he had been going back and forth to the United States. the instant petition. On 30 April 2007. states: SEC. he met with Atty. to discuss the supposed selling of the club share which he refused since there were still unpaid retirement benefits due him. Hence. the Complaint in Civil Case No. On 30 March 2012. Ronald E. – A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: . Mendoza. the trial court rendered a Decision in favor of Sime Darby. which provides for the grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. and ordering defendant Jesus B. 3.00 as temperate damages. the appellate court reversed the ruling of the trial court. 1880 of the Alabang Golf and Country Club. Mendoza to pay the plaintiff P100. The dispositive portion of the Decision states: WHEREFORE. Sime Darby’s representative. Inc. Javier.the club share dues in 2004 because after his retirement. Resultantly. (5) in May 2004. from making use of Stock Certificate No.
at Mendoza’s cross-examination. In the present case. Sime Darby placed its name in full as the owner of the share and Mendoza as the assignee of the club share. agency or a person is doing. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. or is procuring or suffering to be done. Also.19 Further. in connection with the application for membership. . (2) a violation of that right.. Sime Darby has the burden of establishing the following requisites: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. under a trust arrangement. either for a limited period or perpetually. Sime Darby’s former sales manager. these circumstances show that there existed a trust relationship between the parties. or in requiring the performance of an act or acts. as Sime Darby’s Sales Manager. some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding.(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded. Mendoza admitted signing the club share certificate and the assignment of rights. Sime Darby had the share registered under the name of respondent Mendoza. he did not refute Sime Darby’s ownership of the club share as well as Sime Darby’s payment of the monthly billings from the time the share was purchased. and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. In Medina v.16 we held that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Such fact was clearly proved when in the application form17 dated 17 July 1987 of the ACC for the purchase of the club share. and turning it over to Sime Darby. and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of. (b) That the commission. Sime Darby sent a letter18 dated 17 September 1987 addressed to ACC confirming that "Mendoza. (3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Clearly. Mendoza identified his signature over the printed words "name of assignee" as his own and when confronted with his Reply-Affidavit. to be entitled to an injunctive writ. both in blank. or (c) That a party. continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant." Even during the trial. court. threatening or is attempting to do. is entitled to club membership benefit of the Company. Sime Darby presented evidence that it acquired the Class "A" club share of ACC in 1987 through a Deed of Sale. Greenfield Development Corp. Being a corporation which is expressly disallowed by ACC’s By-Laws to acquire and register the club share under its name. Thus. petitioner Sime Darby has sufficiently established its right over the subject club share.
claimed that he only signed the assignment of rights in blank in order to give Sime Darby the right of first refusal in case he decides to sell the share later on. in this case. the circumstances which occurred after the purchase of the club share point to the opposite. the following requisites must be present: (a) invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial. In fact. A right of first refusal. from the time the share was purchased in 1987 until 1995. as a corporation. Mendoza signed the share certificate and assignment of rights both in blank. would mean that Sime Darby has a right to match the purchase price offer of Mendoza’s prospective buyer of the club share and Sime Darby may buy back the share at that price. since 1987. Thus. The burden then shifts to the transferee to show otherwise. because of the presumption that he who pays for a thing intends a beneficial interest for himself. Last.000 allegedly representing his unpaid retirement benefit. While Sime Darby paid for the purchase price of the club share. his title is only limited to the usufruct. (b) . Court of Appeals. Ronald E. in order to prevent further damage and prejudice to itself. First. Mendoza. As correctly observed by the RTC in its Decision dated 30 April 2007: In order for a writ of preliminary injunction to issue. However. was extended the privilege of availing a club membership. Mendoza.1âwphi1 At the same time. Mendoza turned over possession of the documents to Sime Darby. a resulting trust is presumed as a matter of law. Second. Sime Darby properly sought injunction in this case. In Thomson v. as a senior manager of the company.20 we held that a trust arises in favor of one who pays the purchase price of a property in the name of another. that such bills be forwarded to his personal address starting September 2004. He did not present any document to show that there was such an agreement between him and the company. Mendoza’s contention of the right of first refusal is a self-serving statement. or the use and enjoyment of the club’s facilities and privileges while employed with the company. In August 2004. not even an acknowledgment from Sime Darby that it actually intended the club share to be given to him as a reward for his performance and past service. as generously practiced by Sime Darby. Mendoza violated Sime Darby’s beneficial interest and right over the club share after he was informed by Atty. Mendoza continued to do so. long after he retired from the employ of the company. as the transferee. the monthly bills were regularly sent to Sime Darby’s business address until Mendoza requested in August 2004. Mendoza tried to appropriate the club share and demanded from ACC that he be recognized as the true owner of the share as the named member in the stock certificate as well as in the annual report issued by ACC. Mendoza was given the legal title. However.While the share was bought by Sime Darby and placed under the name of Mendoza. cannot register a club share in its own name under the rules of the ACC. Thus. Sime Darby paid for the monthly bills pertaining to the share. The company merely wanted Mendoza to hold the share in trust since Sime Darby. Mendoza refused to give an authorization to sell the club share unless he was paid P300. It can be gathered then that Sime Darby did not intend to give up its beneficial interest and right over the share. Third. Despite being informed by Sime Darby to stop using the facilities and privileges of the club share. Javier of Sime Darby’s plan to sell the share to an interested buyer.
plaintiff having established its right to the relief being claimed and inasmuch as it was constrained to litigate in order to protect its interest as well as incurred litigation expenses. The twin requirements of a valid injunction are the existence of a right and its actual or threatened violations. Further. plaintiff tried to sell the share but defendant refused to give the authority. attorney's fees are hereby awarded in the amount of P250. rather it intended to have the share held in trust by defendant. plaintiff claimed for temperate or moderate damages. With this. As the purchaser of the share. the right of plaintiff over the share is clear and unmistakable. the Court deems it proper to impose upon the defendant P100. This can be inferred from plaintiff’s witness’ testimony that plaintiff required the defendant to sign the said documents so that the plaintiff can be assured that its ownership of the property is properly documented. it has three years to convey its property and close its affairs as a body corporate under the Corporation Code.100. clearly defendant violated plaintiff’s right over the use and enjoyment thereof. There is a presumption that the share was bought for the use of the defendant while the latter is still connected with the plaintiff. plaintiff’s payments of monthly billings of the subject share bolster defendant possession in trust rather than his ownership over the share.21 In sum.000 to the buyer. xxxx In the present case.000. Hence. plaintiff is entitled to its prayer for injunction. as the true owner of the ACC Class "A" club share.000 as temperate damages. Sime Darby may choose to dispose of the club share in any manner it sees fit without undue interference from Mendoza. Thus.the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable. . until a new grantee is named. Hence. This is because when the share was registered under the name of defendant. With this. it has interest and right over it.22 Thus. plaintiff cannot make use of the facilities of the club because defendant insists on enjoying it despite the fact that he is no longer connected with the plaintiff. With defendant’s continued use of the subject share despite that he is not anymore connected with plaintiff. Plaintiff bought the subject share in 1987. it was established that sometime in July 2004. who lost his right to use the club share when he retired from the company. plaintiff was forced to return the amount of P1. Additionally. and with plaintiff’s demand upon the defendant to desist from making use of the club facilities having been ignored. Sime Darby has the right to be protected from Mendoza's act of using the facilities and privileges of ACC. xxxx As to the second issue. Since the records show that Sime Darby was dissolved on 31 December 2011. plaintiff did not intend to relinquish its interest and right over the subject. the latter signed the stock certificate in blank as well as the deed of assignment and placed the certificate under the possession of the plaintiff. Thirdly. and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. All the elements are present in the instant case. we grant the damages and injunctive relief sought by Sime Darby.
05-821. CV No.R. . We SET ASIDE the 30 March 20 I 2 Decision and 6 June 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. We REINSTATE the 30 April 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. we GRANT the petition. SO ORDERED. 89178.WHEREFORE. Branch 132 in Civil Case No.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.