ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 123655. May 10, 2000]
ANGEL BAUTISTA vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 10 2000.
G.R. No. 123655 (Angel Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)
Before us are two motions, namely, (1) "Motion for Reconsideration with Petition to Refer the Case to the En Banc", filed by respondent Realty Baron Corporation, and (2) "Motion for Reconsideration", dated February 15, 2000, filed by respondents Pedro Atienza (for himself and as attorney-in-fact of Julita Atienza, Benedicto De Leon and Rizalino Atienza), Amelia Atienza, Gregorio Atienza and Conrado Atienza. Both motions assail this Court's Decision dated January 19, 2000, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"IN VIEW WHEREOF, the questioned judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 33213 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Instead, we render the following judgment:
1. The notarial rescission executed by Atty. Cortes on January 31, 1978, is declared null and void and without force and effect on the Contract of Sale, dated April 13, 1977, executed between petitioner and respondents;
2. The estate of petitioner Angel Bautista and/or his legal heirs are declared as the true and rightful owner of the subject parcel of land in Tagaytay City, formerly covered by TCT No. T-6744, with an area of approximately 158,386 square meters, pursuant to the Contract of Sale of April 13, 1977;
3. The Deed of Sale with Mortgage dated October 30, 1978 and TCT No. T-12113 issued in favor of respondent Realty Baron Corporation is declared null and void;
4. The administrator of petitioner's estate and/or the authorized representative of petitioner's legal heirs are ordered to pay the balance of the purchase price of the Contract of Sale of April 13, 1977, pursuant to the terms and conditions specified therein;
5. Respondent Atienza are ordered to deliver TCT No. 12107 to the authorized representative of the legal heirs of the petitioner and/or the administrator of petitioner's estate and to execute all the necessary documents as may be required by the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City to facilitate the issuance of the TCT in the names of petitioner's legal heirs;
6. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch CLX, is ordered to cause the cancellation by the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City of TCT No. 12113 and TCT 12107 and the issuance, in lieu thereof, of the corresponding certificate of title in the name of petitioner's legal heirs.
����������� No costs.
����������� SO ORDERED."
In a Resolution dated March 6, 2000, the Court denied Realty Baron Corporation's prayer to refer the case to the Court En Banc. We also required petitioner to comment on the other issues raised by respondents.
On March 13, 2000, petitioner filed a Consolidated Opposition to the aforesaid motions for reconsideration. The Court considers the petitioner's opposition as his comment.
We deny the motions for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Realty Baron Corporation contends that it was denied due process when this Court ruled that it brought the property in bad faith. It maintains that petitioner did not raise the issue on his right over the subject property vis-�-vis its right as an innocent purchaser for value, thus, the issue should be determined in another proceeding to give it the opportunity to present its evidence. The argument lacks merit.
Realty Baron Corporation could not claim that it was denied due process. The records show that it intervened in the present case as an alleged buyer in good faith of the subject property. During the trial, petitioner testified on the aborted sales transaction between him and the elder Papa. For its part, Realty Baron Corporation admitted it knew that petitioner and the respondent Atienzas had a previous contract of sale over the subject property. Despite such knowledge, it still bought property from the Atienzas after it was shown that the respondent Atienzas unilaterally rescinded the sale in favor of petitioner. Its knowledge of the previous sale should have put it on guard inasmuch as the notarial rescission did not carry with it the conformity of the petitioner, more so when the Atienzas were not granted the right to unilaterally rescind the subject Contract of Sale. To be sure, Realty Baron Corporation is not an innocent purchaser for value.
At any rate, it is settled that the Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors in their appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case1 Barons Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 96, 108 (1998), citing Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 717 (1994); Asset Privatization Trust vs. CA, 214 SCRA 400 (1994). See also Catholic Bishop of Batangas vs. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 181, 191 (1996). or to serve the interest of justice2 Ortigas vs. Lufthansa German Airlines, 64 SCRA 610 (1975). or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.3 Servicewide Specialist Inc. vs. CA. 257 SCRA 643 (1996). We have also held that an unassigned error closely related to an error properly assigned or upon which a determination of the question raised by the error properly assigned is dependent, will be considered by the appellate court notwithstanding the failure to assign it as an error.4 Ibid.
It is meet to mention that the lower court gravely erred in concluding that the contract between petitioner and the Atienzas was a contract to sell. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals and one of the issues he raised was that "the lower court erred when it upheld the sale by defendants (Atienzas) in favor of the intervenor (Realty Baron Corporation)."5 Rollo, p. 88. Unfortunately, the appellate court also gravely erred in holding in favor of the respondents. For one reason or another, the case has dragged on for several years that several parties to this case, including the original petitioner himself, are no longer around to see its final resolution. It is time to put an end to this case. we have determined the right of petitioner to be superior to that of the respondents. We restate that the procedure followed by this court is "in accord with the desideratum that calls for a complete adjudication of a case to speed up the dispensation of justice."6 Servicewide Specialist Inc. vs. CA, supra.
As regards the motion for reconsideration of the Atienzas, the same is only a rehash of the arguments raised in their Comment. At any rate, assuming, arguendo, that the Contract of Sale executed in favor of petitioner did not state their true intention, said respondents have no right to unilaterally rescind the same in the absence of any express provision in the contract granting them such right. Their remedy is to ask for a reformation of the contract. Article 1359 of the Civil Code state that "when, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the end that such true intention may be expressed."
In view whereof, the Court resolves to:
a) DENY the Motion for Reconsideration with Petition to Refer the Case to the Court En Banc filed by respondent Realty Baron Corporation for lack of merit; and
b) DENY the Motion for Reconsideration, dated February 15, 2000, filed by respondents Pedro Atienza (for himself and as attorney-in-fact of Julita Atienza, Benedicto De Leon and Rizalino Atienza), Amelia Atienza, Gregorio Atienza and Conrado Atienza, also for lack of merit.
Let the records of this case be returned to the trial court for the final execution of this decision.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
