Assigned Cases for Finals

8/11/2019 Assigned Cases for Finals

1/14


2/14

5AD FAITH-HEATI%5A> V CA ?EVAN%Eat"'#a ref*$e! to co,pl( )"thh"$ cotract to p*rcha$e that a$

a re$*lt& he )a$ force! to $ell the)"ch to a th"r! per$o for ol( +19&999-99& th*$

"c*rr"' a lo$$of +2&999-99& )h"ch a,o*t >at"'#a $ho*l! #e or!ere! to pa(&pl*$

!a,a'e$-

ISSUE

;ON 4e!ee $ho*l! #e l"a#le

HE


3/14

+2&999-99& $a"! !"erece to #e #ore #( the$*ppo$e! 4e!ee )ho fa"le! to tae

!el"4er( a!or pa( the pr"ce-

Rescission on Sale on %on(Residential Realt) *"rticle ++,+ - +,0

EMI


4/14

O B*l( 18& 1.8& RI


5/14

R"llo oce ,ore fa"le! to hoor the"r a'ree,et- RI


6/14

THE TRIA< COURT ERRED IN DISRE%ARDIN% OTHER FACTS OF THE CASE& INC


7/14

THE HONORA5


8/14

'race per"o! for e4er( oe (ear of "$tall,et pa(,et$ ,a!e: +ro4"!e!& That th"$

r"'ht $hall #e eKerc"$e! #( the #*(er ol( oce " e4er( 64e (ear$ of the l"fe of the

cotract a! "t$ eKte$"o$& "f a(-

?#@ If the cotract "$ cacelle!& the $eller $hall ref*! to the #*(er the ca$h

$*rre!er 4al*e of the pa(,et$ o the propert( eG*"4alet to 6ft( per cet of the

total pa(,et$ ,a!e a!& after 64e (ear$ of "$tall,et$& a a!!"t"oal 64e per

cet e4er( (ear #*t ot to eKcee! "et( per cet of the total pa(,et$ ,a!e:

+ro4"!e!& That the act*al cacellat"o of the cotract $hall tae place after

cacellat"o or the !e,a! for re$c"$$"o of the cotract #( a otar"al act a! *po

f*ll pa(,et of the ca$h $*rre!er 4al*e to the #*(er-

Do) pa(,et$& !epo$"t$ or opt"o$ o the cotract $hall #e "cl*!e! " the

co,p*tat"o of the total *,#er of "$tall,et$ ,a!e-

?2@ ;here he ha$ pa"! le$$ tha t)o (ear$ " "$tall,et$&

Sec- 7- - - - the $eller $hall '"4e the #*(er a 'race per"o! of ot le$$ tha $"Kt(

!a($ fro, the !ate the "$tall,et #eca,e !*e- If the #*(er fa"l$ to pa( the

"$tall,et$ !*e at the eKp"rat"o of the 'race per"o!& the $eller ,a( cacel the

cotract after th"rt( !a($ fro, rece"pt #( the #*(er of the ot"ce of cacellat"o orthe !e,a! for re$c"$$"o of the cotract #( a otar"al act-

+et"t"oer RI


9/14

"co,pat"#le )"th each other- No4at"o "$ e4er pre$*,e!- 1/ +art"e$ to a cotract

,*$t eKpre$$l( a'ree that the( are a#ro'at"' the"r ol! cotract " fa4or of a e)

oe- 18 I the a#$ece of a eKpre$$ a'ree,et& o4at"o tae$ place ol( )he

the ol! a! the e) o#l"'at"o$ are "co,pat"#le o e4er( po"t- 1. I the ca$e at

#ar& the part"e$ eKec*te! the"r Ma( 12& 1.8. co,pro,"$e a'ree,et prec"$el( to

'"4e l"fe to the"r Cotract to Sell- It ,erel( clar"6e! the total $*, o)e! #(pet"t"oer RI


10/14

#le>ente G. de Peralta for 'aurenda S. !autista.

"%&%I6 .@

G.R. %o. '(4,4+ is a s7ecial ci8il action for certiorari6 7rohi1ition and >anda>us to nullif) the resolution of the #ourt of

"77eals6 dated ul) +36 +,A56 in #"(G.R. %o. SP(3A46 + and to direct said court to for=ard the record of said case to this

Su7re>e &ri1unal for resolution6 considering that onl) questions of la= are in8ol8ed. &he antecedent 7roceedings are as follo=s@

In +,B6 the heirs of FernandeC 9guiC *!ilaan06 re7resented 1) "ntero Ignacio6 filed a 7rotest =ith the !ureau of 'ands6 alleging

that the ho>estead a77lication of Mariano !autista and the sales a77lication of "naCaria !autista *7arents of 7ri8ate res7ondent

'aurenda !autista06 co8ering 7arcels of land in Malita6 Da8ao6 o8erla77ed in 7ortions ! and # of the ho>estead ofFernandeC 9guiC. 9guiC had earlier o1tained a ho>estead 7atent on the 7ro7ert) on cto1er +,6 +,B, fro> the Director of

'ands. "fter in8estigation of the case6 a decision =as rendered 1) the Regional 'and fficer for Da8ao ecluding 7ortions !

gi8ing due and # fro> the ho>estead of 9guiC6 gi8ing due course to the a77lication of Mariano !autista6 =ith res7ect to

7ortion ! and a77ro8ing the sales a77lication of "naCaria !autista =ith res7ect to 7ortion #. &his udg>ent =as affir>ed 1)

the Director of 'ands in his decision of March ,6 +,2+. n a77eal6 the then Secretar) of "griculture and %atural Resources

>odified the said decision 1) ecluding 7ortion ! fro> the ho>estead a77lication of Mariano !autista and incor7orating the

sa>e =ith the ho>estead of 9guiC.

n the 1asis of a >otion for reconsideration 1) the heirs of 9guiC6 the res7ondent Secretar) rendered a second decision on

Dece>1er +26 +,A36 a=arding the question 7ortion # to the 7rotestants and den)ing the >otion for reconsideration of a77ellee

Mariano !autista as regards 7ortion ! for 1eing filed out of ti>e. Su1sequentl)6 u7on a >otion for reconsideration 1) "naCaria

!autista6 the res7ondent Secretar) rendered a third decision on "7ril B36 +,A+6 declaring that the afore(>entioned 7ortion #

should 1e retained sa 7art of the sales a77lication of "naCaria !autista6 and further declaring that as far as the decision dated

Dece>1er +46 +,2 concerning 7ortion ! is concerned6 the sa>e is no= final and eecutor). &he heirs of the late Mariano and

"naCaria !autista a77ealed to the ffice of the President.

n anuar) B6 +,AB6 the ffice of the President thru "ssistant Eecuti8e Secretar) Ronaldo !. a>ora6 rendered a decision

>odif)ng the afore>entioned decision of "7ril B36 +,A+ of the res7ondent secretar) of "griculture and %atural Resources 1)

including 1oth contested 7ortions ! and # in the ho>estead a77lication of the heirs of FernandeC 9guiC and a>ending the

res7ecti8e a77lications of the deceased Mariano !autista and "naCaria !autista to eclude said 7ortions. 'aurenda !autista filed

a >otion for reconsideration of said decision 1ut the sa>e =as denied 1) the res7ondent Eecuti8e Secretar) on March +6 +,A4.

"lleging that the said decision =as rendered =ith a1use of discretion and in ecess of urisdiction6 'aurenda !autista6 on "7ril

+36 +,A46 filed a 7etition for certiorari =ith the #ourt of First Instance of Da8ao against the Eecuti8e Secretar)6 the Secretar) of

"griculture and %atural Resources and "ntero Ignacio6 for the re8ie= and annul>ent of the decision dated anuar) B6 +,AB of

res7ondent Eecuti8e Secretar). Res7ondent officials filed their ans=er to the a1o8e 7etition and alleged6 a>ong others6 that

7etitioner !autista has no cause of action against the> as she >erel) charges the> =ith ha8ing allegedl) co>>itted a1use of

discretion =ithout qualif)ing it as gra8e in nature.


11/14

"ntero Ignacio6 on 1ehalf of the heirs of FernandeC 9guiC6 filed a >otion to dis>iss6 alleging that said 7etition is not sufficient in

for> and su1stance and that Sola) *!ilaan06 one of the heirs of 9guiC6 had not 1een i>7leaded as a res7ondent. 'aurenda !autista

o77osed said >otion.

n "ugust 46 +,A46 the court a quo6 =ithout recei8ing an) e8idence6 issued an rder dis>issing the 7etition for certiorari for

lacH of >erit as it =as defecti8e as to for> 1ecause the co7ies of the orders and decisions of the Director of 'ands and the

res7ondent officials attached to the 7etition as "nnees !6 #6 D6 F6 and $ =ere not certified true co7ies< B it did not

attach the decision of the res7ondent Secretar) of "griculture and %atural Resources dated Dece>1er +26 +,A3< and it failed to

state the findings of fact of the res7ondent Eecuti8e Secretar) in his decision6 =hich findings are sought to 1e re8ie=ed. &he

court o1ser8ed that the 7etition is defecti8e as to su1stance6 as it does not allege an) s7ecific error co>>itted 1) the res7ondent

Eecuti8e Secretar) in his findings of fact or conclusion6 nor does it contain an) allegation of facts =hich =ould sho= the acts

constituti8e of gra8e a1use of discretion. &he trial court further stated that the alleged error co>>itted 1) res7ondent 7u1lic

official6 if an)6 is gra8e a1use of discretion and consequentl)6 not annulla1le 1) certiorari. 4

97on denial of 'aurenda !autistas >otion for reconsideration of the dis>issal order6 she inter7osed an a77eal to the #ourt of"77eals. In "7ril6 +,A56 'aurenda !autista filed he 1rief =ith the "77ellant #ourt. Res7ondent officials filed their 1rief on une

26 +,A56 alleging that the issues in8ol8e questions of la= so that the a77eal should ha8e 1een filed =ith the Su7re>e #ourt.

Petitioner "ntero Ignacio >o8ed =ith the #ourt of "77eals that the case 1e certified to this #ourt6 on the ground that the issues

in8ol8e questions of la=. Ignacios >otion =as denied 1) res7ondent #ourt in a Minutes Resolution on ul) +36 +,A5. "ntero

Ignacio ca>e to this #ourt 1) =a) of 7etition for re8ie= *G.R. %o. '(4,4+0 to set aside this resolution of the #ourt of "77eals.

n %o8e>1er B6 +,A,6 =hile G.R. %o. '(4,4+ =as 7ending decision 1) this #ourt6 the #ourt of "77eals issued a resolution in

#"(G.R. %o. SP(3A46 certif)ing the a77eal to this #ourt6 as follo=s@

"fter a re8ie= of the records of this case6 =e are con8inced that the onl) su1stantial issue tendered 1) the !riefs filed 1) the

7arties is =hether or not the 7etition for certiorari of 7etitioner(a77ellant is sufficient in for> and su1stance6 =hich =e 8ie= to 1e

a 7ure question of la= and6 therefore6 1e)ond the co>7etence of this #ourt.

&his resolution is6 in effect6 a re8ersal of the "77ellate #ourts resolution of ul) +36 +,A5.

We agree that onl) questions of la= are in8ol8ed in the a77eal6 for =hich reason the records thereof =ere acce7ted and the case

docHeted as G.R. %o. +24.

It is e8ident that the issues raised 1) herein res7ondent in her a77eal 1efore the #ourt of "77eals6 do not call for an ea>ination

of the 7ro1ati8e 8alue of e8idence. "s a >atter of fact6 no e8idence =as 7resented 1efore the trial court. &he onl) issue is the

correctness of the legal conclusions dra=n or the construction >ade 1) the trial udge of the 7leadings or a8er>ents in 7ri8ate

res7ondents 7etition 1efore said court. For a question to 1e one of la=6 it >ust not in8ol8e an ea>ination of the 7ro1ati8e 8alue

of the e8idence 7resented 1) the litigants. We ha8e held that there is a question of la= =hen the dou1t or difference of o7inion

arises as to =hat is the la= on a certain state of facts. 97on the other hand6 there is a question of fact =hen the dou1t or difference


12/14

arises as to the truth or falsit) of the facts alleged. 2 In 8ie= of the foregoing6 it is e8ident that the 7ri>ar) issues raised in G.R.

%o. '(4,4+ ha8e 1eco>e >oot and acade>ic.

#onsidering G. R. %o. +246 or the a77eal on the >erits6 We find that the court a quo did not co>>it an) error in dis>issing the

7etition. "s correctl) stated 1) the court a quo6 the 7etition failed to allege an) error co>>itted 1) the res7ondent Eecuti8e

Secretar) in his findings of fact or conclusions =hich =ould constitute a gra8e a1use of discretion. Section + of Rule 2 of the

Re8ised Rules of #ourt 7ro8ides that in a 7etition for certiorari6 the facts sho=ing that the tri1unal acted =ithout or in ecess of

its urisdiction or =ith gra8e a1use of discretion >ust 1e alleged =ith certaint). "s found 1) the trial court6 the alleged error cf the

res7ondent official is at >ost >erel) an error of udg>ent6 not constituting gra8e a1use of discretion and6 consequentl)6 not

annulla1le 1) certiorari.

It is =ell settled that the findings of fact 1) the co>7etent eecuti8e officials are conclusi8e u7on the courts and not su1ect to

udicial re8ie= in the a1sence of sho=ing that the decision =as rendered as a result of fraud6 i>7osition or >istaHe6 other than

error of udg>ent6 in esti>ating the 8alue of the e8idence. A In other =ords6 decisions of ad>inistrati8e officers should not 1e

distri1uted ece7t =hen the) ha8e acted =ithout or in ecess of their urisdiction or =ith gra8e a1use of discretion. 5 "s We ha8e

e7lained in 7re8ious cases6 the a1use of discretion >ust 1e so 7atent and gross as to a>ount to an e8asion of 7ositi8e dut) or to a

8irtual refusal to 7erfor> the dut) enoined or to act at all in conte>7lation of la=6 as =here the 7o=er is eercised in an ar1itrar)

or des7otic >anner 1) reason of 7assion or 7ersonal hostilit). , %ot e8er) error in the 7roceeding or erroneous conclusion of la=

or fact is a1use of discretion. +3

In the case at 1ar6 the 7etitioner failed to state enough facts to constitute a 7ri>a facie cause of action against res7ondent

Secretar).

W$EREFRE6 in 8ie= of the foregoing6 G. R. %o. '(4,4+ is here1) DISMISSED for 1eing >oot and acade>ic< and the

decision a77ealed fro> in G. R. %o. +24 is here1) "FFIRMED.

S RDERED.

Instances of 'egal Rede>7tion ">ong co( o=ners

M"RI"% DIS&RI&6 '9IS" DIS&RI&6 M"RI"% #IM"FR"%#"6 ED9"RD DMI#I"% DIS&RI&6

E'I"!E&$ DIS&RI& and SEG9%DI% #"&IP";6 Petitioners6 8s. &$E $%R"!'E #9R& F "PPE"'S6 PEDR

MIJ9I"!"S6 P"#I&" MIJ9I"!"S6 and E%RIJ9E S"MS%6 Res7ondents.

ul

Facts

&his 7etition in8ol8es the legal rede>7tion of real 7ro7ert).

Pri8ate res7ondents seeH to redee> as co(o=ners fro> 7etitioners a 7arcel of land of the Du>aguete #adastre.


13/14

Plaintiff(a77ellants e8idence tend to esta1lish that the 7ro7ert) in question =as originall) o=ned 1) Si>eona ">istad no=

deceased6 their 7redecessor(in(interest. &he heirs of the late Si>eona ">istad are Eufrocina Potenciana6 'i1rada6 #atalina6

Ga1ina and "necito all surna>ed :illa>il. 'i1radaKs house =as constructed in the lot6 =here 'i1radaKs hus1and and children are

7resentl) sta)ing after 'i1radaKs death. Plaintiff Pacita Miquia1as(Sa>son are also li8ing in 'i1radaKs house. Pedro Miquia1as

also sta)s in the house =hen he 8isits Du>aguete #it).

"77ellant Pacita Miquia1as(Sa>son testified that she had 1ought the share of 'i1rada :illa>il and agreed =ith the heirs of

Ga1ina :illa>il to 1u) their res7ecti8e shares and =ould liHe to redee> the shares of #atalina and "necito 1oth surna>ed

:illa>il to 7reser8e the fa>il) lot for senti>ental reasons.

Plaintiff(a77ellants clai> that the) onl) ca>e to Hno= a1out the sale of the lot in question in ul) +,546 =hen Eduardo Distrito6

one of the defendant(a77ellee Lsic notified the> that the defendants =ere constructing a 1uilding on the 7ortion the) 1ought

fro> #atalina :illa>il and "necito :illa>il. $o=e8er6 a77ellant Pacita Miquia1as(Sa>son refused as the shares of #atalina

:illa>il and "necito :illa>il has Lsic not )et 1een segregated as there =as no 7artition o8er the lot in question.

Plaintiffs(a77ellants offered to redee> the land in the a>ount of P4622.336 1ut the defendants(a77ellees refused. $ence a tender

of 7a)>ent =as >ade *Eh. !06 =ith the court6 and notice of consignation =as sent to the defendants(a77ellees. *Ehi1it #0.

n the other hand6 the e8idence of the defendant(a77ellees tends to 7ro8e that the =hole lot A+2 of the Du>aguete #adastre =as

the su1ect of a ci8il case in the #ourt of First Instance of %egros riental6 and the said court adudicated to the si *2 0 heirs of

Si>eona ">istad 'ot %o. A+2(!(6 the land in litigation =ith the one sith *+/20 7ro(indi8iso shares.

n "7ril +26 +,A2 the defendant(a77ellees acquired 1) 7urchase one(half *+/0 7ortion 7ro(indi8iso of 'ot %o. A+2(!(B6 fro>

"tt). Marcelo Flores =hich the latter acquired as 7a)>ent of his attorne)Ks fees in the #i8il #ase. *Ehi1it B0.

Su1sequentl)6 u7on re7resentation of Plaintiff("77ellant Pedro Miquia1as6 =ho acted as >iddle(>an6 defendant(a77ellant 1ought

the shares of #atalina and "necito :illa>il. n "7ril B36 +,A6 the instru>ent of sale =as notariCed 1) uan ". 'a7isan6 r. =ho

testified that Pedro Miquia1as acco>7anied Eduardo Distrito and hi>self to Siaton6 %egros riental =here #atalina :illa>il is

li8ing in order for the latter to sign the docu>ent as #atalina =as too old to tra8el to Du>aguete #it).

"77ellant Pedro Miquia1as also offered to sell his share and that of his sister to the defendant(a77ellee 1ut the latter hesitated.

"77ellee Eduardo Distrito testified that his co(defendant and hi>self also 1ought the share of Euse1io ">istad =ho o=ns the

adoining lot through the re7resentations of a77ellant Pedro Miquia1as. *Eh. 40.

Issue@ Whether or not the 7ri8ate res7ondents are entitled to redee> the land in question.


14/14

$eld@ &he co>7laint is dis>issed as to 7ri8ate res7ondent Pedro Miquia1as =ho had lost his right to redee>.

In this case6 it a77ears that 7ri8ate res7ondent Pedro Miquia1as acted as >iddle>an and =as 7resent =hen the 8endor signed the

deed of sale. It is o18ious that he had actual Hno=ledge of the sale.&hus6 a =ritten notice to hi> as required 1) "rticle %o. +2B

of the #i8il #ode is not necessar). &he onl) 7ur7ose of such =ritten notice is to insure that all the co(o=ners shall 1e actuall)

notified of the sale and to re>o8e all dou1t as to the 7erfection of the sale.

When as in this case the co(o=ner =as actuall) 7resent and =as e8en an acti8e inter>ediar) in the consu>>ation of the sale of

the 7ro7ert) he is and >ust 1e considered to ha8e had actual notice of the sale. " =ritten notice is no longer necessar).

"s to 7ri8ate res7ondent Pacita Miquia1as she =as not 7resent =hen the aforesaid sale of the 7ro7ert) =as undertaHen. &here is

no e8idence that she =as infor>ed or that she e8er learned a1out the sale soon thereafter. It =as onl) in ul)6 +,54 that she =as

notified 1) 7etitioners of their intention to construct a 1uilding on a 7ortion of the 7ro7ert) in question =hich the) 1ought. Within

thirt) *B30 da)s thereafter6 that is6 on "ugust B6 +,546 said 7ri8ate res7ondent filed a co>7laint for legal rede>7tion in court and

at the sa>e ti>e de7osited the a>ount of P4655.5 =ith the court as the 7urchase 7rice.

"s the la= requires a =ritten notice of such sale to the co(o=ners6 such actual notice to 7ri8ate res7ondent Pacita Miquia1as is

not sufficient co>7liance =ith the require>ent. Moreo8er6 said res7ondent filed the co>7laint for legal rede>7tion =ithin thirt)

*B30 da)s fro> the ti>e she =as 8er1all) notified thereof 1) 7etitioners. $ence6 her right to redee> the 7ro7ert) as co(o=ner

>ust 1e sustained.

Documents

Assigned Cases for Finals