Oblicon Mid Full Text

7/24/2019 Oblicon Mid Full Text

1/26

PRESCRIPTIONSPOUSES FRANCISCO SIERRA (substituted by DONATO, TERESITA,

TEODORA, LORENZA, LUCINA, IMELDA, VILMA, and MILAGROS SIERRA and

ANTONINA SANTOS, SPOUSES ROSARIO SIERRA and EUSE!IO CALUMA

LE"VA, and SPOUSES SALOME SIERRA and FELI# GATLA!A"AN (substitutedby !UENA VENTURA, ELPIDIO, PAULINO, CATALINA, GREGORIO, and

EDGARDO GATLA!A"AN, LORETO REILLO, FERMINA PEREGRINA, and NIDA

$AS$IMOTO %s& PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE !AN', INC&, G&R& N&

)*+-+, Se.te/be0 )1, 21)3, 4& Pe05as6!e0nabe

G.R. No. 197857 September 10, 2014

SPOUSES FRANCISCO SIERRA (!bt"t!te# b$ %ONA&O, &ERESI&A, &EO%ORA, 'ORENA,

'UCINA, I)E'%A, *I')A, +# )I'AGROS SIERRA- +# AN&ONINA SAN&OS, SPOUSES

ROSARIO SIERRA +# EUSEIO CA'U)A 'E/*A, +# SPOUSES SA'O)E SIERRA +#

FE'I GA&'AA/AN (!bt"t!te# b$ UENA *EN&URA, E'PI%IO, PAU'INO, CA&A'INA,

GREGORIO, +# E%GAR%O GA&'AA/AN, 'ORE&O REI''O, FER)INA PEREGRINA, +#

NI%A ASI)O&O-,Petitioners,vs.

PAIC SA*INGS AN% )OR&GAGE AN, INC.,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PER'AS3ERNAE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1is the Decision2dated !ne 2", 2#11 of the Co!rt ofAppeals $CA% in CA&'.R. C( No. )1))) which reversed and set aside the Decision*dated April 2+,

2## of the Re-ional rial Co!rt of Antipolo Cit/, 0ranch "+ $RC% in Civil Case No. )1&21*,disissin- petitioners3 coplaint for declaration of n!llit/ of real estate ort-a-e and e4tra5!dicialforeclos!re proceedin-s.

he 6acts

On 7a/ *1, 1)8*, 'oldstar Con-loerates, Inc. $'CI%, represented 9/ '!illero :alda-a $:alda-a%,o9tained fro 6irst S!a Savin-s and 7ort-a-e 0an; $S!a 0an;%, now respondent PaicSavin-s and 7ort-a-e 0an;, Inc. $PS70%,+a loan in the ao!nt of P1,##,###.## as evidenced 9/

a


2/26

Event!all/, 'CI defa!lted in the pa/ent of its loan to PS70, there9/ proptin- the latter toe4tra5!diciall/ foreclose the ort-a-e on the s!95ect properties in accordance with Act No. *1*,12as

aended, with d!e notice to petitioners.1*In the process, PS70 eer-ed as the hi-hest 9idder inthe p!9lic a!ction sale held on !ne 2", 1)8+ for a total 9id price of P2,+",2"2..1+Sincepetitioners failed to redee the s!95ect properties within the redeption period, their certificates oftitle were cancelled and new ones were iss!ed in PS703s nae.1

On Septe9er 1, 1))1, petitioners filed a coplaint1for the declaration of n!llit/ ofthe real estateort-a-e and its e4tra5!dicial foreclos!re, and daa-es a-ainst PS70 and S!a 0an; 9efore theRC, doc;eted as Civil Case No. )1&21*.

In the said coplaint, petitioners averred that !nder pressin- need of one/, with ver/ liited

ed!cation and lac;in- proper instr!ctions, the/ fell pre/ to a -ro!p who isrepresented to haveconnectionswith S!a 0an; and, th!s, co!ld help the sec!re a loan.1"he/ were ade to

9elieve that the/ applied for a loan, the proceeds of which wo!ld 9e released thro!-h chec;s drawna-ainst S!a 0an;.18Rel/inin -ood faith on the chec;s1)iss!ed to the, petitioners!ns!spectin-l/ si-ned a doc!ent denoinated as Deed of Real Estate 7ort-a-e $s!95ect deed%,

co!ched in hi-hl/ technical le-al ters, which was notinterpreted in a lan-!a-e=dialect ;nown tothe, and which was not accopanied 9/ the loan doc!ents. >owever, when the/ presented forpa/ent the earliest&dated chec;s to the drawee 9an;, the sae were dishonored for the reason

?Acco!nt Closed.? @pon confrontation, soe e9ers of the -ro!p ass!red petitioners that therewas onl/ a is!nderstandin- and that their certificates of titles wo!ld 9e ret!rned. 2#S!9se!entl/,petitioners learned thatB $a% the loan acco!nt sec!red 9/ the real estate ort-a-e was in the naeofanother person and not in their naes as the/ were ade to !nderstand $9% despite lac; of special

a!thorit/ fro the, foreclos!re proceedin-s over the s!95ect properties were initiated 9/ PS70 andnot S!a 0an; in whose favor the ort-a-e was e4ec!ted $c% the period of redeption had

alread/ lapsed and $d% the ownership over the s!95ect properties had alread/ 9een consolidated inthe nae of PS70.21Petitioners li;ewise laented that the/ were not f!rnished copies of the loanand ort-a-e doc!ents, or notified=apprised of the assi-nent to PS70, renderin- the !na9le to

copl/ with their o9li-ations !nder the s!95ect deed. he/ f!rther claied that the/were notf!rnished a cop/ of the stateent of acco!nt, which was 9loated with !nconsciona9le and !nlawf!lchar-es, assessents, and fees, nor a cop/ of the petition for foreclos!re prior to the precipitate

e4tra5!dicial foreclos!re and a!ction sale which failed to copl/ with the postin- and noticere!ireents.22In li-ht of the fore-oin-, petitioners pra/ed that the real estate ort-a-e and thes!9se!ent foreclos!re proceedin-s, and all derivative titles and ri-hts arisin- therefro 9e declaredn!ll and void a9 initio, and that the s!95ect properties 9e reconve/ed 9ac; to the, with f!rther

pra/er for copensator/ and e4eplar/ daa-es, and attorne/3s fees.2*

PS70 filed its answer,2+averrin- that PS70 and S!a 0an; are one and the sae entit/.2Itpra/ed for the disissal of the coplaint, claiin- that petitioners have no ca!se of action a-ainst it9eca!se it never e4tended an/ loan to the.2PS70 aintained thatB $a% it acted in -ood faith withrespect to the s!95ect transactions and that petitioners3 action sho!ld 9e directed a-ainst the -ro!pwho deceived the2"$9% the s!95ect properties were ort-a-ed to sec!rean o9li-ation covered 9/

the loan a-reeent with 'CI28$c% the ort-a-e was valid, havin- 9een d!l/ si-ned 9/ petitioners9efore a notar/ p!9lic2)$d% the foreclos!re proceedin-s were re-!lar, havin- coplied with theforalities re!ired 9/ law*#and $e% petitioners allowed tie topass witho!t p!rs!intheir p!rportedri-ht a-ainst S!a 0an; and=or PS70.*1PS70 there9/ interposed a co!nterclai for

copensator/, oral and e4eplar/ daa-es, and attorne/3s fees for the 9aseless s!it. *2
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt32


3/26

he RC R!lin-

In a Decision**dated April 2+, 2##, the RCB $a% declared the s!95ect deed and the e4tra5!dicialforeclos!re proceedin-s n!ll and void $9% cancelled the certificates of title of PS70 and $c% directedthe reinstateent of petitioners3 certificates of title. *+

hile the RC r!led that the loan transaction was a valid and 9indin- a-reeent 9etween S!a0an; and 'CI, it held that the s!95ect deed did not reflect the tr!e intent and a-reeent 9etween

S!a 0an; and petitioners who were ade to9elieve that the/ were the principal o9li-ors in theloan, there9/ invalidatin- their consent to the ort-a-e.*It li;ewise held that petitioners cannot 9efa!lted for failin- to heed the notice of e4tra5!dicial foreclos!re sale 9/ PS70 considerin- their lac;ofnotice that S!a 0an; had chan-ed its nae to PS70.*Nonetheless, considerin- that petitioners

had received partial loan proceeds of P2##,###.##, the RC heldthe lia9le for s!ch ao!nt andaccordin-l/ directed PS70 to $a% allow petitioners to pa/ for their loan in the ao!nt ofP2##,###.##

pl!s 12 interest, and $9% pa/ oral and e4eplar/ daa-es, attorne/3sfees, and the costs of s!it. *"

A--rieved, PS70 filed a otion for reconsideration,*8while petitioners filed a otion for discretionar/

e4ec!tion*)

which were, however, denied in an Order+#

dated 6e9r!ar/ 11, 2##8. Dissatisfied, PS70interposed an appeal to the CA.

he CA R!lin-

In a Decision+1dated !ne 2", 2#11, the CAreversed and set aside the RC Decision and disissedpetitioners3 coplaint for lac; of erit.+2

It held that petitioners were not a9le to s!fficientl/ prove their clai that the/ were !ned!cated

and=or !nschooled, re5ectin- the self&servin- and !ncorro9orated testion/ of petitioner 6ranciscoSierra on s!ch clai.+*In this relation, it pointed o!t that petitioners had ;nowin-l/ and vol!ntaril/e4ec!ted the s!95ect deed, o9servin- thatB $a% prior to its e4ec!tion, petitioners 6rancisco and

Rosario Sierra had previo!sl/ ort-a-ed their properties twice to the R!ral 0an; of Antipolo,showin- that the/ were failiar with the intricacies of o9tainin- a loan and of the ters andconditions of a ort-a-e, and $9% the pa-e on which the parties affi4ed their si-nat!res clearl/

indicated petitioners as the ort-a-ors and 'CI as the 9orrowers. 7oreover, petitioners did notdeand for the release of the reainin- ao!nt of their alle-ed loan, raisin- iss!e thereon onl/ intheir coplaint filed in 1))1.++

he CA li;ewise r!led that the action to ann!l the s!95ect deed had alread/ prescri9ed, since the

sae was 9ro!-ht ore than fo!r $+% /ears fro the discover/ of the ista;e orfra!d, rec;oned frothe tie the earliest chec;s iss!ed to petitioners were dishonored, or on an!ar/ ), 1)8+, this 9ein-the tie the consideration orprice for the e4ec!tion of the s!95ect deed t!rned o!t to 9e false.+

he CA f!rther held that petitioners were 9arred 9/ lachesfro assertin- an/ clai on the s!95ect

properties considerin- that despite receipt of the letter dated !ne 11, 1)8+ inforin- the of thesched!led a!ction sale, the/ failed to attend the sale or file an adverse clai, or to thereafter

redee the s!95ect properties.+

@npert!r9ed, petitioners filed the instant petition.

he Iss!es 0efore he Co!rt
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_197857_2014.html#fnt46


4/26

he essential iss!es in this case are whether or not the CA erred inB $a% r!lin- that petitioners wereaware that the/ were ere accoodation ort-a-ors, and $9% disissin- the coplaint on the

-ro!nds of prescription and laches.

he Co!rt3s R!lin-

he petition lac;s erit.

A. (itiation of Consent.

ie and a-ain, the Co!rt has stressed that alle-ations !st 9e proven 9/ s!fficient evidence9eca!se ere alle-ation is not evidence. +"h!s,one who alle-es an/ defect or the lac; ofa valid

consent toa contract !st esta9lish the sae 9/ f!ll, clear, and convincin- evidence, not erel/ 9/preponderance of evidence.+8he r!le is that he who alle-es ista;e affectin- a transaction !st

s!9stantiatehis alle-ation, since it is pres!ed that a person ta;es ordinar/ care of his concerns andthat private transactions have 9een fair and re-!lar.+)here ista;e or error is alle-ed 9/ partieswho clai to have not had the 9enefit of a -ood ed!cation, as in this case, the/ !st esta9lish that

their personal circ!stances prevented the fro -ivin- their free, vol!ntar/, and spontaneo!sconsent to a contract.#

After a 5!dicio!s per!sal of the records, the Co!rt finds petitioners3 clai of ista;e or error $thatthe/ acted erel/ as accoodation ort-a-ors% -ro!nded on their ?ver/ liited ed!cation? and?lac; of proper instr!ction? not to 9e firl/ s!pported 9/ the evidence on record.

As correctl/ o9served 9/ the CA, the testion/ of petitioner 6rancisco Sierra as to petitioners3respective ed!cational 9ac;-ro!nds1reained !ncorro9orated. he other petitioners&si-natories to

the deed never testified that their ed!cational 9ac;-ro!nd prevented the fro ;nowin-l/ e4ec!tin-the s!95ect deed as ere accoodation ort-a-ors. Petitioners3 clai of lac; of ?properinstr!ction on the intricacies in sec!rin- FtheG loan fro the 9an;? is f!rther 9elied 9/ the fact that

petitioners 6rancisco and Rosario Sierra had previo!sl/ ort-a-ed two $2% of the s!95ect propertiestwiceto the R!ral 0an; of Antipolo.7oreover, petitioners did notB $a% deand for an/ loan doc!entcontainin-the details of the transaction, i.e., onthl/ aortiHation, interest rate, added char-es, etc.,

and the release of the reainin- ao!nt of their alle-ed loan and $9% offer to pa/ the p!rportedpartial loan proceeds the/ received at an/ tie,2coplainin- thereof onl/ in 1))1 when the/ filedtheir coplaint. Indeed, the fore-oin- circ!stances clearl/ show that petitioners are aware thatthe/ were ere accoodation ort-a-ors, de9!n;intheir clai that ista;e vitiated their

consent to the ort-a-e.

h!s, there 9ein- valid consent on the part of petitioners to act as accoodation ort-a-ors, noreversi9le error was coitted 9/ the CA in settin- aside the RC3s Decision declarin- the real

estate ort-a-e as void for vices of consent and awardin-daa-es to petitioners. As ereaccoodation ort-a-ors, petitioners are not entitled to the proceeds of the loan, nor werere!ired to 9e f!rnished with the loan doc!ents*or notice of the 9orrower3s defa!lt in pa/in-the

principal, interests, penalties, and other char-es on d!e date,+or of the e4tra5!dicial foreclos!reproceedin-s, !nless stip!lated in the s!95ect deed. As 5!rispr!dence states, an accoodationort-a-or is a third person who is not a de9tor to a principal o9li-ation 9!t erel/ sec!res it 9/ort-a-in- his or her own propert/.


5/26

0. Prescription.

On a second atter, petitioners insist that the CA erred in r!lin- that their action for n!llification ofthe s!95ect deed had alread/ prescri9ed, contendin- that the applica9le provision is the ten&/earprescriptive period of ort-a-e actions !nder Article 11+28of the Civil Code.

he contention is 9ereft of erit.

0ased on case law, a ?ort-a-e action? refers to an action to enforcea ri-ht necessaril/ arisin- froa ort-a-e.)In the present case, petitioners are not ?enforcin-?their ri-hts !nder the ort-a-e 9!tare, in fact, see;in- to 9e relieved therefro.he coplaint filed 9/ petitioners is, therefore, not aort-a-e actionas conteplated !nder Article 11+2.

Considerin-, however, petitioners3 fail!re to esta9lish that their consent to the ort-a-e was vitiated,

renderin- the witho!t a ca!se of action, !ch less a ri-ht of action to ann!l the ort-a-e, the!estion of whether or not the coplaint has prescri9ed 9ecoes erel/ acadeic.#

In an/ event, even ass!in- that petitioners have a valid ca!se of action, the fo!r&/ear prescriptiveperiod on voida9le contracts1shall appl/. Since the coplaint for ann!lent was anchored on a

clai of ista;e, i.e., that petitioners are the 9orrowers !nder the loan sec!red 9/ the ort-a-e, theaction sho!ld have 9een 9ro!-ht withinfo!r $+% /ears fro its discover/.1wphi1

A per!sal of the coplaint, however, failed to disclose when petitioners learned that the/ were notthe 9orrowers !nder the loan sec!red 9/ the s!95ect ort-a-e. Nonetheless, considerin- that

petitioners aditted receipt on !ne 1), 1)8+ 2of PS703s letter dated !ne 11, 1)8+ inforin- theof the sched!led foreclos!re sale on !ne 2", 1)8+ d!e to 'CI3s 9reach of its loan o9li-ation

sec!red 9/ the s!95ect properties, the discover/ of the averred ista;e sho!ld appear to 9erec;oned fro !ne 1), 1)8+, and not fro the dishonor of the chec;s on an!ar/ ), 1)8+ as r!led9/ the CA. 1wphi1

C.


6/26

SO ORDERED.

PURE AND CONDITIONAL

O!LIGATIONSGOLDEN VALLE" E#PLORATION, INC& %s. PIN'IAN MINING COMPAN" and

COPPER VALLE", INC&, G&R& N& )*111, 4une )), 21)3, 4& Pe05as6!e0nabe

G.R. No. 190080 !e 11, 2014

GO'%EN *A''E/ EP'ORA&ION, INC.,Petitioner,vs.PINIAN )INING CO)PAN/ +# COPPER *A''E/, INC.,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PER'AS3ERNAE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1are the Decision2dated !l/ 2*, 2##) and theResol!tion*dated Octo9er 2*, 2##) of the Co!rt of Appeals $CA% in CA&'.R. C(. No. )#82 whichreversed the Decision+dated A!-!st 18, 2## of the Re-ional rial Co!rt of 7a;ati Cit/, 0ranch 1+

$RC% in Civil Case No. #1&*2+ and, conse!entl/, affired the validit/ of the rescission of theOperatin- A-reeent 9etween petitioner 'olden (alle/ E4ploration, Inc. $'(EI% and respondentPin;ian 7inin- Copan/ $P7C% coverin- vario!s inin- clais in Ka/apa, N!eva (iHca/a, as wellas the 7eorand! of A-reeent 9etween P7C and respondent Copper (alle/, Inc. $C(I%.

he 6acts

P7C is the owner of 81 inin- clais located in Ka/apa, N!eva (iHca/a, 1 of which were covered9/ 7inin-


7/26

of 9ein- the operator thereof and $f% its nonperforance of the necessar/ wor;s on the inin-clais.12

'(EI contested P7C3s e4tra&5!dicial rescission of the OA thro!-h a


8/26

he central iss!e for the Co!rt3s resol!tion is whether or not there was a valid rescission of the OA.

he Co!rt3s R!lin-

he Co!rt resolves the iss!e in the affirative.

In reciprocal o9li-ations, either part/ a/ rescind the contract !pon the other3s s!9stantial 9reach of

the o9li-ation=s he had ass!ed there!nder. he 9asis therefor is Article 11)1 of the Civil Codewhich states as followsB

Art. 11)1. he power to rescind o9li-ations is iplied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the o9li-orssho!ld not copl/ with what is inc!9ent !pon hi.

he in5!red part/ a/ choose 9etween the f!lfillent and the rescission of the o9li-ation, with thepa/ent of daa-es in either case. >e a/ also see; rescission, even after he has chosenf!lfillent, if the latter sho!ld 9ecoe ipossi9le.

he co!rt shall decree the rescission claied, !nless there 9e 5!st ca!se a!thoriHin- the fi4in- of aperiod.

his is !nderstood to 9e witho!t pre5!dice to the ri-hts of third persons who have ac!ired the thin-,in accordance with Articles 1*8 and 1*88 and the 7ort-a-e


9/26

8.#1 his A-reeent a/ 9e cancelled or terinated prior to the e4piration of the period, ori-inal orrenewal entioned in the ne4t precedin- Section onl/ in either of the followin- wa/sB

a. 0/ written advance notice of si4t/ $#% da/s fro OPERAOR to PINKIAN with or witho!tca!se 9/ re-istered ail or personal deliver/ of the notice to PINKIAN.

9. 0/ written notice fro PINKIAN 9/ re-istered or personal deliver of the notice toOPERAOR 9ased on the fail!re to OPERAOR to a;e an/ pa/ents deterined to 9e

d!e PINKIAN !nder Section .#1 hereof after written deand for pa/ent has 9een adeon OPERAORB Provided that OPERAOR shall have a -race period of ninet/ $)#% da/sfro receipt of s!ch written deand within which to a;e the said pa/ents to PINKIAN.

ARIC


10/26

with reference to the e4ploration, developent, e!ippin- and operation of the Clais, and theinin- and 9eneficiation of the ore derived therefro, and ar;etin- the res!ltin- ar;eta9le

prod!cts.?*

Records reveal that when the OA was si-ned on Octo9er *#, 1)8", 1 inin- clais were alread/covered 9/ a perfected inin- lease contract, i.e., 7


11/26

e4tra&5!dicial rescission, no 5!dicial decree is necessar/ for rescission to ta;e place the e4tra&5!dicialrescission iediatel/ releases the part/ fro its o9li-ation !nder the contract, s!95ect onl/ to co!rt

reversal if fo!nd iproper.1wphi1On the other hand, witho!t a stip!lation allowin- e4tra&5!dicial rescission,it is the 5!dicial decree that rescinds, and not the will of the rescindin- part/. his a/ 9e -atheredfro previo!s Co!rt r!lin-s on the atter.

6or instance, in Oce5o, PereH Co. v. International 0an;in- Corporation,*8where the seller, witho!t

havin- reserved title to the thin- sold, so!-ht to re&possess the s!95ect atter of the sale thro!-h anaction for replevin after the 9!/er failed to pa/ its p!rchase price, the Co!rt r!led that the action ofreplevin $which operates on the ass!ption that the plaintiff is the owner of the thin- s!95ect of thes!it% ?will not lie !pon the theor/ that the rescission has alread/ ta;en place and that the seller hasrecovered title to the thin- sold.? It held that the title which had alread/ passed 9/ deliver/ to the9!/er is not ipso facto re&vested in the seller !pon the latter3s own deterination to rescind the sale

9eca!se it is the 5!d-ent of the co!rt that prod!ces the rescission.

On the other hand, in De

certain conditions therefor as the sae was a;in to an a-reeent -rantin- a part/ the ri-ht to e4tra&5!diciall/ rescind the contract in case of 9reach. he Co!rt r!led, in effect, that a s!9se!ent co!rt5!d-ent does not rescind the contract 9!t erel/ declares the fact that the sae has 9een

rescinded, viH.B

FG!dicial intervention is necessar/ not for p!rposes of o9tainin- a 5!dicial declaration rescindin- acontract alread/ deeed rescinded 9/ virt!e of an a-reeent providin- for rescission even witho!t

5!dicial intervention, 9!t in order to deterine whether or not the rescission was proper.+#$Ephases

and !nderscorin- s!pplied%

A siilar a-reeent in Roan Catholic Arch9ishop of 7anila v. CA+1allowin- the ipso facto reversionof the donated propert/ !pon noncopliance with the conditions was li;ewise !pheld, with the Co!rt

reiteratin- De

here Fthe propriet/ of the a!toatic rescissionG is s!stained, the decision of the co!rt will 9e erel/declarator/ of the revocation, 9!t it is not in itself the revocator/ act. $Ephasis and !nderscorin-s!pplied%

his notwithstandin-, 5!rispr!dence still indicates that an e4tra&5!dicial rescission 9ased on -ro!nds

not specified in the contract wo!ld not precl!de a part/ to treat the sae as rescinded. herescindin- part/, however, 9/ s!ch co!rse of action, s!95ects hiself to the ris; of 9ein- held lia9le

for daa-es when the e4tra&5!dicial rescission is !estioned 9/ the opposin- part/ in co!rt. his wasade clear in the case of @.P. v. De


12/26

In other words, the part/ who dees the contract violated a/ consider it resolved or rescinded, andact accordin-l/, witho!t previo!s co!rt action, 9!t it proceeds at its own ris;. 6or it is onl/ the final

5!d-ent of the correspondin- co!rt that will concl!sivel/ and finall/ settle whether the action ta;enwas or was not correct in law. 4 4 4.++$Ephases and !nderscorin- s!pplied%

he prono!nceent, which was also reiterated in the case of An-eles v. CalasanH,+so!-ht toe4plain vario!s r!lin-s that contin!ed to re!ire 5!dicial confiration even in cases when the

rescindin- part/ has a proven contract!al ri-ht to e4tra&5!diciall/ rescind the contract. heo9servation then was ainl/ on the practical effect of a stip!lation allowin- e4tra&5!dicial rescission9ein- erel/ ?to transfer to the defa!lter the initiative on instit!tin- s!it, instead of the rescinder.?+

Proceedin- fro the fore-oin-, the Co!rt has deterined that the other -ro!nds raised 9/ P7C in its


13/26

SWIRE REALTY DEVELOPMENT ORPORATION, Petitioner, v.!AYNE Y", Respondent.

D E I S I O N

PERALTA, J.#

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks toreverse and set aside the Decision 1dated Januar !4, !"1# and Resolution !dated $%ril #", !"1# of theCourt of $%%eals &C$' in C$().R. *P +o. 1!1175.

The facts follow.

Res%ondent Jane u and %etitioner *wire Realt Develo%-ent Cor%oration entered into a Contract to *ell on

Jul !5, 1995 coverin one residential condo-iniu- unit, s%ecificall /nit #""7 of the Palace of 0akati,located at P. uros corner Caceres *ts., 0akati Cit, with an area of 1#7.#" s2uare -eters for the totalcontract %rice of P7,519,#71.3", %aale in e2ual -onthl install-ents until *e%te-er !4, 1997.Res%ondent likewise %urchased a %arkin slot in the sa-e condo-iniu- uildin for P"","""."".

6n *e%te-er !4, 1997, res%ondent %aid the full %urchase %rice of P7,519,#71.3" for the unit while -akina down %a-ent of P!","""."" for the %arkin lot. owever, notwithstandin full %a-ent of the contract%rice, %etitioner failed to co-%lete and deliver the su8ect unit on ti-e. This %ro-%ted res%ondent to file a

Co-%laint for Rescission of Contract with Da-aes efore the ousin and and /se Reulator oard&HLURB' :;%anded +ational Ca%ital Reion


14/26

is eond the %eriod of develo%-ent of Dece-er 1999 under the license to sell. The dela in theco-%letion of the %ro8ect as well as of the dela in the deliver of the unit are reaches of statutor and

contractual oliations which entitles Ares%ondentB to rescind the contract, de-and a refund and %a-ent ofda-aes.

The dela in the co-%letion of the %ro8ect in accordance with the license to sell also renders A%etitionerBliale for the %a-ent of ad-inistrative fine.

@herefore, the decision of the 6ffice elow is set aside and a new decision is rendered as follows?

1. Declarin the contract to sell as rescinded and directin A%etitionerB to refund toAres%ondentB the a-ount of P7,519,#71.3" at %er annu- fro- the ti-e of e;tra8udicialde-and on Januar "5, !""1? su8ect to co-%utation and %a-ent of the correct filin

feeChanRolesEirtualawlirar

!. Directin A%etitionerB to %a res%ondent attorne=s fees in the a-ount of P!","""."" ChanRolesEi rtualawli rar

#. Directin A%etitionerB to %a an ad-inistrative fine of P1","""."" for violation of *ection !",in relation to *ection #3 of P.D. 957?

*6 6RD:R:D. cralawredcralawlawli rar

Petitioner -oved for reconsideration, ut the sa-e was denied the /R oard of Co--issioners in aResolution 7dated June 14, !""7.

/nfaFed, %etitioner a%%ealed to the 6ffice of the President &OP' on $uust 7, !""7.

>n a Decision 3dated +ove-er !1, !""7, the 6P, throuh then De%ut :;ecutive *ecretar 0anuel )aite,dis-issed %etitioner=s a%%eal on the round that it failed to %ro-%tl file its a%%eal efore the 6P. >t held? chanRolesvirtualawlirar

Records show that A%etitionerB received its co% of the #" 0arch !"" /R Decision on 17 $%ril !"" andinstead of filin an a%%eal, it o%ted first to file a 0otion for Reconsideration on !3 $%ril !"" or eleven &11'

das thereafter. The said -otion interru%ted the 15(da %eriod to a%%eal.

6n !# Jul !""7, A%etitionerB received the /R Resolution dated 14 June !""7 denin the 0otion forReconsideration.

ased on the rulin in "$%&'( O)'r*'a* +a$ Ph%-%%$'*, I$c. ). h%$/&43 *CR$ 55', the %eriod to

a%%eal decisions of the /R oard of Co--issioners to the 6ffice of the President is 15 das fro- recei%tthereof %ursuant to *ection 15 of P.D. +o. 957 and *ection ! of P.D. +o. 1#44 which are s%ecial laws that%rovide an e;ce%tion to *ection 1 of $d-inistrative 6rder +o. 13.

Corollar thereto, %ar. !, *ection 1 of $d-inistrative 6rder +o. 13, *eries of 1937%rovides that?The ti-e durin which a -otion for reconsideration has een %endin with the 0inistrG$enc concernedshall e ('(c&'(fro- the %eriod of a%%eal. ut where such a -otion for reconsideration has een fileddurin office hours of the last da of the %eriod herein %rovided, the a%%eal -ust e -ade within the da

followin recei%t of the denial of said -otion the a%%ealin %art. &/nderscorin su%%lied'

; ; ; ;

$ccordinl, the A%etitionerB had onl four &4' das fro- recei%t on !# Jul !""7 of /R Resolution dated14 June !""7, or until !7 Jul !""7 to file the +otice of $%%eal efore this 6ffice. owever, A%etitionerB filedits a%%eal onl on 7 $uust !""7 or eleven &11' das late.

Thus, this 6ffice need not delve on the -erits of the a%%eal filed as the records clearl show that the said

a%%eal was filed out of ti-e.

WEREORE,%re-ises considered, A%etitionerB=s a%%eal is here DISMISSED, and the /R Decisiondated #" 0arch !"" and /R Resolution dated 14 June !""7 are here AIRMED.


15/26

SO ORDERED. 9cralawlawlirar

>--ediatel thereafter, %etitioner filed a -otion for reconsideration aainst said decision.

>n a Resolution 1"dated t held that after a

careful and thorouh evaluation and stud of the records of the case, the 6P was -ore inclined to areewith the earlier decision of the /R :+CR+*T$T:D.

SO ORDERED. 11cralawredcralawlawli rar

Res%ondent souht reconsideration of said resolution, however, the sa-e was denied the 6P in aResolution 1!dated $uust 13, !"11.

Conse2uentl, res%ondent filed an a%%eal to the C$.

>n a Decision dated Januar !4, !"1#, the C$ ranted res%ondent=s a%%eal and reversed and set aside the6rder of the 6P. The falloof its decision reads? chanRolesvirtualawlirar

WEREORE, the Petition is here GRANTED. The assailed Resolutiondated 17 n the afore-entioned cases, we ruled that the %eriod to a%%eal decisions of the /R oard of


16/26

Co--issioners is fifteen &15' das fro- recei%t thereof %ursuant to *ection 15 13of PD +o. 957 19and*ection ! !"of PD +o. 1#44 !1which are s%ecial laws that %rovide an e;ce%tion to *ection 1 of $d-inistrative

6rder +o. 13. Thus, in the SGMC Realt Corporation v. Offi!e of t"e Presidentcase, the Court e;%lained? chanRolesvirtualawlirar

$s %ointed out %ulic res%ondent, the aforecited ad-inistrative order allows arieved %art to file its

a%%eal with the 6ffice of the President within thirt "' das fro- recei%t of the decision co-%lained of.+onetheless, such thirt(da %eriod is su8ect to the 2ualification that there are no other statutor %eriods of

a%%eal a%%licale. >f there are s%ecial laws overnin %articular cases which %rovide for a shorter or lonerrele-entar %eriod, the sa-e shall %revail over the thirt(da %eriod %rovided for in the ad-inistrativeorder. This is in line with the rule in statutor construction that an ad-inistrative rule or reulation, in orderto e valid, -ust not contradict ut confor- to the %rovisions of the enalin law.

@e note that indeed there are s%ecial laws that -andate a shorter %eriod of fifteen &15' das within which toa%%eal a case to %ulic res%ondent.


17/26

Ar&%c-' 1191. The %ower to rescind oliations is i-%lied in reci%rocal ones, in case one of the oliorsshould not co-%l with what is incu-ent u%on hi-.

The in8ured %art -a choose etween the fulfill-ent and the rescission of the oliation, with the %a-ent

of da-aes in either case. e -a also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfill-ent, if the lattershould eco-e i-%ossile.

The court shall decree the rescission clai-ed, unless there e 8ust cause authoriFin the fi;in of a %eriod.

This is understood to e without %re8udice to the rihts of third %ersons who have ac2uired the thin, inaccordance with $rticles 1#35 and 1#33 and the 0ortae aw.cralawlawli rar

asic is the rule that the riht of rescission of a %art to an oliation under $rticle 1191 of the Civil Code is%redicated on a reach of faith the other %art who violates the reci%rocit etween the-. The reachconte-%lated in the said %rovision is the olior=s failure to co-%l with an e;istin oliation. @hen theolior cannot co-%l with what is incu-ent u%on it, the oliee -a seek rescission and, in the asence

of an 8ust cause for the court to deter-ine the %eriod of co-%liance, the court shall decree therescission. !7cralawred

>n the instant case, the C$ a%tl found that the co-%letion date of the condo-iniu- unit was +ove-er

1993 %ursuant to icense +o. 97(1!(#!"! dated +ove-er !, 1997 ut was e;tended to Dece-er 1999 as%er icense to *ell +o. 99("5(#4"1 dated 0a 3, 1999. owever, at the ti-e of the ocular ins%ectionconducted the /R :+CR


18/26

. The A-aster=sB edroo- door ore sin of %oor 2ualit of work-anshi% as seenelow.

h. The stairs have een installed in such -anner acce%tale to the undersined.

i. athroo-s and %owder roo- have een installed in such -anner acce%tale to the

undersined. !3

cralawlawli rar

ncontrovertil, %etitioner had incurred dela in the %erfor-ance of its oliation a-ountin to reach of

contract as it failed to finish and deliver the unit to res%ondent within the sti%ulated %eriod. The dela in theco-%letion of the %ro8ect as well as of the dela in the deliver of the unit are reaches of statutor and

contractual oliations which entitle res%ondent to rescind the contract, de-and a refund and %a-ent ofda-aes.

WEREORE, %re-ises considered, the instant %etition is DENIED. The Decision dated Januar !4, !"1#

and Resolution dated $%ril #", !"1# of the Court of $%%eals in C$().R. *P +o. 1!1175 arehere AIRMED, %&h MODIIATION &ha& 4ora- (a4a/'* ' aar('( %$ &h' a4o$& o6P20,000.00

SO ORDERED. cralawlawlirar

O!LIGATIONS 7IT$ PERIODRO7ENA R& SALONTE %s& COMMISSION ON AUDIT, C$AIRPERSON MA&

GRACIA PULIDO6TAN, COMMISSIONER 4UANITO G& ESPINO, 4R&,

COMMISSIONER $EIDI L& MENDOZA, and FORTUNATA M& RU!ICO, DIRECTOR

IV, COA COMMISSION SECRETARIAT, G&R& N& 21+83, Au;ust )*, 21)3, 4&Ve5as9, 40&,

G.R. No. 20748 A!6!t 19, 2014

ROENA R. SA'ON&E,Petitioner,vs.CO))ISSION ON AU%I&, CAIRPERSON )A. GRACIA PU'I%O3&AN, CO))ISSIONERUANI&O G. ESPINO, R., CO))ISSIONER EI%I '. )EN%OA, +# FOR&UNA&A ). RUICO,%IREC&OR I*, COA CO))ISSION SECRE&ARIA&, " te"r o":"+; :+p+:"t"e,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

*E'ASCO, R., J.:

he Case

his is a petition for review filed !nder R!le + assailin- the 6e9r!ar/ 1, 2##8 Decision 1andNove9er , 2#12 Resol!tion,2denoinated as Decision Nos. 2##8 and 2#12&1)#, respectivel/,of the Coission on A!dit $COA%. he assailed iss!ances affired the Notice of Disallowance No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt2


19/26

$ND% 2####2&1#1$)"% dated Nove9er 1+, 2##1 iss!ed 9/ Re4/ 7. Raos, COA State A!ditor I(,p!rs!ant to COA Assi-nent Order No. 2###&*.*

he 6acts

On April 2, 1)8), the Cit/ of 7anda!e and 6.6. Cr!H and Co., Inc. $6.6. Cr!H% entered into a

Contract of Reclaation+in which 6.6. Cr!H, in consideration of a defined land sharin- for!la th!sstip!lated, a-reed to !nderta;e, at its own e4pense, the reclaation of 18# hectares, ore or less,of foreshore and s!9er-ed lands frothe Ca9ah!- Ca!sewa/ in that cit/. he tieta9les, i.e.,coenceent of the contract and pro5ect copletion, are provided in para-raphs 2 and 1 of theContract which stateB

2. CO77ENCE7EN. or; on the reclaation shall coence not later than F!l/ 1)8)G, afterthiscontract shall 9e ratified 9/ the San--!nian Panl!n-sod

4 4 4 4

1. CONRAC D@RAION. he pro5ect is estiated to 9e copleted in si4 $% /earsB $* /ears for

the dred-e&fillin- and seawall constr!ction and * /ears for the infrastr!ct!res copletion%. >owever,if all the infrastr!ct!res within the ONERS3 share of the pro5ect are alread/ copleted within the si4$% /ear period a-reed !pon, an/ e4tension of tie for wor;s to 9edone within the share of theDE(E


20/26

9elon- to the FCit/ of 7anda!eG in ownershipas copensation for the !se of said parcel ofland 9/ F6.6. Cr!HG witho!t an/ rental whatsoever. $ephasis s!pplied%

P!rs!ant to the 7OA, 6.6. Cr!H proceeded to constr!ct the conteplated ho!sin- !nits and otherfacilities which incl!ded a canteen and a septic tan;.

owever, the str!ct!res and facilities 9!ilt 9/ 6.6. Cr!H s!95ect of the 7OA stood in the direct path ofthe road widenin- pro5ect. h!s, the Departent of P!9lic or;s and >i-hwa/s $DP>% andSa!el 0. DarHa, 7CDP II pro5ect director, entered into an A-reeent to Deolish, Reove andReconstr!ct Iproveent dated !l/ 2*, 1))"with 6.6. Cr!H where9/ the latter wo!ld deolish theiproveents o!tside of the 9o!ndar/ of the road widenin- pro5ect and, in ret!rn, receive the totalao!nt of PhP 1,#8+,8*.+2 in copensation.

Accordin-l/, petitioner Rowena 0.Rances $now Rowena RancesSolante%, >!an Reso!rce7ana-eent Officer III, prepared and, with the approval of Sa!el 0. DarHa $DarHa%, then iss!edDis9!rseent (o!cher $D(% No. 1#2"&88&)" dated !l/ 2+, 1))""for PhP 1,#8+,8*.+2 in favor of

6.6. Cr!H. In the vo!cher, Solante certified that the e4pense covered 9/ it was ?necessar/, lawf!l andinc!rred !nder / direct s!pervision.?

hereafter, DarHa addressed a letter&coplaint to the Office of the O9!dsan, (isa/as, invitin-attention to several irre-!larities re-ardin- the ipleentation of 7CDP II. he letter was referred tothe COA which then iss!ed Assi-nent Order No. 2###* for a tea to a!dit the acco!nts of7CDP II. 6ollowin- an a!dit, the a!dit tea iss!ed Special A!dit Office $SAO% Report No. 2###&28,par. of which statesB

6.6. Cr!H and Copan/, Inc. was paid P1,#8+,8*.+2 for the cost of the propert/ affected 9/ thewidenin- of Plaridel E4tension, 7anda!e Ca!sewa/. >owever, !nder Section of its 7OA with7anda!e Cit/, the forer was no lon-er the lawf!l owner of the properties at the tie the pa/entwas ade.8

0ased on the a9ove findin-s, the SAO a!dit tea, thro!-h Re4/ Raos, iss!ed the adverted ND2####2&1#1&$)"%)disallowin- the pa/ent of PhP 1,#8+,8*.+2 to 6.6. Cr!H and nain- thatcopan/, DarHa and Solante lia9le for the transaction. herefro, Solante so!-ht reconsideration,while 6.6. Cr!H appealed, 9!t the otion for reconsideration and the appeal were 5ointl/ denied inowever, the pro5ect was not copleted in 1)) and even in 1))" when
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt11


21/26

7DCP paid for these iproveents. he fact that the reclaation pro5ect had not /et 9eencopleted or t!rned over to the Cit/ of 7anda!e 9/ 6.6. Cr!H in 1))" or two /ears after it sho!ldhave 9een copleted, does not ne-ate the ri-ht over s!ch iproveents 9/ the Cit/ 4 4 4. Clearl/,the intention of the stip!lation is for 6.6. Cr!H 4 4 4 to copensate the -overnent for the !se of theland on which the office, paveent, canteen, e4tension shed, ho!se and septic tan; were erected.h!s, to a;e the -overnent pa/ for the cost of the deolished iproveents will defeat the

intention of parties as re-ards copensation d!e fro the contractor for its !se of FtheG s!95ect land.@nder Article 1*1 of the Civil Code, fro the oent a contract is perfected, the parties are 9o!ndto the f!lfillent to what has 9een e4pressl/ stip!lated and all the conse!ences which accordin- totheir nat!re, a/ 9e in ;eepin- with -ood faith, !sa-e and law. h!s, even if the contract!alstip!lations a/ t!rn o!t to 9e financiall/ disadvanta-eo!s to an/ part/, s!ch will not relieve an/ or9oth parties frotheir contract!al o9li-ations.12$ephasis s!pplied%

6ro s!ch decision, Solante filed a 7otion for Reconsideration dated !ne 28, 2#1# p!rportedl/ withA!dit ea


22/26

period, 6.6. Cr!H is a!toaticall/ deeed to 9e in dela/, the contract considered as copleted, andthe ownership of the str!ct!res 9!ilt in accordance with the 7OA transferred to the Cit/ of 7anda!e.

COA3s 9asic position and the ar-!ents holdin- it to-ether is !ntena9le.

On this point, the Civil Code provision on o9li-ations with a period is relevant. Article 11)* thereof

providesB

Article 11)*. O9li-ations for whose f!lfillent a da/ certain has 9een fi4ed, shall 9e deanda9leonl/ when that da/ coes.

O9li-ations with a resol!tor/ period ta;e effect at once, 9!t terinate !pon arrival of the da/ certain.

A da/ certain is !nderstood to 9ethat which !st necessaril/ coe, altho!-h it a/ not 9e ;nownwhen.

If the !ncertaint/ consists in whether the da/ will coe or not, the o9li-ation is conditional, and itshall 9e re-!lated 9/ the r!les of the precedin- Section. $ephasis s!pplied%

A plain readin- of the Contract ofReclaation reveals that the si4 $%&/ear period provided forpro5ectcopletion, or, with li;e effect, terination of the contract was a ere estiateand cannot 9econsidered a period or a ?da/ certain? inthe conte4t of the afore!oted Art. 11)*. o 9e clear, par. 1of the Contract of Reclaation statesB ?FGhe pro5ect is estiated to 9e copleted in si4 $% /ears.?

As s!ch, the lapse of si4 $% /ears fro the perfection of the contract did not, 9/ itself, a;e theo9li-ation to finish the reclaation pro5ect deanda9le, s!ch as to p!t the o9li-or in a state ofactiona9le dela/ for its ina9ilit/ to finish. h!s, 6.6. Cr!H cannot 9e deeed to 9e in dela/.Parentheticall/, the O9!dsan, in a Resol!tion of !ne 2), 2## in O70&(&C*"*&C,espo!sed a siilar view in disissin- the coplaint a-ainst Solante, th!sB

A caref!l readin- of the pertinent section of the Contract of Reclaation 9etween 6.6. Cr!H and

7anda!e Cit/, however, wo!ld confir respondents Rances&SolanteF3sGand S!n-ahid3s view thatherein respondent Cr!H was still the owner of the s!95ect properties at the tie these weredeolished. Indeed, the Contract specifies that the si4 $%&/ear period was no ore than an estiateof the pro5ect copletion. It was not a fi4ed period a-reed !pon. 0ein- so, the ere lapse of si4 $%/ears fro the e4ec!tion of the Contract, did not 9/ itself dee the reclaation pro5ect copleted,!chless 9rin- a9o!t the f!lfillent of the condition stip!lated in the 7OA $on the shift of ownershipover the deolished properties%. >erein respondent Cr!H, and=or his copan/, at least on thispartic!lar re-ard, can 9e said to 9e still the owner of the str!ct!res alon- Plaridel E4tension 4 4 4,when these were deolished to -ive wa/ to road widenin-. It was nothin- 9!t e!ita9le that the/ -etcopensated for the daa-es ca!sed 9/ the deolition. 1$ephasis s!pplied%

P!t a 9it differentl/, the lapse of si4 $% /ears fro the perfection of the s!95ect reclaation contract,witho!tore, co!ld not have a!toaticall/ vested 7anda!e Cit/, !nder the 7OA, with ownership ofthe str!ct!res.

7oreover, even if we consider the allotted si4 $% /ears within which 6.6. Cr!H was s!pposed tocopletethe reclaation pro5ect, the lapse thereof does not a!toaticall/ ean that6.6. Cr!H was indela/. As a/ 9e noted, the Cit/ of 7anda!e never adea deand for the f!lfillent of its o9li-ation!nder the Contract of Reclaation. Article 11) of the Civil Code on the interaction of deand anddela/ and the e4ceptions to the re!ireent of deand relevantl/ statesB
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_207348_2014.html#fnt16


23/26

Article 11). hose o9li-ed to deliver orto do soethin- inc!r in dela/ fro the tie theo9li-ee5!diciall/ or e4tra5!diciall/ deands fro the the f!lfillent of their o9li-ation.

>owever, the deand 9/ the creditor shall not 9e necessar/ in order that dela/ a/ e4istB

$1% hen the o9li-ation or the law e4pressl/ so declares or

$2% hen fro the nat!re and the circ!stances of the o9li-ation it appears that thedesi-nation of the tie when the thin- is to 9e delivered or the service is to 9e rendered wasa controllin- otive for the esta9lishent of the contract or

$*% hen deand wo!ld 9e !seless, as when the o9li-or has rendered it 9e/ond his powerto perfor.

In reciprocal o9li-ations, neither part/ inc!rs in dela/ if the other does not copl/ or is not read/ tocopl/ in a proper anner with what is inc!9ent !pon hi. 6ro the oentone of the partiesf!lfills his o9li-ation, dela/ 9/ the other 9e-ins.

h!s, in Pl!s Asia Developent Corporation v. @tilit/ Ass!rance Corporation,1"the Co!rt has heldB

In this 5!risdiction, the followin- re!isites !st 9e present in order that the de9tor a/ 9e in defa!ltB$1% that the o9li-ation 9e deanda9le and alread/ li!idated$2% that the de9tor dela/s perforanceand $*% that the creditor re!ires the perforance 5!diciall/ or e4tra5!diciall/. $ephasis s!pplied%

In the instant case, the records are 9ereft of an/ doc!ent whence to ded!ce that the Cit/ of7anda!e e4actedfro 6.6. Cr!H the f!lfillent of its o9li-ation !nder the reclaation contract. And to9e s!re, not one of the e4ceptions to the re!isite deand !nder Art. 11) is esta9lished, let aloneasserted. On the contrar/, the then cit/ a/or of 7anda!e, no less, a9solved 6.6. Cr!H froinc!rrin- !nder the preises in dela/. In his affidavit dated !l/ ), 2##+, 18then 7a/or O!ano statedB

hat altho!-h 4 4 4 the reclaation wasestiatedto 9e copleted in si4 /ears endin- in 1)), thesaid pro5ect however, was not f!ll/ copleted when the deolition of the entioned iproveentsof F6.6. Cr!HG was ade 4 4 4 Fand in factG !p to now the said 7anda!e Reclaation Pro5ect has not/et 9een f!ll/ copleted and t!rned over to the Cit/ of 7anda!e.

4 4 4 FSGince at the tie of the deolition the said iproveents act!all/ 9elon-ed to F6.6. Cr!HG andthe Cit/ of 7anda!e has no clai whatsoever on the said pa/ent 4 4 4 for the deolishediproveents. $ephasis s!pplied%

As it were, the 7anda!e&6.6.Cr!H 7OA states that the str!ct!res 9!ilt 9/ 6 .6. Cr!H on the propert/of the cit/ will 9elon- to the latter onl/ !pon the copletion of the pro5ect. Clearl/, the copletion ofthe pro5ect is a s!spensive condition that has /et to 9e f!lfilled. 1wphi1@ntil the condition arises, ownership

of the str!ct!res properl/ pertains to 6 .6. Cr!H.

o 9e clear, the 7OA does not state that the str!ct!res shall in!re in ownership to the Cit/ of7anda!e after the lapse of si4 $ % /ears fro the e4ec!tion of the Contract of Reclaation. hatthe 7OA does provide is that ownership of the str!ct!res shall vest !pon, or ipso facto 9elon- to, theCit/ of 7anda!e when the Contract of Reclaation shall have 9een copleted.


24/26

pa/ent is witho!t fact!al and le-al 9asis. COA then -ravel/ a9!sed its discretion when it decreedthe disallowance.

>ERE6ORE, the instant petition is 'RANED. Accordin-l/, the assailed 6e9r!ar/ 1, 2##8Decision, Nove9er , 2#12 Resol!tion, and Notice of Disallowance No. 2####2&1#1 $)"% datedNove9er 1+, 2##1 iss!ed 9/ the Coission on A!dit are here9/ RE(ERSED and SE ASIDE.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

NATURE AND EFFECT OF

O!LIGATIONS

FEDERAL !UILDERS, INC& %s& FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC&, G&R& N&)*3-1+, Se.te/be0 , 21)3, 4& Pe0a5ta

RODRIGO RIVERA %s& SPOUSES SALVADOR C$UA AND VIOLETA S& C$UA,

G&R& N& )33- (9ns5idated, 4anua0y )3, 21)-, 4& Pe0e

Oblicon Mid Full Text

Documents

Transcript of Oblicon Mid Full Text