G.R. Nos. 74960-61. November 27, 1987
VICTORIA DOMINGUEZ, SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DECEASED JESUSA D. GARCIA, SALOME D. GARCIA, BELEN D. GARCIA, FILEMON D. GARCIA, AND JOSE D. GARCIA, ALSO REPRESENTED BY VICTORIA DOMINGU…
PARAS, J.:
Before Us is a petition to review the ruling[1]
set down by the Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. CV-03691
(Originally Civil Case No. 137527 of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, an
action for Damages and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction filed by
private respondent-appellee William Lee to compel
petitioners-appellants herein to execute a deed of sale in his favor of a
parcel of land containing an area of 52.91 square meters situated in Raon Street, Quiapo, Manila) and
in AC-G.R. CV No. 03692 (Originally Civil Case No. 138425 of the Regional Trial
Court, Manila, an action for Legal Redemption
and Damages filed by herein petitioners-appellants praying that they be
allowed to redeem from the private respondent a parcel of land containing an
area of 270 square meters situated in Raon Street, Quiapo, Manila). At
first the sale was conditional (the
condition being that the buyer should shoulder the payment of the mortgage
loan and taxes and survey and other fees).
The condition having been allegedly already complied with, the buyer
(private respondent herein) eventually sued for the execution of an absolute
deed of sale. In effect the
appellate court affirmed in toto the judgments[2] of the lower court in the two (2) cases
which were tried jointly, the dispositive portion of
its decision reading:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
“In Civil Case No. 137527, ordering the defendants to sell,
transfer and convey to plaintiff William Lee the 52.91 square meters which is a
portion of the 322.91 sq. m. lot covered by TCT 127502, upon full payment by
plaintiff of the sum equivalent to P700.00 per square meter; to pay plaintiff
the following amounts: P10,000.00, as
and for moral damages, P10,000.00 as
and for attorney’s fees.
“In Civil Case No. 138425, the legal redemption sought by
plaintiffs Jesusa Garcia, et al., being without
foundation, it should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED.
“In both cases, costs of suit shall be borne by the Garcias, namely: Jesusa, Salome, Filemon and Jose,
all surnamed Garcia.” (pp. 42-43, Rollo)
In interposing their
appeal to the appellate court, petitioners herein as appellants therein alleged
the following errors:
IN AC-G.R.
CV NO. 03691
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING AND COPYING THE STATEMENT OF
FACTS IN THE DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 122927, BRANCH 32, COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF MANILA DATED DECEMBER 3, 1980 MARKED AS EXHIBIT ‘D’, AND DULY EXECUTED, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
AS DECLARED IN OPEN COURT BY APPELLEE.
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT APPELLEE HAD MADE A CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND
THAT APPELLANTS ARE ORDERED TO SELL, TRANSFER AND CONVEY TO APPELLEE THEIR
CO-OWNERSHIP PROPERTY OF 52.91 SQ. METERS WHICH IS ADJACENT TO APPELLEE’S
PROPERTY OF 270 SQ. METERS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CONTRACT.
IN AC-G.R. CV NO. 03692
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THIS CASE BASED ON A
FLIMSY REASON THAT THE SAME IS ‘WITHOUT FOUNDATION’ THE TRUTH AS RECORDS WILL
SHOW, THAT NO PRE-TRIAL WAS EVER HELD NOR EVIDENCE PRESENTED.” (p. 43, Rollo)
In order to have a better
grasp of the issues at bar, the findings of fact and conclusions
of the trial court which were quoted with approval by the appellate court in
the body of its assailed decision are now considered and reproduced herein, to
wit:
“These two cases, however, take their roots from another case (CC
No. 122947) filed by William Lee against Tirso, Demetria, Concepcion, Rosario,
Dolores, Mario, all surnamed Garcia; Raquel Garcia-de Leon and Carmen Munoz,
the co-heirs of the other Garcias in the two
above-named cases which were heard and decided by Judge Artemon
Luna, presiding Judge of Branch XXXIII, this Court, and wherein the court
decided in favor of William in that the latter was granted ownership over the
270 square meter portion of the 320 square meter lot.
“To have a better perspective of these two cases, presently under
litigation, it is best to fall back on the case decided by Judge Luna, the
facts and the evidence therein being substantially the same as that in the
herein mandamus case. Thus,
reproduced herein-under, are pertinent portions of the decision in Civil Case
No. 122927, offered by plaintiff William Lee in the mandamus case as one
of his documentary exhibits (Exhibit ‘D’), the findings of fact by the Court
providing adequate backdrop for the two
cases now under consideration, to wit:
‘Plaintiff is the manager of the Pan Bicol
Marketing Corporation, with residence/business address at 610
Quezon Blvd., Quiapo, Metro Manila.
‘Tirso Garcia, Jr., Demetrio
Garcia, Concepcion Garcia, Rosario Garcia, Raquel
Garcia de Leon, Mario Garcia, Carmen Munoz, and Dolores Garcia, the herein
defendants, and Salome D. Garcia, Filemon D. Garcia, Jesusa D. Garcia, Jose Garcia and Tito Garcia are co-owners
of a parcel of land situated in Raon St., Quiapo, Manila, with an area of 410.30 sq. m., more or
less, and more particularly described as follows:
(technical description
omitted)
‘This property was formerly covered by TCT 111152 of the Manila
cadastre, and registered in the names of:
(1) Rosario Robles, widow, 98/168; (2) Tirso
Garcia, Jr., married to Placida Matias, 14/168; (3) Demetria Garcia, single, 14/168; (4) Concepcion
Garcia, married to Francisco Testa, 14/168; (5)
Raquel Garcia, married to Romeo de Leon, 2/168; (6) Jesusa
Garcia, single, 2/168; (7) Rosario Garcia, 16 years, 2/168; (8) Salome Garcia,
13 years, 2/168; (9) Filemon Garcia, 9 years, 2/168;
(10) Jesusa Garcia, 7 years, 2/168; (11) Belen
Garcia, 6 years, 2/168 (12) Mario Garcia, married to Milagros de Leon, 7/168;
and (13) Tito Garcia, married to Maria Dolores Morales, 7/168 (Exh. E). There is
annotated at back of this title: ‘Entry No. 2372/T-111152-MORTGAGE – IN FAVOR
OF: PHILIPPINE TRUST COM., — to
guarantee a principal obligation in the sum of P25,000.00 with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum; x x x.’
“This property is now covered by three (3) separate TCTs No. 127500 with an area of 26.94 sq. m.; No. 127501
with an area of 60.45 sq. m.; and No. 127502 with an area of 322.91 sq. m. also
in the names of the aforesaid registered owners with the same equivalent share
as appearing in TCT 111152. The 270 sq.
m. portion of the 322.91 sq. m. covered by TCT 127502 is the property in litigation.”
“Appellee William Lee’s version is
recited in the decision dated November
3, 1980 in the aforesaid Civil Case No. 122927 of the then CFI of
Manila, Branch XXXIII (copy of
which judgment was admitted in evidence as Exhibit ‘D’ for appellee),
as follows:
“Sometime in April, 1977 or thereabouts, plaintiff (Appellee here) saw a sign ‘for sale’ with a ‘telephone
number’ posted in the lot. He called up
the phone number and was able to talk to a certain Mario Pajarillo. He went to his residence/establishment and
personally accompanied and introduced him to Atty. Antonio Nuyles
at the latter’s law office. During that
encounter, Atty. Nuyles represented himself as the
legal counsel of the ‘Heirs of Tirso Garcia’ and told
them that he was taking charge of the sale of the property. This is confirmed by Exhibit ‘A’ a letter
signed by Atty. Nuyles, as ‘counsel for the Heirs of Tirso Garcia’ (Exh. A-2), which is addressed to plaintiff. Plaintiff from then onward would see Atty. Nuyles in his law office and Atty. Nuyles
briefed him on the nature of the property, that is, that it is mortgaged for
P25,000 with the Philippine Trust Company, that the estate and inheritance
taxes are still unpaid, that the property has to be surveyed to segregate
portions for flood control and road widening, and that if plaintiff is
interested in buying the property, he would have to shoulder/advance the
needed cash to pay for those obligations/charges. Plaintiff agreed. Upon the condition that the amount which
plaintiff would advance/pay in connection therewith would form part of the
consideration of the purchase price.
Atty. Nuyles agreed to this
counter-proposal. Atty. Nuyles also committed himself to take charge of preparing
the deed of sale as well as assume full
responsibility in having the registered owners sign the deed of
conveyance.
“On June 16, 1977,
plaintiff paid P29,109.79 to the Philippine Trust Company as part payment of
the estate’s mortgage indebtedness (Exh. C). On the same date, plaintiff also paid P24.53
to the bank representing (completion of) full payment of the mortgage
indebtedness. (Exh.
C-1)
“On June 28, 1977,
plaintiff likewise paid P20,865.68 as estate and inheritance taxes, evidenced
by a receipt signed by Atty. Nuyles for the ‘Heirs of Tirso
Garcia’ (Exh. C).
“Also on June 28, 1977,
plaintiff further paid P1,000 to two of the co-owners, Mario
Garcia and Milagros L. Garcia, evidenced by
receipts signed by these heirs (Exhs. C-3, C-4
and C-5).
“On July 1, 1977,
plaintiff furthermore paid P2,000, to geodetic engineer Marino Sacro as surveyor’s fees, evidenced by a receipt dated July 1, 1977 (Exh.
C-5).
“Atty. Nuyles, on his part, as legal
counsel and representative of the co-owners, delivered TCT 111152 to Maria Pajarillo (Exh. 6), who in turn
delivered the title to plaintiff (Exh. 7). After property was surveyed and subdivided
and TCT 111152 was cancelled, TCTs 127500, 127501 and
127502 were issued and in turn were also delivered to and kept by plaintiff.
“Sometime in July, 1977, Atty. Nuyles
prepared a conditional deed of sale (Exhs. B, B-1,
B-2, and B-3). x x
x
(the terms and conditions of the said deed
of conditional sale are quoted in the same decision but We deem it unnecessary
to quote the same here)
“Those who signed the document were Tirso
Garcia, Jr., Demetrio Garcia, Raquel Garcia de Leon, Concepcion Garcia, Rosario Garcia, Mario Garcia, and Tito
Garcia represented by his wife Maria Dolores Garcia (Exhs.
B-4 to B-13). And those who did not
sign were Salome Garcia, Belen Garcia, Jesusa Garcia
and Filemon Garcia.
In view of the failure of those co-owners to sign the deed, plaintiff
had to see Atty. Nuyles on many occasions to inquire
from him why those co-owners failed, and, at the same time demanded from his as
counsel and representative of the co-owners to compel those co-owners to sign
the document. When these co-owners failed and Atty. Nuyles
also failed to live up to his promised commitment, the plaintiff referred the
matter to his lawyer, who, on September 15, 1977, wrote the Heirs
of Tirso Garcia, c/o Atty. Antonio Nuyles (Exhs. F, F-1, F-2, F-3),
demanding execution of the deed of absolute sale, or for return of the amount
which plaintiff has paid within 10 days from receipt of the letter. This letter was received by Atty. Nuyles on September
23, 1977 (Exh. F-5). Plaintiff waited but no deed of absolute sale
was executed, no amount was returned, and Atty. Nuyles
failed to respond. Plaintiff again saw
it fit to confer with Atty. Nuyles, and suggested
that if the heirs who did not sign the deed were demanding for a higher price,
he would be willing to pay that price so that the deed of absolute sale can be
effectuated. Nothing came out.
“On November 1, 1977,
plaintiff filed an estafa case (I.S. No. 77-36776)
with the City Fiscal’s Office of Manila. During its pendency,
the herein defendants-Garcias, named respondents,
offered to execute the final deed of sale covering their 270 sq. m. share of
the property. Atty. Nuyles
agreed to prepare the deed. And
plaintiff agreed to buy the same. As concretized,
plaintiff went to Atty. Nuyles‘ law office with two
PCIB checks 1994444 and 1994449 worth P96,550, and P136,000 (Exhs. G and H) which he tendered as payment of the balance
of the purchase price of the lot. To
this surprise, Atty. Nuyles refused, and instead
offered to accept the money. Plaintiff
discovered that the reason for the turnabout was that defendant Tirso Garcia, Jr., Demetrio
Garcia, Concepcion Garcia, Raquel Garcia de Leon,
Rosario Garcia, Mario Garcia, Dolores Garcia, and Carmen S. Munoz had in the
meanwhile surreptitiously sold the same property to their co-defendant Espilita G. Chan (Exhs. I, I-1
and I-2). Plaintiff therefore, filed a
notice of adverse claim (Exh. C) and this action.” Rollo, pp. 44-49)
Relying on the aforementioned facts, the appellate court ruled
adversely against the petitioners on the two (2) errors assigned.
Petitioners
now come to Us on certiorari to review the judgment of the appellate court
alleging misapprehension of
facts and practically raising the same arguments
and assignments of errors as those raised in the Intermediate Appellate Court.
Petitioners’ averments in
their memorandum read as follows:
1. The trial court erred in
adopting and copying the statement of facts in the decision of Civil
Case No. 122927, Branch 32, Court of First Instance, dated December 3, 1980 marked as Exh.
“D” despite the fact that petitioners are not parties thereto, not
having signed the deed of conditional sale.
2. The action filed by the plaintiff (private respondent William
Lee) should have been one for Specific Performance instead of Mandamus.
3. As to issue on legal redemption, petitioners charge the
appellate court with affirming the conclusion of lower court without legal
basis.
4. The Intermediate Appellate Court sweepingly and lopsidedly
quoted with approval the findings of fact of the lower court.
Such contentions of
petitioners do not deserve Our consideration.
The records show that
Exhibit “D” or the assailed decision in Civil Case No. 122927, during the trial
on October 21, 1982 (t.s.n. p. 14, October 21, 1982) was formally offered and admitted as one of the documentary
evidence for the private respondent without being objected to nor controverted by the petitioners. While it is true that the New Rules of Court
provide that the Court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered, it is equally true that a Court can consider evidence which has been
presented and formally offered during trial.
This is especially true in a situation where petitioners, although not
defendants in Civil Case No. 129927, are involved as co-heirs or co-owners over
a 322.91 square meter-lot which they (petitioners) and the other co-heirs (who
were made defendants in Civil Case No. 122927) jointly and severally offered
for sale through their authorized
representative and counsel, Atty. Antonio Nuyles, as
well as jointly and severally reaped benefits from the payment made by the
herein private respondent on the mortgage to the bank, the payment of real
estate and inheritance taxes to the government as well as the payment of the
survey fees.
Petitioners aver that
private respondent’s action should be one for Specific Performance instead of Mandamus. Such contention was denied by private
respondent alleging that while the two cases are being heard by the trial
court, petitioners had failed to move for dismissal on said ground; in fact
after the issues were joined and a pre-trial was held on July 2, 1981, petitioners
in their memorandum filed with the court a quo stated only four
issues without including the issue about Mandamus. (p. 10 Memorandum for respondents or p. 109, Rollo). The nature
of an action is not necessarily determined or controlled by its title or
heading but rather, by the body of the pleading or complaint itself. To avoid possible denial of substantial
justice due to legal technicalities, pleadings as well as remedial laws should
be liberally construed in order that the litigants may have ample opportunity
to prove their respective claims.
Likewise, We find that petitioners are not entitled to legal
redemption under the provisions of Article 1620 of the Civil Code because while
they are the co-owners of that 322.91 square meters lot covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 127502, 270 square meters of which had been sold to
private respondent by petitioners’ other co-heirs and/or co-owners,
petitioners together with their co-heirs had offered for sale the entire
322.91 square meter-property. After
private respondent agreed to purchase the same and advanced a considerable
amount of money in payment of the mortgage due for foreclosure, delinquent
estate and inheritance taxes, as well
as survey fees and others, the herein petitioners wanted to renege on
their agreement to sell and instead offered to redeem the property from private
respondent. Be it noted that in their
Motion for Extension of Trial to file Petition for Review dated June 30, 1986, they were even seeking
to be considered as pauper litigants, which is a move inconsistent with their
offer of legal redemption and the necessary expenses therein. Such posture only reveals their possible
intent to refuse the sale of the remaining 52.91 square meters-portion of the
lot in question.
Finally, We find nothing wrong with the appellate court in
copying verbatim the stipulation of facts appearing in the decision of
the lower court if the appellate court finds that the said stipulation
reflects the truthful and complete background facts of the cases at bar.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED
for lack of merit and the assailed decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera,
Padilla, and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.
[1]
Penned by Justice Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr., concurred in
by Justices Eduardo P. Caguioa, Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa and Leonor Ines Luciano.
[2]
The records do not show the Ponente of the 2 cases
tried jointly. However, in CV 122927,
the Ponente is Judge Artemon
D. Luna.