IRENE P. MARIANO NOW IRENE P. RELUCIO, PETITIONER, VS. FANCISCO M. BAUTISTA, ENRIQUE ALPAÑO AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

THESE TWO (2) CASES
STEMMED FROM A COMPLAINT FOR RESCISSION (ACTUALLY “RESOLUTION”) OF
CONTRACT WITH PRAYER FOR ACCOUNTING, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES, FILED
BY IRENE MARIANO AGAINST FRANCISCO BAUTISTA IN THE THEN COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF CAMARINES SUR, 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, BRANCH IV, THEREIN DOCKETED AS CIVIL
CASE NO. 7926.*

G.R. No. L-55982 IS A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI
ASSAILING THE VALIDITY OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. No. 10727-SP* PROMULGATED
ON NOVEMBER 3, 1980 SETTING ASIDE THE QUESTIONED WRIT OF
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL DATED APRIL 28, 1980 AND THE NOTICE
OF SHERIFF’S SALE DATED MAY 2,
1980 BOTH ISSUED IN CONNECTION
WITH CIVIL CASE 7926, AND ITS RESOLUTION DATED JANUARY 14, 1981, DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

G.R. No. L-69589, IS A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN AC-G.R. No. CV No. 67676. 
*PROMULGATED ON JULY 27, 1984, MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE (CFI) OF CAMARINES SUR
IN CIVIL CASE No. 7926 AND ITS RESOLUTION DATED NOVEMBER 21, 1984, DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

ON MAY 1, 1972, HEREIN PETITIONER IRENE P.
MARIANO (NOW RELUCIO) AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA ENTERED INTO A
“CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE” TO ESTABLISH, DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A MEMORIAL PARK TYPE CEMETERY
IN NAGA CITY.  IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, IRENE MARIANO (REFERRED TO IN THE CONTRACT AS OWNER) AGREED
TO MAKE AVAILABLE A 15-HECTARE
PARCEL OF LAND FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCES LOCATED IN NAGA CITY COVERED BY
TCT No. 2536 WHILE FRANCISCO M.
BAUTISTA (REFERRED TO IN THE CONTRACT AS DEVELOPER) LIKEWISE AGREED TO MAKE AVAILABLE ALL THE CASH REQUIREMENTS,
LABOR, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENTS, GOVERNMENT, PERMITS AND LICENSES AND SUCH OTHER ITEMS NECESSARY
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, OPERATION,
BEAUTIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED AREA INTO
A MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY.

THE CONTRACT PROVIDES,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT:  (A) THE LOTS AS SUBDIVIDED SHALL BE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC AS BURIAL SPACES;
(B) THE BASIS FOR PROFIT SHARING BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE THE GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM THE SALES INCLUDING INTERESTS,
SURCHARGES AND OTHER INCOMES AND
SHALL BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED THEREIN; (C)
THE AMOUNTS PAID AND COLLECTED FOR THE
PERPETUAL CARE OF THE PARK SHALL
NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS BUT SHALL CONSTITUTE THE TRUST FUND OF
THE PARK; WHILE AT THE INITIALS STAGES
OF OPERATION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL ADVANCE TO
THE TRUST FUND SUCH AMOUNT AS
IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK; (D) A MANAGEMENT COMPANY
SHALL BE FORMED WITH THE FIRM NAME OF “STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK” TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE MANAGEMENT
OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE PARK AFTER ITS DEVELOPMENT STAGE IS OVER; AND (E) UPON THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE DEVELOPER SHALL PAY AND
DELIVER TO THE OWNER CASH AMOUNTING TO FORTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00), PHILIPPINE CURRENCY, WHICH AMOUNT SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS ADVANCE DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE SHARE OF THE OWNER IN THE FIRST
PROCEEDS OF THE SALES OF LOTS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATED PARK.

ON MAY 2, 1972, IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE PRO­VISIONS OF THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE,
FRANCISCO BAUTISTA ADVANCED THE AMOUNT OF
P40,000.00 TO IRENE
MARIANO, THE SAID AMOUNT TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE LATTER’S SHARE IN THE FIRST
PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF LOTS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATED PARK.  FRANCISCO BAUTISTA ALSO PUT UP THE AMOUNT OF P20,000.00, P10,000.00 OF
WHICH PERTAINED TO HIS SHARE IN THE CONTRIBUTION FOR THE CAPITAL REQUI­SITE
OF INCORPORATING THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. 
THE OTHER P10,000.00 PERTAINED
TO IRENE MARIANO’S CONTRIBUTION WHICH WAS PAID FOR BY FRANCISCO BAUTISTA.

ON THE SAME DATE, IRENE MARIANO AND FRANCISCO BAUTISTA WITH SIX
OTHER DESIGNATED INCORPORATORS FORMED THE ABOVE-MENTIONED STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK, INC., WITH
RESPONDENT AS PRESIDENT.

SOMETIME IN 1972, IRENE
MARIANO AND FRANCISCO BAUTISTA EXECUTED A “PROJECT PLAN AND PHASE
SCHEDULE” OF THE 15-HECTARE LAND FOR THE STO. NIÑO
MEMORIAL PARK.

AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE AND AFTER
SECURING THE NECESSARY PERMIT TO ESTABLISH, DEVELOP, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A MEMORIAL
PARK TYPE CEMETERY
IN NAGA CITY,
RESPONDENT FRANCISCO BAUTISTA STARTED DEVELOPING
THE PROPERTY.

IN JANUARY, 1973, STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK, INC. STARTED SELLING MEMORIAL LOTS TO THE
PUBLIC, AS WELL AS RECEIVING CASH FROM LOT BUYERS (L-55982, ROLLO II, CA DECISION, PP. 1159-1160).

ON JULY 14, 1973, PETITIONER AND
RESPONDENT FRANCISCO BAUTISTA EXECUTED AN ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT OF JOINT
VENTURE AMENDING PAR, 11 THEREOF TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOW­ING:

“THAT, HOWEVER, THAT (SIC) AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED EIGHTEEN
(18%) PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES SHALL BE SET ASIDE TO
CONSTITUTE AS THE FUND TO BE
USED BY THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY EXCLUSIVELY IN CARRYING OUT ITS FUNCTIONS;
PROVIDED, THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE AND SHALL ADVANCE TO THIS
FUND UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE MANAGEMENT COM­PANY WILL BE IN A POSITION TO
REIMBURSE THE DEVELOPER SUCH MOUNT SO ADVANCED, PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT WHATEVER
AMOUNT WHICH IS LEFT UNSPENT OR UNUSED BY THE COMPANY OUT OF THE 18% AFORECITED SHALL BE DIVIDED BY THE
PARTIES IN PRO RATA. (L-55982, ROLLO
I, PP. 75-76).

ON NOVEMBER 7, 1974, PETITIONER THROUGH HER COUNSEL, SENT A LETTER TO RESPONDENT FRANCISCO
BAUTISTA, DEMANDING THAT THE LATTER RENDER A VERIFIED ACCOUNTING OF THE GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM SALES AND OTHER INCOME OF THE MEMORIAL PARK BUSINESS FOR THE YEAR
1973 INCLUSIVE AS WELL AS TO RENDER A FORMAL
REPORT ON THE DIVISION OF SAID
PROCEEDS TO THE PARTIES OF THE JOINT VENTURE CONTRACT, SUBJECT TO COMPENSATION.

ON JUNE 7, 1975, PETITIONER IRENE
MARIANO (THEN PLAINTIFF) FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT FRANCISCO
BAUTISTAT (THEN DEFENDANT) IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, 10TH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, BRANCH IV, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED ON JULY 2, 1975.  THE
COMPLAINT WAS DOCKETED AS CIVIL CASE No.
7926 FOR “RECISSION AND RECOVERY OF ACCRUED SHARE OF GROSS RECEIPTS
OF SALES AND AMOUNTS FOR PERPETUAL CARE FUND OF STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK, WITH PRAYER FOR ACCOUNTING, PRELIMI­NARY
INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES.” IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT HEREIN PETITIONER
ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT FRANCISCO BAUTISTA FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF
PAR. 7 OF THE CONTRACT OF JOINT
VENTURE BY NOT GIVING HER AGREED SHARE OF THE GROSS RECEIPT FROM THE SALE
OF BURIAL LOTS OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL
PARK WHICH SHARE AS OF APRIL, 1975 MAY
HAVE REACHED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY P23,000.00 AFTER DEDUCTING FROM THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS 18% THEREOF FOR MANAGEMENT EXPENSES
EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 11, 1973 AND
THE ADVANCE OF P40,000.00 GIVEN
TO HEREIN PETITIONER UPON THE SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE, AS
DEFENDANT HAS BEEN CAUSING THE DISBURSEMENTS OF SUCH GROSS RECEIPTS FOR PURPOSE
NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE AFORESAID CONTRACT; THAT RESPONDENT FRANCISCO
BAUTISTA, AS DEVELOPER, HAS FAILED TO RENDER TO HEREIN PETITIONER, AS OWNER, PROPER ACCOUNTING OF THE TOTAL
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SUCH SALES, INCLUDING INTEREST, SUR­CHARGES AND OTHER
INCOME OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL
PARK, NOTWITHSTANDING REPEATED DEMANDS FROM PETITIONER; THAT RESPONDENT IS
STILL CONTINUING DISBURSEMENTS FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES OF THE INCOMING GROSS
RECEIPTS OF SALES OF SAID BURIAL LOTS IN THE PARK; THAT RESPONDENT, AS
DEVELOPER, IN SPITE OF REPEATED DEMANDS BY PETITIONER, HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH
THE STIPULATION ABOVE-STATED TO ADVANCE TO THE TRUST FUND OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK SUCH AMOUNT
SUFFICIENT FOR ITS CARE AND MAINTENANCE UNTIL IT IS IN A POSITION TO REIMBURSE
HIM OF SUCH AMOUNT, BUT INSTEAD, RESPONDENT BAUTISTA HAS BEEN USING THE
COLLECTED AMOUNTS FOR PURPOSES NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH SAID CONTRACT OF JOINT
VENTURE; THAT RESPONDENT BAUTISTA, AS DEVELOPER, HAS LIKEWISE FAILED TO RENDER
TO PETITIONER, AS OWNER, PROPER ACCOUNTING OF SUCH COLLECTED AMOUNTS PERTAINING
TO THE TRUST FUND OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL
PARK. 
PETITIONER FURTHER CONTENDS THAT RESPONDENT, IN A FRAUDULENT DESIGN TO
PROFIT BY THE SALES OF BURIAL LOTS OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK WITHOUT
INCURRING FURTHER EXPENSES ON HIS PART, HAS SINCE 1974, ALTOGETHER ABANDONED AND CEASED THE DEVELOPMENT,
CONSTRUCTION AND BEAUTIFICATION OF SAID PARK, TO THE DAMAGE AND PREJUDICE OF
THE HEREIN PETITIONER.  (L-55982, ROLLO I, AMENDED COMPLAINT,
PP. 59-61).

THEREIN, PETITIONER PRAYED:

(1)  THAT THE CONTRACT OF
JOINT VENTURE ENTERED BY AND BETWEEN HER AND RESPONDENT BE RESCINDED BY VIRTUE OF WHICH, ALL IMPROVE­MENTS
INTRODUCED ON THE PREMISES OF SAID PARK BE FORFEITED IN HER FAVOR;

(2)  THAT RESPONDENT BE
ORDERED TO REN­DER ACCOUNTING TO HEREIN PETITIONER OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF
SALES OF BURIAL LOTS AND OF THE COLLECTED AMOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE TRUST FUND
OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK AND TO TURN OVER TO PETITIONER HER SHARE AS OWNER
OF SAID GROSS RECEIPTS AND ALL COLLECTED AMOUNTS PERTAINING TO SAID TRUST FUND;

(3)  THAT RESPONDENT BAUTISTA
(THEN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT) BE RESTRAINED BY TEMPO­RARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
LATER BY WRIT OF PRELIMINARY PREVENTIVE INJUNCTION DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE
CASE, FROM CAUSING DISBURSE­MENTS OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF SALES OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK AND FROM USING
THESE COLLECTED AMOUNTS PERTAINING TO ITS TRUST FUND, FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES OR
FOR PURPOSES NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VEN­TURE;

(4)  THAT A WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION BE ISSUED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT
COMMANDING THAT HEREIN PETITIONER BE PLACED TO THE SOLE MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRA­TION OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL
PARK, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM HEREIN RESPONDENT AS WELL AS FOR THE AWARD OF
DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER (IBID., PP. 62-64).

ON JUNE 26, 1975, THE COURT A QUO ACTING ON THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FILED BY
PETITIONER PRAYING FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, ISSUED AN ORDER RESTRAIN­ING
AND ENJOINING RESPONDENT BAUTISTA, HIS LAWYERS, AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM
SPENDING AND USING OR IN ANY WAY DISBURSING THE FUND OF STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK, OR ANY SALE OF THE LOTS, UNTIL OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE
COURT (L-55982, ROLLO II, CA DECISION, P.
1162).

RESPONDENT BAUTISTA
(THEREIN DEFENDANT), IN HIS ANSWER FILED ON AUGUST 4, 1975, DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS INTERPOSED BY HEREIN PETITIONER (THEN PLAINTIFF)
AND INSTEAD PUT UP AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE FOLLOWING DEFEN­SES:  (A) THAT THE CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF IS NOT YET
DUE CON­SIDERING THAT THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE DOES NOT FIX A PERIOD
WITHIN WHICH PLAINTIFF SHALL BE PAID HER SAID SHARE; (B) THAT STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK, INC. HAS BEEN AND IS RENDERING AN ACCOUNTING OF ITS
OPERATION WHEREIN THE SHARE OF PLAINTIFF IS REFLECTED; (C) THAT DEFENDANT IS
NOT DISBURSING ANY RECEIPTS FROM SALES FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE AS ALL DISBURSEMENTS
ARE MADE BY THE TREASURER, MR. TIRSO MARIANO; (D) THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN
MAKING ADVANCES TO THE COMPANY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK AND IF EVER AN
AMOUNT IS ALREADY COLLECTED BY THE CORPORATION TO CONSTITUTE THE TRUST FUND,
THE SAME HAS BEEN USED BY THE
COMPANY FOR ITS OPERATION; AND (E) THAT DEFENDANT HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE AND AS A MATTER OF FACT DEFENDANT
HAS INTRODUCED TO THE PARK SITE TREMENDOUS IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE FAR BEYOND
THE PHASE SCHEDULES OF DEVELOPMENT
IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF P500.000.00.

DEFENDANT COUNTERED THAT
IT WAS PLAINTIFF WHO VIO­LATED THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT
OF JOINT VENTURE AS SHOWN FROM THE FOLLOWING:

1)  THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY
GIVEN AND MADE AVAILABLE BY PLAINTIFF AS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTRACT OF
JOINT VENTURE HAS ALREADY BEEN CANCELLED;

2)  PLAINTIFF DOES NOT EVEN
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE SAID PROPERTY AS THE SUB­JECT MATTER OF SAID
CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY BELONGS TO HER AND TO JOSE P.
MARIANO AND ERLINDA MARIANO VILLANUEVA PRO INDIVISO;

3)  THE CONTRACT OF JOINT
VENTURE HAD BEEN DECLARED NULL AND VOID FOR LACK OF AUTHO­RITY OF PLAINTIFF TO
GIVE SAID PROPERTY AS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE JOINT VENTURE;

4)  PLAINTIFF FAILED AND
REFUSED TO HAVE THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE ANNOTATED ON THE TITLE AS
STIPULATED IN THE AFORESAID CONTRACT SINCE SAID TITLE HAS ALREADY BEEN
CANCELLED;

DEFENDANT PRAYED THAT
JUDGMENT BE RENDERED:

A)  DECLARING THE
“CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE” ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANT AS RESCINDED;

B)  ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO
REIMBURSE DE­FENDANT THE EXPENSES THE LATTER INCURRED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF AT LEAST P500,000.00
PLUS INTEREST OF TWELVE (12%) PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE FILING OF THE
COMPLAINT UNTIL FULLY PAID;

C) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PAY DEFENDANT THE NET PROFIT WHICH THE
LATTER WOULD HAVE EARNED HAD THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE NOT BEEN RESCINDED,
THE AMOUNT OF WHICH SAID DE­FENDANT MAY PROVE DURING THE TRIAL OF THE CASE;

D)  ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO
PAY:  MORAL DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT THAT MAY
BE PROVEN DURING THE TRIAL; P50,000.00 AS
ATTORNEY’S FEE AND THE COSTS OF THE SUIT (L-55982,
ROLLO I, ANSWER, PP. 78-88).

THE COURT A QUO, ON JULY 24, 1975, UPON MOTION BY RESPONDENT BAUTISTA
FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, APPOINTED ATTY. ROBERTO RANOLA AS SUCH WITH
THE DUTY TO PRESERVE AND ADMINISTER THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION,
SPECIALLY THE OPERATION OF THE STO. NIÑO
MEMORIAL PARK (L-55982, ROLLO II, CA DECISION, P. 1164).

ON DECEMBER 14, 1979, THE
COURT A QUO RENDERED ITS DECISION AWARDING TO PLAINTIFF THE LAND
OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT AND ITS FRUITS, MORE PARTICULARLY ITS INCOME, PRODUCE
AND IMPROVEMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR
WHATEVER EXPENSES HE MAY HAVE MADE BY VIRTUE CF THE CONTRACT AND OUT OF HIS OWN
FUNDS PLUS INTEREST, ASIDE FROM THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PER­SONS WHO DID NOT ACT IN BAD FAITH.

THE DISPOSITVE PORTION OF
THE DECISION READS AS FOLLOWS:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, DECISION
IS HEREBY RENDERED AS FOLLOWS:

A)  RESCINDING THE CONTRACT
OF JOINT VENTURE AND ADDENDUM THERETO;

B)  DISSOLVING THE STO. NIÑO
MEMORIAL PARK, INC., AND WHICH AS AGREED WAS SUBJECT TO AND DEPENDENT UPON THE
EXISTENCE OF THE CONTRACT OF JOINT VENTURE;

C) DECLARING THE PLAINTIFF THE OWNER AND ENTITLED TO THE POSSESSION
OF THE LAND OBJECT OF THE JOINT VENTURE CONTRACT AND ADDENDUM, TOGETHER WITH ALL ITS FRUITS, MORE PARTICULARLY,
ALL ITS INCOME, ALL ITS PRODUCE AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, WITH THE
OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFF TO CONTINUE WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL
PARK AND TO COMPLY WITH THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE LOT
BUYER THEREOF;

D) PLAINTIFF TO RETURN TO THE DEFENDANT THE AMOUNT OF P40,000.00 WITH LEGAL INTEREST FROM
RECEIPT THERE­OF UNTIL FULLY PAID; TO RETURN TO THE DEFENDANT THE AMOUNT OF P20,000,00 PAID BY THE DEFENDANT FOR
THE FORMATION OF THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION WITH LEGAL INTEREST FROM THE DATE
THE SAME WAS PAID BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL REPAID; AND TO RETURN TO THE DEFENDANT
THE AMOUNT OF P200,000.00, REPRESENTING
THE AMOUNT SPENT OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL
PARK AND ADVANCES TO THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
PLUS LEGAL INTEREST FROM THE FILING OF THIS CASE;

E) FOR DEFENDANT TO RENDER AN ACCOUNTING OF THE AMOUNT OF P403,967,47, REPRESENTING THE
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT FROM THE SALES OF THE
LOTS DF THE PARK, AND WHICH ENTIRE AMOUNT BELONGS TO THE PLAINTIFF ALONE DUE TO
THE RESCISSION, PLUS LEGAL INTEREST FROM TAKING THEREOF UNTIL RETURNED BY THE
DEFENDANT TO THE PLAIN­TIFF;

F)  DEFENDANT TO PAY THE
PLAIN­TIFF P20,000.00 AS ACTUAL
DAMAGES; P5,000.00 AS MORAL
DAMAGES; P5,000.00 AS NOMINAL
DAMAGES; P5,000.00 AS EXEM­PLARY
DAMAGES; AND P5,000.00 AS
EXPENSES OF LITIGATION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, ALL SAID AMOUNTS ARE TO BE DEDUCTED
FROM THE AMOUNT TO BE GIVEN TO DEFENDANT STATED UNDER THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH;

G) MAKING THE RESTRAINING ORDER PERMANENT, AS WELL AS THE
INJUNCTION PRAYED FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT;

H) TERMINATING THE RECEIVERSHIP, BUT WITH THE OBLIGATION ON THE
PART OF THE RECEIVER TO RENDER HIS FINAL ACCOUNTING.  IN THE MEANTIME THE RECEIVER SHALL NOT
DELIVER TO THE PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT ANY INCOME FROM THE PARK;

I)   DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
IN INTERVENTION FOR NOT BEING WELL FOUNDED AND FOR LACK OF MERIT;

J)  DISMISSING ALL OTHER
CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS FOR LACK OF MERIT; AND

K)  COSTS AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT. (L-55982, ROLLO I,
PP. 115-129)

“SO ORDERED.”

IN AN ORDER DATED MARCH 28, 1980, PARAGRAPH “E” OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION WAS MODIFIED TO
READ AS FOLLOWS:

“(E) FOR DEFENDANT TO
PAY THE PLAINTIFF THE AMOUNT OF P403,967.47,
REPRESENTING THE DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT
FROM THE SALES OF THE LOTS OF THE PARK, AND WHICH ENTIRE AMOUNT BELONGS TO THE
PLAIN­TIFF ALONE DUE TO THE RESCISSION, PLUS LEGAL INTEREST FROM TAKING THEREOF
UNTIL RETUREND BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE PLAIN­TIFF.  (L-55982,
ROLLO I, P. 140)”

RESPONDENT BAUTISTA
APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.

ON APRIL 18, 1980, HEREIN PETITIONER FILED WITH THE CFI OF CAMARINES SUR A
“MOTION FOR EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL” (L-55982, ROLLO I, PP. 134-138), STATING AS GROUND THEREOF THAT THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEFENDANT (NOW
RESPONDENT) IS ONLY FOR PURPOSES
OF DELAY.  THIS WAS GRANTED IN AN ORDER
DATED APRIL 28, 1980 (L-55982, ROLLO I PP. 139-146).  CONSEQUENTLY,
THE WRIT OF EXECUTION WAS ISSUED COMMANDING THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF CAMARINES
SUR, TO RESTRAIN DEFENDANT BAUTISTA FROM POSSESSING AND BENEFITTING FROM THE
LAND SUBJECT OF THE JOINT VENTURE CONTRACT. 
THE RECEIVER, NO LONGER ATTY. ROBERTO RANOLA BUT A CERTAIN COL. ENRIQUE ALPOÑO, WAS LIKEWISE COMMANDED TO RENDER HIS FINAL ACCOUNTING.  ALSO BY REASON OF THIS WRIT OF EXECUTION, THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY CAUSED TO
BE SOLD ON MAY 9, 1980, THE PERSONAL PROPERTIES OF DEFENDANT BAUTISTA LOCATED IN QUEZON
CITY.  (L-55982, ROLLO I, PP. 518-522).

THE SALE WAS HOWEVER, NOT
CARRIED OUT BECAUSE OF THE CERTIORARI PROCEEDING FILED BY DEFENDANT
BAUTISTA WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEEKING THE NULLIFICATION OF THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL AND PRAYING FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO
RESTRAIN THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY FROM FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH THE SALE OF
HIS PROPERTIES.

THE RESTRAINING ORDER
PRAYED FOR WAS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT COURT ON MAY 9, 1980.

IN A DECISION RENDERED ON
NOVEMBER 3, 1980, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND RESPONDENT JUDGE TO HAVE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION, AN ACT AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURIS­DICTION, WHEN HE RULED THAT THE APPEAL INTERPOSED BY DEFENDANT
(HEREIN RESPONDENT BAUTISTA) “WOULD MERELY BE DILATORY.” (L-55982, ROLLO I, CA DECISION, P. 248).

THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION
OF THE DECISION READS AS FOLLOWS:  (ROLLO, P. 250)

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, THE QUESTIONED WRIT OF
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL, DATED APRIL
28, 1980 AND THE NOTICE OF SHERIFF’S SALE,
DATED MAY 2, 1980 ARE HEREBY
SET ASIDE.  THE RESTRAINING ORDER
HERETOFORE ISSUED ENJOINING RESPONDENTS FROM ENFORCING THE QUESTIONED ORDER AND
SALE IS HEREBY MADE PERMANENT.

“MEANWHILE, AS PRAYED FOR, RECEIVER­SHIP OVER THE PROPERTY IN
LITIGATION SHOULD BE RESTORED AND COL. ENRIQUE F. ALPOÑO IS HEREBY REAPPOINTED
AS THE RECEIVER.

“SO ORDERED.”

THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION/RE-HEARING (L-55982,
ROLLO I, PP. 251-275) FILED BY RESPONDENT (HEREIN PETI­TIONER) WAS DENIED IN A RESOLUTION OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS DATED JANUARY 14, 1981
(L-55982, ROLLO I, PP. 302-303).  IN
THE SAME RESOLUTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THE TURN-OVER OF ALL
PROPERTIES AS WELL AS ALL PAPERS, DOCUMENTS, CASH ACCOUNTS, EQUIPMENT OF THE
STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK, BY HEREIN PETITIONER OR ANY
PERSON ACTING IN HER BEHALF TO THE RECEIVER, COL. ENRIQUE ALPOÑO UNDER PAIN OF
BEING CITED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

HENCE, THIS PETITION (L-55982) FILED ON JANUARY 26, 1981 (ROLLO, PP. 1-55).

RESPONDENTS WERE REQUIRED
TO ANSWERS THE PETITION (L-55982,
ROLLO I, P. 312).  A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (P. 313) DATED JANUARY 29, 1981, WAS ISSUED BY THIS COURT RESTRAINING RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS FROM
ENFORCING AND/OR CARRYING OUT ITS DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 3, 1980 AND THE RESOLUTIONS DATED NOVEMBER 21, 1980, NOVEMBER 24, 1980 AND JANUARY 14, 1981.

ON FEBRUARY 16, 1981, RESPONDENTS FILED THEIR “ANSWER TO PETITION” (L-55982, ROLLO I, PP, 344-408) WITH PRAYER, AMONG OTHERS THAT THE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED BY THIS COURT ON JANUARY 29, 1981, BE LIFTED AND COL. ENRIQUE F.
ALPOÑO BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE
EXER­CISING HIS DUTIES AND RECEIVER OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK. 
(ROLLO, P. 318).

PETITIONER OPPOSED THE
MOTION TO LIFT THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (L-55982, ROLLO II, PP. 731-734).

ON MARCH
30, 1981, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDERED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED, AND TO REPLY TO THE ANSWER OF
RESPONDENTS (L-55982, ROLLO II, P. 741).

PETITIONER FILED A
VOLUMINOUS “REPLY TO RESPONDENTS’
ANSWER WITH OPPOSITION TO CONTINUANCE OF RECEIVERSHIP” (ROLLO II, PP. 750-871).  A “REJOINDER TO PETITIONER’S REPLY” WAS FILED BY RESPONDENT ON JULY 10, 1981 (ROLLO II, PP. 960-1034) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THIS
COURT DATED APRIL 27, 1981 (ROLLO II, P. 957).

EVENTUALLY, THE COURT SET
THIS CASE FOR HEARING (ROLLO II, P. 1040) ON OCTOBER 21, 1981.  AFTER THE HEARING, THE COURT ISSUED
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

“G.R. NO. 55982 (IRENE P. MARIANO, ET AL. VS. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, ET AL.). – AT THE
HEARING OF THIS CASE THIS MORNING, ATTYS. ROGELIO R. UDARBE AND JOSE PEÑAS, JR. APPEARED AND ARGUED FOR PETITIONER,
WHILE ATTY. FRANCISCO C. PICO
DID SO FOR RESPONDENTS.  AFTER EACH
COUNSEL WERE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE THE POSIBILITY OF AN AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT WITH, THE AID OF RESPONDENT FRANCISCO BAUTISTA PERSONALLY, THE
PARTIES WERE REQUIRED TO INFORM THE COURT WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS WHETHER OR
NOT THE FOLLOWING TERMS FORMULATED IN THE COURSE OF THE EFFORTS AT COMPROMISE
CAN BE FIRMED UP IN AN AGREE­MENT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT:  (1) THAT THE POSSESSION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE
MEMORIAL IN QUESTION SHALL CONTINUE TO BE LEFT TO THE PETITIONERS EXCLUSIVELY;
(2) THAT RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IS WITHDRAWN;
(3) THAT RESPONDENT BAUTISTA WILL BE PAID BY THE PETITIONER MARIANO TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY THOUSAND (P250,000.00) PESOS
WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS FROM TODAY, THE SAID AMOUNT TO BE DEEMED AS INCLUDING THE
UNDISPUTED ADVANCES MADE BY RESPONDENT BAUTISTA OF FORTY THOUSAND (P40,000.00)
PESOS PLUS TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE JOINT
VENTURE HEREIN INVOLVED; (4) THAT SAID PAYMENT SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
THE ACCOUNTING OF WHAT ADDITIONAL EXPENSES, AS WELL AS COL­LECTIONS, HAVE BEEN
MADE BY RESPONDENT  BAUTISTA IN ORDER TO
LIQUIDATE ONCE AND FOR ALL WHAT
SAID RESPONDENT HAS SPENT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE MEMORIAL.  AS WELL AS THE AMOUNTS HE HAS COLLECTED WHEN
HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE MANAGING CORPORATION THEREOF; AND (5) THAT PETITIONER MARIANO SHALL,
WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FURNISH
SECURITY SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION (P1,000,000.00) PESOS
FOR THE PAYMENT TO RESPONDENT BAUTISTA OF WHATEVER MAY BE THE RESULTING BALANCE
IN HIS FAVOR AFTER THE ACCOUNTING HEREIN PROVIDED FOR.

“AS SOON AS THE CORRESPONDING AGREEMENT IS FILED WITH THIS COURT, THIS CASE
SHALL BE DEEMED TERMINATED TOGETHER WITH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT,” (ROLLO II, P.
1064-A)

IN A VERIFIED
MANIFESTATION AND MOTION FILED ON
OCTOBER 29, 1981 (ROLLO II, PP. 1046-1049) PETITIONER EXPRESSED HER WILLINGNESS TO
DELIVER TO RESPONDENT BAUTISTA THE FOLLOWING:

“(A)  A
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (P250,000.00) PESOS, PHILIP­PINE CURRENCY, PAYABLE TO RESPONDENT
BAUTISTA BY CERTIFIED OR MANAGER’S CHECKS IN FOUR (4) EQUAL INSTALLMENTS OF
SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P62,500,00)
PESOS EACH; THE FIRST INSTALLMENT TO
BE PAID WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THE COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING
THE PAYMENTS HEREIN PROPOSED AND THE OTHERS, EVERY FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS
THEREAFTER, UNTIL THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF P250,000.00
IS PAID IN FULL; AND

“(B)  CERTIFICATE OF OWNERS-IP NOS. SC-55982-001 TO SC 55982-534 FOR
FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR (534) SPECIFIC MEMORIAL LOTS IN THE SUBJECT PARK, ALL
IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT BAUTISTA, AND EACH CONTAINING THE SPECIAL CONDITION
MENTIONED IN ANNEX “B-1” HEREOF, IN RELATION TO PARAGRAPH 4, INFRA, TO BE DELIVERED WITH
THE FIRST PAYMENT IN ITEM (A).  THE
LOCATION AND PARTICULARS OF THE SAID MEMORIAL LOTS ARE INDICATED IN THE
LOCATION PLAN AND INVENTORY HERETO ATTACHED AND MADE PARTS HERETO AS ANNEXES “A” AND
“A-1″, RESPECTIVELY.”

ON THE OTHER HAND,
RESPONDENT PRESENTED HIS CONDI­TIONS AS FOLLOWS:

“1.- RE:  AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT

RESPONDENT FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA
IS AMENABLE FOR AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT PROVIDED HE WILL BE PAID THE FOLLOW­ING
AMOUNTS WHICH ARE DUE HIM, TO WIT:

“2.- RE:  CONTINUATION OF ADMINISTRATION BY
PETITIONER IRENE P. RELUCIO OVER THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL PARK, INC., UNDER THE FOLLOWING
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

(1)  IRENE P.
RELUCIO SHALL PAY TO MR. FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA THE AMOUNT OF ……
P250,000.00 WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM OCTOBER
21, 1981.

(2)  IRENE P.
RELUCIO SHALL PUT UP A SURETY BOND WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM OCTOBER 21,
1981, OF P1,000,000.00 TO BE EXECUTED IN FAVOR
OF FRAN­CISCO M. BAUTISTA TO ANSWER FOR ANY JUDGMENT THAT WILL
BE RENDERED IN HIS FAVOR.

(3)  AND THE CASE IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS SHALL PROCEED UNTIL FINALLY DECIDED.

“3.-
RE:  FAILURE OF IRENE P.
RELUCIO TO ELECT ANY OF THE TWO PROPOSITIONS, THEN THE CASE WITH HONORABLE
COURT SHALL BE CONSIDERED SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION.” (ROLLO II, PP.
1065-1066)

HOWEVER, ON NOVEMBER 12,
1981, PETITIONER PROPOSED A
DEVIATION FROM HER VERIFIED MANIFESTATION
AND MOTION DATED OCTOBER 29,
1981, THAT INSTEAD OF PUTTING UP
A SURETY BOND AND OTHER SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF P1,000,000.00 FOR OTHER CONTINGENT CLAIMS, SHE BE ALLOWED TO CONDITIONALLY ASSIGN,
FOR THE PURPOSE, PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PARK ITSELF CONSISTING OF 534 MEMORIAL LOTS WITH THE TOTAL SELLING PRICE OF P500,000.00 (ROLLO II, P. 1069).

RESPONDENT BAUTISTA WAS REQUIRED TO COMMENT ON THE AFORESAID PROPOSAL OF PETITIONER (ROLLO II,
P. 1971).

IN HIS COMMENT (ROLLO II,
PP. 1087-1094) RESPONDENT BAUTISTA DID NOT FIND ACCEPTABLE
THE MEMORIAL LOTS BEING OFFERED AS A SURETY BOND (P. 1090) BUT ACCEPTED THE SAME LATER ON WITH THE PAYMENT TO RESPONDENT OF P250,000.00, WITH MODIFICATIONS AS FOLLOWS:

“(1)  THE ENTIRE UNSOLD LOTS
OF THE STO. NIÑO MEMORIAL
PARK SHALL BE GIVEN AS SECURITY FOR THE P1,000,000.00;

“(2)    THAT STARTING DECEMBER
16, 1981, FIFTY (50%) PERCENT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALES OF
LOTS SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITH THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, NAGA CITY BRANCH,
BOTH IN THE NAME OF MR. FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA
AND IRENE P. MARIANO UNTIL THE
DEPOSIT REACHES THE AMOUNT OF P1,000,000.00,
WHICH SHALL BE DISPOSED OF ONLY UPON THE FINAL TERMINA­TION OF THE CASE
NOW PENDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OR UPON ORDER OF THE
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT;

“(3)    THAT PETITIONER SHALL
SUBMIT A MONTHLY REPORT STARTING JANUARY 16,
1982, OF HER SALES OF MEMORIAL LOTS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND TO THE
SUPREME COURT, COPY FURNISHED
RESPONDENT FRAN­CISCO M. BAUTISTA;

“(4)    THAT RESPONDENT
FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA OR HIS
DULY AUTHORIZED REPRE­SENTATIVE SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO CHECK ON THE SALES THAT
WILL BE MADE BY PETITIONER UNTIL THE AMOUNT OF P1,000,000.00 IS DULY DEPOSITED.” (ROLLO II, P. 1098)