Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 179811 (FAMA Realty, Inc. and Felix Assad v. Sps. Gerardo & Corazon Trinidad)

Before the Court are the following pleadings filed by respondents: (1) an unsigned motion^[1] dated May 19, 2010 praying that We clarify the exact amortization payments they have to pay petitioners; and (2) Manifestation dated February 13, 2011 expressing their readiness to pay the balance of the subject properties awarded to them.

The instant case involves two Reservation Applications (Nos. 008 and 009) of respondents for the purchase of 14 lots from petitioner FAMA Realty, Inc. Due to disagreement, respondents filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) entitled Spouses Gerardo Trinidad and Corazon Trinidad v. FAMA Realty, Inc. and Felix Assad, docketed as HLRB Case No. REM-022194-5807.

On January 26, 1995, HLURB Arbiter Arturo M. Dublado rendered his Decision^[2] directing petitioners to execute the deed of sale over at least three lots from Lots 3 to 14, Block 1 or Lots 1 and 2, Block 12, Phase 2 of St. Charbel Executive Village, with an area of 240 square meters each.

Unsatisfied, respondents appealed before the HLURB which, on December 15, 1995, affirmed with modification^[3] the January 26, 1995 Decision of HLURB Arbiter Dublado in that respondents were directed to pay petitioners damages and attorney's fees. On respondents' motion for reconsideration, the HLURB rendered a Joint Decision^[4] on April 2, 1997 in Trinidad v. FAMA and Assad and Dizon v. FAMA, modifying its December 15, 1995 Decision by deleting the awards granted to petitioners and, in gist, essentially affirming HLURB Arbiter Dublado's findings.

On further appeal, the Office of the President (OP) affirmed^[5] on August 31, 1998 the April 2, 1997 HLURB Decision, ruling, among others, that the acceptance by petitioners of the PhP 1,446,240 payment from respondents constituted estoppel, and that petitioners could no longer rescind the contract of reservation. Upon petition for review, the Court of Appeals (CA) on February 21, 2007 affirmed^[6] the disposition of the OP.

In petitioners� latest appeal via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court on April 23, 2008 denied the petition.^[7] On September 1, 2008, the petition was denied with finality.^[8] In due course, the Entry of Judgment^[9] was issued on October 16, 2008. Thus, the April 2, 1997 HLURB Decision, as affirmed by the OP, CA, and this Court, became final and executory.

For clarity and perspective, We reproduce the dispositive portion of the final and executory April 2, 1997 HLURB Decision: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision in REM-A-960530-0069 (Dizon case) and the decision in REM-A-950328-0039 (Trinidad case) are hereby MODIFIED to read as follows: 

1. Declaring the rescission of the contracts as null and void:
   
   
2. Ordering respondent FAMA to execute the pertinent contract lo sell as follows:
    
     a. Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, Block 1, Phase 2 to Enrica Dizon.
    
     b. Lot 5-14, Block 1, Phase 2 to Sps. Trinidad.  
    
3. Ordering complainant Trinidad to update the remaining down payments if any, and pay the amortization in accordance with the original terms of the contract, and ordering complainant Dizon to pay the amortization payments in accordance with the original terms of the contract.
   
   
4. Ordering respondent lo accept the payments of complainants; in the event FAMA refuses to accept payments, then TRINIDAD and DIZON is [sic] directed to deposit the same lo this Board.
   
   
5.   Ordering respondent lo Cease and Desist from constructing any structure over the Lots purchased by complainant Dizon.
   
   
6. FAMA is hereby ordered to pay to this Board the amount of P20,000.00 as and by way of administrative fine. 

SO ORDERED.

On May 19, 2010, respondents filed an unsigned motion seeking clarification on the exact amortization payments they are supposed to pay petitioners. This was precipitated by the demand letter^[10] from petitioners to respondents for the payment of PhP 1,446,240 representing the remaining balance of the two reservation applications. And, of course, there is an issue of the remaining balance to be paid by respondents.

While an unsigned motion under Section 10,^[11] Rule 15 in relation to Sec. 3,^[12] Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure has no legal effect and may be deemed a mere scrap of paper, We brush aside this procedural deficiency as it appears to be a mere inadvertence on the part of respondents� counsel. In fact, respondents have filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve^[13] and Second Urgent Motion to Resolve^[14] their unsigned motion, which We deem as substantial remediation of the lack of signature of counsel in the unsigned motion.

It is respondents' contention, however, that they had already paid a total of PhP 5,286,240 as early as October 9, 1992 as duly found by the CA. The CA noted petitioners' assertion that they only received PhP 3,840,000 of the required amount of PhP 5,286,240 representing the required 30% downpaymet. leaving a balance of PhP 1,446,240. Apparently, this bone of contention is the Manager's Check issued by the Bank of Commerce (BanCom) dated October 9, 1992 in the amount of PhP 1,446,240. This manager's check was tendered to petitioners' counsel who duly received it and for which an acknowledgement receipt was issued on October 22, 1992. Thus, the CA aptly noted: 

Petitioners claim that the downpayment made by respondents amounted to only P3,840,000.00, while the latter insist that they paid the amount of P5,286,240.(X), which is the required 30% downpayment. It is interesting to note that the difference of P1,446,240.00 is covered by the Bank of Commerce manager's check dated October 9, 1992 which respondents tendered lo petitioners" counsel, who acknowledged receipt thereof on October 22. 1992. In a letter dated November 3, 1992. petitioners' counsel informed respondents that said check for P1,446.240 was not accepted by FAMA as their RAs were already cancelled and their payments were [sic] forfeited. On page 6 of respondents' motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated December 15, 1995 of the HLURB, they pointed out that the amount of P1,446.240 was not returned to them by petitioners, which the latter did not refute. It appears, therefore, that respondents had fully paid the required downpayment of P5,286,740.00 [sic] before the revocation or cancellation of their RAs.^[15]

To ensure the actual payment and encashment of this BanCom Manager's Check dated October 9, 1992 for PhP 1,446,240, We issued a Resolution^[16] on September 1, 2010 requiring petitioners lo inform the Court whether it had already been encashed. In their compliance through, a Manifestation,^[17] respondents confirmed the fact that the manager's check in the amount of PhP 1,446,240, has not been encashed by petitioners. Thus, said manager's check has already become stale and non-negotiable.Consequently, even if petitioners actually received the manager's check for PhP 1,446,240, its non-encashment by petitioners on account of their erroneous rescission made shortly after the receipt of the manager's check justifies that no actual payment has been completed.

The second clarificatory issue raised by respondents is the remaining balance they need to pay considering that they were awarded only 10 lots out of the 14 lots originally covered by the two reservation applications. Respondents contend that the total amount they need to pay covering the 10 lots, specifically Lots 5 to 14, Block 1, Phase 2 of St. Charbel Village, should be PhP 12,120,000 only.^[18] and not the original agreed purchase price of PhP 17,620,800 under the two reservation applications which was for 14 lots.

It must be noted that the final and executory April 2, 1997 HLURB Decision directed that respondents need "to update the remaining down payments if any, and pay the amortization in accordance with the original terms of the contract." It is clear, therefore, that respondents need only to pay for the 10 lots awarded to them pursuant to the final and executory April 2, 1997 HLURB Decision under the original terms of the reservation applications, i.e., the agreed purchase price per square meter, for the total land area of the 10 lots.

But petitioners arc apparently demanding the payment of PhP 17,620,800 covering the 14 lots under the reservation applications less the total downpayment already paid by respondents. This is apparent from petitioners' letter^[19] dated May 11, 2010 and the draft Contract lo Sell,^[20] in which petitioners were demanding for the PhP 1,446,240 additional downpayment and the balance of PhP 12.334,560 or a total of PhP 13,780,800.

Obviously it is inequitable if respondents are required to pay the full amount of the original reservation applications covering 14 lots but will be given only the 10 lots awarded lo them, considering that the four (4) other lots covered by the reservation applications have been awarded to Enrica Dizon. Thus, from the records, it is clear that respondents should only be required to pay for the total purchase price�under the terms as agreed upon in the two reservation agreements�for the ten (10) lots. There is no dispute that respondents already paid the total amount of PhP 3,840,000 as downpayment, not counting the PhP 1,446,240 payment under the BanCom Manager's Check dated October 9, 1992 which was not encashed by petitioners.

In sum, respondents ought to pay the amount corresponding to the purchase of the 10 lots awarded to them under the terms of the reservation' applications less the PhP 3,840,000 downpayment they have already paid petitioners. In their February 11, 2011 Manifestation, respondents expressed willingness to pay the amount of PhP 1,446,240 subject to the return by petitioners of the BanCom Manager's Check dated October 9, 1992, and the alleged balance of PhP 6,833,760 for the 10 lots, specifically Lots 5 to 14, Block 1, Phase 2 of St. Charbcl Village.

The HLURB Arbiter should then compute the total amount respondents ought to pay for the 10 lots less the downpayment of PhP 3,840,000. Respondents, who have expressed desire to pay the total amount due, should pay, as computed by the HLURB Arbiter, the balance to petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the HLURB Arbiter is DIRECTED  in HLRB Case No. REM-022194-5807 to COMPUTE the total amount respondents are supposed to pay for the ten (10) lots (Lots 5 to 14, Block 1, Phase 2 of St. Charbel Village) awarded to them pursuant to the original terms under the Reservation Applications pertaining to the purchase price per square meter less the PhP 3,840,000 downpayment already paid by respondents. Respondents are DIRECTED to PAY petitioners the balance, as computed by the HLURB Arbiter, while petitioners are DIRECTED to  EXECUTE a Deed of Absolute Sale for the said 10 lots, upon payment of the said balance.

The respondents' manifestation stating that they are ready and willing to pay the balance on the properties subject of this case (Lots 5 to 14) stating the amount and terms thereon is NOTED.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
  Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 202-209.

^[2] Id. at 56-78.

^[3] Id. at 79-88.

^[4] Id. at 89-97.

^[5] Id. at 98-105.

^[6] Id. at 41-53.

^[7] Id. at 171.

^[8] Id. at 194.

^[9] Id. at 195.

^[10] Id. at 224-225, dated December 10, 2009.

^[11] SEC 10. Form. �The Rules applicable to pleadings shall apply to written motions so far as concerns caption, designation, signature, and other matters of form.

^[12] SEC. 3. Signature and address. � Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him stating in either case his address which should not be a post office box. 

x x x x 

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. x x x

^[13] Rollo, pp. 289-293, dated July 27, 2010.

^[14] Id. at 300-303, dated October 7, 2010.

^[15] Id. at 51.

^[16] Id. at 298.

^[17] Id. at 309-314, dated October 17, 2010. Respondents state, thus: 

2. Respondents confirm that, as of this date, the above check has not been presented for payment by Fama Realty, Inc. x x x x

^[18] Id. at 205.

^[19] Id. at 282.

^[20] Id. at 226-232.