BPI v. ALs Mgmt Dev't Corp : 151821 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban :
First Division : Decision
[G.R. NO. 151821.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, as Successor-in-Interest of
BPI Investment Corporation,
ALS MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
D E C I S I O N
Factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great
respect, but may be reviewed if they do not conform to law and to the evidence
In the case at bar, a
meticulous review of the facts compels us to modify the award granted by the
Court of Appeals.
Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the November 24, 2000
Decision2 and the January 9, 2002 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 25781. The assailed Decision disposed as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
considered, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED
in toto and the
instant appeal DISMISSED.4 cralawred
The assailed Resolution denied reconsideration.
The facts of the case are narrated by the appellate court as
On July 29, 1985, [petitioner] BPI Investment Corporation filed a
complaint for a Sum of Money against ALS Management and Development
Corporation, alleging inter alia that
on July 22, 1983, [petitioner] and [respondent] executed at Makati, Metro
Manila a Deed of Sale for one (1) unfurnished condominium unit of the Twin
Towers Condominium located at Ayala Avenue, corner Apartment Ridge Street,
Makati, Metro Manila designated as Unit E-4A comprising of 271 squares [sic]
meters more or less, together with parking stalls identified as G022 and
The Condominium Certificate of
Title No. 4800 of the Registry of Deeds for Makati, Metro Manila was issued
after the execution of the said Deed of Sale.
[Petitioner] advanced the amount of
P26,300. 45 for the expenses
in causing the issuance and registration of the Condominium Certificate of
Under the penultimate paragraph
of the Deed of Sale, it is stipulated that the VENDEE [respondent] shall pay
all the expenses for the preparation and registration of this Deed of Sale and
such other documents as may be necessary for the issuance of the corresponding
Condominium Certificate of Title.
the [petitioner] complied with its obligations under the said Deed of Sale,
[respondent], notwithstanding demands made by [petitioner], failed and refused
to pay [petitioner] its legitimate advances for the expenses mentioned above
without any valid, legal or justifiable reason.
In its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, [respondent] averred
among others that it has just and valid reasons for refusing to pay
[petitioners] legal claims.
and direct contravention of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 which
provides that No fee except those required for the registration of the deed of
sale in the Registry of Deeds shall be collected for the issuance of such
title, the [petitioner] has jacked-up or increased the amount of its alleged
advances for the issuance and registration of the Condominium Certificate of
Title in the name of the [respondent], by including therein charges which
should not be collected from buyers of condominium units.
[Petitioner] made and disseminated brochures
and other sales propaganda in and before May 1980, which made warranties as to
the facilities, improvements, infrastructures or other forms of development of
the condominium units (known as The Twin Towers) it was offering for sale to
the public, which included the following:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
The Twin Towers is destined to reflect condominium living at its
While the twin tower design and its unusual height will make the
project the only one of its kind in the Philippines, the human scale and
proportion [are] carefully maintained.
To be sure, modern conveniences are available as in the
installation of an intercom system and a closed-circuit TV monitor through
which residents from their apartments can see their guests down at the lobby
Some of the features of each typical apartment unit are: x x x A
bar x x x Three toilets with baths x x x.
The penthouse units are privileged with the provision of an
x x x
[Respondent] further averred that [petitioner] represented to the
[respondent] that the condominium unit will be delivered completed and ready
for occupancy not later than December 31, 1981. [Respondent] relied solely upon the descriptions and warranties
contained in the aforementioned brochures and other sales propaganda materials
when [respondent] agreed to buy Unit E-4A of the Twin Tower(s) for the hefty
P2,048,900. 00 considering that the Twin Towers was then yet to be
In contravention of
[petitioners] warranties and of good engineering practices, the condominium
unit purchased by [respondent] suffered from the following defects and/or
1. The clearance
in the walkway at the balcony is not sufficient for passage;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2. The anodized
aluminum used in the door and windows were damaged;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3. The kitchen
counter tops/splashboard suffered from cracks and were mis-cut and misaligned;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4. The partition
between living and masters bedroom was unpainted and it had no access for
maintenance due to aluminum fixed glass cover;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
5. The varifold
divider, including the bar and counter top cabinet were not installed;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
6. The toilets had
7. No closed
circuit TV was installed;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
8. Rainwater leaks
inside or into the condominium unit.5 cralawred
Respondents Answer prayed that judgment be rendered ordering
[petitioner] to correct such defects/deficiencies in the condominium unit,6 and that the following reliefs be granted:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
1. The sum of
plus legal interest thereon from the date of extra-judicial demand,
representing the amount spent by the defendant for the completion works it had
undertaken on the premises.
2. The sum of
U. S. $6,678. 65 (or its equivalent in the Philippine currency) representing the
unearned rental of the premises which the defendant did not realize by reason
of the late delivery to him of the condominium unit;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3. Twenty-four percent
(24%) interest per annum on the agreed one (1) year advance rental and one (1)
month deposit (totaling U. S. $15,785. 00) corresponding to the period January 1,
1982 to June 17, 1982, which [petitioner] would have earned had he deposited
the said amount in a bank;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
4. The sum of
U. S. $1,214. 30 per month, commencing from May 1, 1985, which the [respondent] no
longer earns as rental on the premises because the lessee vacated the same by
reason of defects and/or deficiencies;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
5. The sum of
plus appearance fees of P300. 00 per court hearing, as attorneys fees;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
6. Litigation expenses
and costs of suit.7 cralawred
On February 6, 1990, the trial court issued this judgment:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
1. Ordering the
[respondent] to pay [petitioner] the sum of
P26,300. 45, with legal
interest from the filing of the complaint up to full payment thereof,
representing the amount spent for the registration of the title to the
condominium unit in [respondents] name;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2. Ordering [petitioner]
to deliver, replace or correct at [petitioners] exclusive expense/cost or appoint
a licensed qualified contractor to do the same on its behalf, the following
defects/deficiencies in the condominium unit owned by the [respondent]:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
i) The sides of the kitchen sink covered
with sealants as well as miscut marble installed as filler at the right side of
ii) Miscut marble installed on both sides
of the side wall above the gas range;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Water marks at the
parquet flooring, near the main water supply room;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
c) MAIDS ROOM
Ceiling cut off about one
(1) square foot in size and left unfinished
d) DINING ROOM
i) Water damaged parquet up to about one
(1) meter from the wall underneath the open shelves and directly behind the
ii) Plant box directly behind the dining
iii) The water damaged parquet flooring near
the door of the dining room to the passage way
i) Falling off paint layers at the
bathroom wall behind the bathtub/faucet along the passageway of the masters
ii) Falling off water-damaged plywood
ceiling in the masters bedroom bathroom;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
mark damage at the bathtub;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
i) PVC pipes installed two (2) inches
above floor level causing water to accumulate;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ii) Cracks on level of wash out flooring;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
iii) 14-inches passageway going to the open terrace
not sufficient as passageway;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
iv) PVC pipe installed on the plant box
water drained directly on the balcony floor;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
g) BALCONY (OPEN)
i) Two (2) concrete cement measuring
about 6 x 4 inches with protruding live wires, purportedly lamp posts which
were not installed;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
h) BOYS BEDROOM
i) Water mark on the parquet flooring
due to water seepage;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ii) Asphalt plastered at the exterior
wall/floor joints to prevent water seepage;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
i) ANALOC FINISH of the aluminum frames
of doors and windows all around the condominium were painted with dark gray
paint to cover dents and scratches;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
j) LIVING ROOM
Intercom equipment installed without the
FACILITIES at the ground floor
3. Ordering [petitioner]
to pay [respondent] the following:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
a) The sum of
representing reimbursement for expenses incurred for the materials/labor in
installing walls/floor titles in 2 bathrooms and bar counter cabinet.
b) The sum of
representing unearned income for the five-month period that the defendant had
to suspend a lease contract over the premises.
c) The sum of
per month for a period of twenty-one (21) months (from May 1985 to January
representing unearned income when defendants lessee had to vacate the
premises and condominium unit remained vacant, all with legal interest from the
filing of the counterclaim until the same are fully paid.8
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, after a thorough review and examination of the
evidence on record,9 the CA found no basis for disbelieving what the trial court found and arrived
The appellate court sustained the trial courts finding that
while [petitioner] succeeded in proving its claim against the [respondent] for
expenses incurred in the registration of [the latters] title to the
condominium unit purchased, x x x for its part [respondent] in turn succeeded
in establishing an even bigger claim under its counterclaim.11 cralawred
Hence, this Petition.12
Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
I. Whether or not the
Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the respondents counterclaims.
II. Whether or
not the decision of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts
and/or manifestly mistaken warranting a review by this Honorable Court of the
factual findings therein.
III. Whether or
not the award of damages by the Honorable Court of Appeals is conjectural warranting
a review by this Honorable Court of the factual findings therein.13
The Courts Ruling
The Petition is partly meritorious.
Contending that it was the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) -- not the RTC -- that had jurisdiction over respondents counterclaim,
petitioner seeks to nullify the award of the trial court.
Promulgated on July 12, 1976, PD No. 957 -- otherwise known as
The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree -- provides that
the National Housing Authority (NHA) shall have exclusive authority to
regulate the real estate trade and business.14 Promulgated later on April 2, 1978, was PD No. 1344 entitled Empowering the
National Housing Authority to Issue Writs of Execution in the Enforcement of
Its Decisions Under Presidential Decree No. 957. It expanded the jurisdiction of the NHA as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
SECTION 1. In the exercise of
its function to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to
its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing
Authority shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
A. Unsound real
estate business practices;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
involving refund and any other claims filed
by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman; andcralawlibrary
C. Cases involving
specific performance of contractual
and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium
unit against the owner, developer, broker or salesman.
On February 7, 1981, by virtue of Executive Order No. 648, the
regulatory functions of the NHA were transferred to the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (HSRC). Section 8
SECTION 8. Transfer of Functions. -The regulatory
functions of the National Housing Authority pursuant to Presidential Decree
Nos. 957, 1216, 1344 and other related laws are hereby transferred to the
Commission (Human Settlements Regulatory Commission). x x x.
Among these regulatory functions are: 1)
Regulation of the real estate trade and business; x x x 11) Hear and decide
cases of unsound real estate business practices; claims involving refund filed
against project owners, developers, dealers, brokers, or salesmen; and cases of
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 90 dated December 17, 1986, the
functions of the HSRC were transferred to the HLURB.
As mandated by PD No. 957, the jurisdiction of the HLURB is
Hence, we said in Estate Developers and Investors Corporation v. Sarte:15 cralawred
x x x. While PD 957 was designed to meet the need basically to
protect lot buyers from the fraudulent manipulations of unscrupulous
subdivision owners, sellers and operators, the exclusive jurisdiction vested
in the NHA is broad and general -to regulate the real estate trade and
business in accordance with the provisions of said law.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the HLURB over cases enumerated
in Section 1 of PD No. 1344 is exclusive.
Thus, we have ruled that the board has sole
jurisdiction in a complaint of specific performance for the delivery of a
certificate of title to a buyer of a subdivision lot;16 for claims of refund regardless of whether the sale is perfected or not;17 and for determining whether there is a perfected contract of sale.18 cralawred
In Solid Homes v. Payawal,19 we declared that the NHA had the competence to award damages as part of the
exclusive power conferred upon it -- the power to hear and decide claims
involving refund and any other claims filed
by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against the project owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman.20 cralawred
Clearly then, respondents counterclaim -- being one for specific
performance (correction of defects/deficiencies in the condominium unit) and
damages -- falls under the jurisdiction of the HLURB as provided by Section 1
of PD No. 1344.
The Applicability of Estoppel
The general rule is that any decision rendered without
jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on
appeal before this Court.21 Indeed, the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, provided that
such action would not result in the mockery of the tenets of fair play.22 As an exception to the rule, the issue may not be raised if the party is barred
by estoppel.23 cralawred
In the present case, petitioner proceeded with the trial, and
only after a judgment unfavorable to it did it raise the issue of
Thus, it may no longer
deny the trial courts jurisdiction, for estoppel bars it from doing so.
This Court cannot countenance the
inconsistent postures petitioner has adopted by attacking the jurisdiction of
the regular court to which it has voluntarily submitted.24 cralawred
The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting
ones case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but
attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not.25 cralawred
We also find petitioner guilty of estoppel by laches for failing
to raise the question of jurisdiction earlier.
From the time that respondent filed its counterclaim on November 8,
1985, the former could have raised such issue, but failed or neglected to do
It was only upon filing its
appellants brief26 with the CA on May 27, 1991, that petitioner raised the issue of jurisdiction
for the first time.
In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,27 we declared that the failure to raise the question of jurisdiction at an
earlier stage barred the party from questioning it later.
Applying the rule on estoppel by laches, we
explained as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in
different ways and for different reasons.
Thus, we speak of estoppel in pais, of estoppe[l] by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches.
Laches, in general sense, is failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising
due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
The doctrine of laches or of stale demands is based upon grounds
of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of
stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of
time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting
a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.28 cralawred
Thus, we struck down the defense of lack of jurisdiction, since
the appellant therein failed to raise the question at an earlier stage.
It did so only after an adverse decision had
We further declared that if we were to sanction the said
appellants conduct, we would in effect be declaring as useless all the
proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced x x x and compel the
judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but
Applicable herein is our ruling in Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals,
30 in which we said:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Public policy dictates that this Court must strongly condemn any
double-dealing by parties who are disposed to trifle with the courts by
deliberately taking inconsistent positions, in utter disregard of the
elementary principles of justice and good faith. There is no denying that, in this case, petitioners never raised
the issue of jurisdiction throughout the entire proceedings in the trial
Instead, they voluntarily and
willingly submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of said court.
It is now too late in the day for them to
repudiate the jurisdiction they were invoking all along.31
and Third Issues:
Appreciation of Facts
It is readily apparent that petitioner is raising issues of fact
that have been ruled upon by the RTC and sustained by the CA.
The factual findings of lower courts are
generally binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal,
especially when both sets of findings are the same.32 Nevertheless, this rule has certain exceptions,33 as when those findings are not supported by the evidence on record.
We have carefully scrutinized the records of this case and found
reason to modify the award to conform to law and the evidence.
We thus address the arguments of petitioner seriatim.
in the Brochure
The brochure that was disseminated indicated features that would
be provided each condominium unit; and that, under Section 19 of PD No. 957,
would form part of the sales warranties of petitioner.34 Respondent relied on the brochure in its decision to purchase a unit.35 Since the former failed to deliver certain items stated therein, then there was
a clear violation of its warranties and representations.
The brochure says that [t]he particulars stated x x x as well as
the details and visuals shown x x x are intended to give a general idea of the
project to be undertaken, and as such, are not to be relied [upon] as
statements or representations of fact.36 This general disclaimer should apply only to the general concept of the project
that petitioner aptly characterizes thus:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
x x x [D]estined to reflect condominium living at its very best
and its design x x x will make the project the only one of its kind in the
This disclaimer, however, should not apply to the features and
the amenities that the brochure promised to provide each condominium unit.
Petitioner was thus in breach when it failed
to deliver a closed-circuit TV monitor through which residents from their
apartments can see their guests x x x.38 cralawred
The trial court erred, though, in requiring petitioner to provide
storage facilities on the ground floor, as the non-delivery had not been
alleged in respondents Answer with Counterclaim.39 cralawred
It is elementary that a judgment must conform to and be supported
by both the pleadings and the evidence, and that it be in accordance with the
theory of the action on which the pleadings were framed and the case was tried.40 Indeed, issues in each case are limited to those presented in the pleadings.41 cralawred
We are aware that issues not alleged in the pleadings may still
be decided upon, if tried with the parties express or implied consent.42 Trial courts are not precluded from granting reliefs not specifically claimed
in the pleadings -- notwithstanding the absence of their amendment -- upon the
condition that evidence has been presented properly, with full opportunity on
the part of the opposing parties to support their respective contentions and to
refute each others evidence.43 This exception is not present in the case at bar.
Moreover, a cursory reading of the brochure shows that there is
no promise to provide individual storage facilities on the ground floor for
each condominium unit.
reads: Storage facilities in the apartment units and the ground floor.44 Apparent from the letter of petitioner dated June 18, 1982,45 was its compliance with its promise of storage facilities on the ground
In that letter, respondent was
also informed that it may course a reservation of those facilities through the
Damages for Delay in Delivery
It is undisputed that petitioner sent respondent a Contract to
Sell46 declaring that the construction would be finished on or before December 31,
1981.47 The former delivered the condominium unit only in June 1982;48 thus, the latter claims that there was a delay in the delivery.
Because of this delay, the trial court ordered petitioner to pay
P136,608. 75 representing unearned income for the period that
respondent had to suspend a lease contract.
We find a dearth of evidence to support such award.
To recover actual damages, the amount of loss must not only be
capable of proof, but also be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty.49 The lone evidence for this award was the self-serving testimony of respondents
witness that a lease contract had indeed been intended to commence in January
1982, instead of the actual implementation on June 18, 1982.50 Without any other evidence, we fail to see
how the amount of loss was proven with a reasonable degree of certainty.
The rule is that a partys case must be established through a
preponderance of evidence.51 By such term of evidence is meant simply evidence that is of greater weight, or
is more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.52 Respondent was able to establish through its witness testimony that the
condominium unit suffered from defects.53 This testimony was confirmed by an inspection report54 noted and signed by petitioners representative, as well as by a commissioners
report55 prepared after an ocular inspection by the clerk of court acting as a
conclusion is supported by the circumstances that occurred during the lease
period, as evidenced by the complaint and the update letters56 of respondents lessee.
Petitioners contention that the claim arising from the alleged defects
has already prescribed must fail for being raised for the first time only on
appeal.57 Well-settled is the rule that issues not raised below cannot be resolved on
review in higher courts.58 cralawred
We agree, however, that the lower courts erred in finding that
there was a defect in a portion of the balcony, which respondent alleges to be
a walkway x x x [that] is not sufficient for passage.59 Petitioner was able to prove, however, that the specifications thereof
conformed to the building plan.
Respondent contends that this portion should have been 65 to 80
centimeters wide, so that it would be sufficient as a passageway.60 The building plan61 had not specified the width, however.
Architect Leo Ramos of W. V. Coscolluela & Associates, the
architectural firm that prepared the building plan, testified thus:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
QI am directing your
attention xxx to a certain portion in this condominium unit x x x it appears x
[that] there is no measurement
indicated therein, do you know why the measurement of said portion was not
indicated in the building plan?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ANormally, it is
QWhat do you mean by
AIt depends on the actual
measurement of the building construction.
QCould you please tell
the Court, what x x x the purpose of the said portion of the condominium unit
AIt is used for watering
the plants and the servicing of some area[s].
QHow much measurement is
made to affix the portion of watering the plants?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AApproximately. 50 [m].62 cralawred
Respondent maintains that this portion should have been. 80 meters
(or 80 centimeters),
similar to another area in the building plan that it
offered as Exhibit 2-A.63 But an analysis of this plan reveals that the latter area has a different width
from that of the former.
It is readily apparent from the foregoing facts that the portion
in controversy was not intended to be a walkway. Thus, there was no deviation from the building plan.
Because it has not been shown that this
section was insufficient to serve the purpose for which it was intended, the
lower courts erred in considering it as defective.
for Completion Work
The lower courts did not err in ordering petitioner to correct
the defects in the condominium unit, but in requiring it to reimburse
respondent in the amount of
P40,000 for completion work done.
Petitioner argues that the trial courts Decision encompassed the
areas beyond those alleged in respondents Answer.64 This contention is not convincing, because the allegations in the latter were
broad enough to cover all the defects in the condominium unit.
In fact, respondent prayed that judgment be
rendered ordering [petitioner] to correct such defects x x x in the condominium
unit as may be prove[d] during the trial.65 cralawred
Petitioner further challenges the award of
reimbursement for completion work done by respondent, on the ground that this
claim was not proven during the trial.
The latters evidence partook of a witness testimony66 and of a demand letter67 sent to petitioner requesting reimbursement for completion work done.
Petitioner argues that respondent should
have presented receipts to support the expenses.68 cralawred
We agree with petitioner.
While respondent may have suffered pecuniary losses for completion work
done, it failed to establish with reasonable certainty the actual amount
The award of actual damages
cannot be based on the allegation of a witness without any tangible document,
such as receipts or other documentary proofs to support such claim.69 In determining actual damages, courts cannot rely on mere assertions,
speculations, conjectures or guesswork, but must depend on competent proof and
on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount of loss.70 cralawred
Unearned Lease Income
Respondent entered into a lease contract with Advanced Micro
Device on May 18, 1982, for the period June 18, 1982 to June 17, 1983, with
option to renew.71 The lease -- which was for an agreed monthly rental of
P17,000 -- was
renewed for a period ending May 1, 1985, when Advanced Micro Device vacated the
unit.72 On the basis of these facts, the trial court ordered petitioner to pay damages
by way of unrealized income for twenty-one months or from May 1, 1985, until
January 1987 -- when respondent decided to move into the condominium unit,
which was unoccupied by then.
Despite the defects of the condominium unit, a lessee stayed
there for almost three years.73 The damages claimed by respondent is based
on the rent that it might have earned, had Advanced Micro Device chosen to stay
and renew the lease.
Such claim is
highly speculative, considering that respondent failed to adduce evidence that
the unit had been offered for lease to others, but that there were no takers
because of the defects therein.
Speculative damages are too remote to be included in an accurate
estimate thereof.74 Absent any credible proof of the amount of actual damage sustained, the Court
cannot rely on speculations as to its existence and amount.75 cralawred
We recognize, however, that respondent suffered damages when its
lessee vacated the condominium unit on May 1, 1985, because of the defects
Respondents are thus entitled
to temperate damages.76 Under the circumstances, the amount equivalent to three monthly rentals of
-- or a total of P51,000 -- would be reasonable.
Petition is PARTLY GRANTED, and the
assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals MODIFIED, as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Hereby DELETED is the
requirement on the part of petitioner to (1) deliver storage facilities on the
ground floor; (2) pay
P136,608. 75 for unearned income for the five-month
period that the lease contract was allegedly suspended; (3) correct the alleged
passageway in the balcony; (4) pay P40,000. 00 as reimbursement for
completion work done by respondent; (5) pay P27,321. 75 per month for a
period of twenty-one months for the alleged unearned income during the period
when the condominium unit remained vacant.
Petitioner, however, is ORDERED to pay P51,000 as temperate damages for the termination of the lease
contract because of the defects in the condominium unit.
All other awards are AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
(Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
pp. 51-63. Tenth Division.
by Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (Division chairman),
with the concurrence of
Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Bienvenido L. Reyes (members).
CA Decision, p. 12; rollo
, p. 62.
Respondents Answer with Counterclaim, p. 5; records, p. 17.
RTC Decision, pp. 8-11; rollo
, pp. 75-78.
This case was deemed submitted for resolution on May 12, 2003, upon this
Courts receipt of respondents Memorandum signed by Atty. George H. Yarte
Petitioners Memorandum, signed by
Atty. Emmanuel Ruben T. Malto Jr.,
was received by this Court on May 9, 2003.
Petitioners Memorandum, pp. 12-13; rollo
, pp. 145-146. Original in
Section 3, PD No. 957.
GR No. 93646, August 13, 1990.
by Justice Emilio A. Gancayco and concurred in by Justices Isagani A. Cruz,
Carolina Grio-Aquino, Leo D. Medialdea and (later Chief Justice) Andres R.
Narvasa, as quoted in Estate Developers
and Investors Corp. v. CA
, 213 SCRA 353, 358, September 2, 1992. See also Francel Realty Corporation v. CA
Phil. 138, January 22, 1996, in which we held that the failure of a real
property buyer to pay the agreed installment, based on the right to stop paying
monthly amortizations under PD 957, involves a determinative question
cognizable by the HLURB -- the question of what rights and obligations parties
have in a sale of real estate under PD 957, not PD 1344 (as explained in Roxas v. CA,
391 SCRA 351, 360, October 29, 2002).
16 C. T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. v. Hibionada
, 191 SCRA 268, 274, November 9, 1990.
17 Tejada v. Homestead Property Corporation
178 SCRA 164, 167, September 29, 1989.
18 Spouses Raet v. CA
, 356 Phil. 979,
989, September 17, 1998.
177 SCRA 72, August 29, 1989.
p. 78, per Cruz, J
21 Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal
p. 80; Trinidad v. Yatco
, 111 Phil.
466, 470, March 21, 1961; Corominas Jr.
and Corominas & Co. v. Labor Standard Commission
, 112 Phil. 551, 562, June
30, 1961; Roxas v. CA
, supra, p. 358.
23 Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal
p. 80; TCL Sales Corp. v. CA,
35, 44, January 5, 2001; National Steel
Corporation v. CA
, 362 Phil. 150, 160, February 2, 1999; ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broasting Corporation
, 364 Phil. 133, 141, March 11, 1999.
25 Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. v. Cabrigas
, 411 Phil. 369, 390, June 19, 2001.
Appellants Brief filed with the CA by petitioner, p. 30; CA rollo
131 Phil. 556, April 15, 1968.
p. 563, per Dizon, J
394 SCRA 472, December 27, 2002.
p. 477, per Corona, J
32 Lubos v. Galupo,
373 SCRA 618, 622 January 16, 2002; Gonzales v. CA
, 358 Phil. 806, 817, October 30, 1998; Xentrex Automotive, Inc. v. CA
Phil. 258, 263, June 18, 1998.
See CIR v. Embroidery and Garments
364 Phil. 541, 546, March 22, 1999.
Section 19 of PD No. 957 provides:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Sec. 19. Advertisements.
- Advertisements that may be made by thex x x developer x x x about the condominium x x x must reflect
the real fact and must be presented in such manner that will not tend to
mislead or deceive the public.
The x x x developer shall be answerable and liable for the
facilities, improvements, infrastructures or other forms of development
represented or promised in brochures, advertisements and other sales propaganda
disseminated by the x x x developer x x x and the same shall form part of the
sales warranties enforceable against said x x x developer x x x.
TSN, May 21, 1996, pp. 19-21.
Petitioners Exhibit I-2a; records, p. 118.
Petitioners Memorandum, p. 16; rollo
, p. 149; citing Petitioners
Respondents Exhibit 1; records, p. 112.
Respondents Answer with Counterclaim, dated November 8, 1985, p. 5; records,
41 Lianga Lumber Company v. Lianga Timber
76 SCRA 197, 222, March 31, 1977.
Rule 10 of the Rules of Court.
43 Northern Cement Corp. v. Intermediate
, 158 SCRA 408, 717, February 29, 1988.
Respondents Exhibit 1-A-1; records, p. 118.
Petitioners Exhibit J;
Respondents Exhibit 3; records, p. 119.
Respondents Exhibit 3-A; records, p. 122.
TSN, May 21, 1986, p. 31.
TSN, February 11, 1987, pp. 17-19, 35-36.
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
52 Republic v. CA
, 204 SCRA 160, 168,
November 21, 1991; citing 32 CJS 1051.
TSN, May 21, 1986, pp. 14-23, 31-36.
Respondents Exhibit 5; records, p. 127.
Respondents Exhibits 7 and 8; records, pp. 135-138.
Appellants Brief filed with the CA by petitioner, p. 29; CA rollo
Respondents Answer with Counterclaim, p. 3; records, p. 15.
TSN, May 21, 1986, p. 14; TSN, February 11, 1987, p. 4.
Respondents Exhibit 2; records, p. 150.
TSN, July 11, 1988, pp. 4-5.
TSN, August 12, 1987, pp. 3-8.
Petitioners Memorandum, p. 30; rollo
, p. 163.
Respondents Answer with Counterclaim, p. 5; records, p. 17.
TSN, May 21, 1996, pp. 23-28.
Respondents Exhibit 4; records, pp. 125-126.
Petitioners Memorandum, p. 31; rollo
, p. 164.
69 David v. CA
, 353 Phil. 170, 189, June
17, 1998; Magat Jr. v. CA
70 Barzaga v. CA
, 335 Phil. 568, 578,
February 12, 1997; Citytrust Banking
Corporation v. Villanueva
, 413 Phil. 776, 787, July 19, 2001.
Respondents Exhibit 6; records, p. 128.
TSN, February 11, 1987, p. 35.
pp. 23-29, 35-42; Exhibits 7, 8, 10; records, pp. 135-138,
74 Sun Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Rueda
Hermanos & Co.,
37 Phil. 844, 849, March 21, 1918.
Under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages are recoverable when some
pecuniary loss has been suffered, but its amount cannot -- from the nature of
the case -- be proved with certainty.
Back to Home | Back to Main