Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 201319 (Edna Corcuera v. Spouses Ramon Yu Pong Ting and Rosalina Yu Bee Hong). - Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed from the decision^[1] dated December 23, 2011 and the resolution^[2] dated March 12, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107901.

The parties entered into a contract, denominated as "Deed of Conditional Sale," for the sale of a residential house and lot located in Matatalaib, Tarlac City. The house and lot were sold for the cash price of four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) and the agreed terms of payment were: (a) a down payment of 20% of the purchase price or P80,000.00 to be paid in two installments (P32,000.00 upon signing of the contract and P48,000.00 to be paid within 120 days therefrom); and (b) the remaining balance of P320,000.00 to be paid in 60 monthly installments, from December 15, 2001 up to November 15, 2006, at P8,660.22 per month.

Petitioner Edna Corcuera failed to pay the balance of the purchase price amounting to P120,993.43. Respondent spouses Ramon Yu Pong Ting and Rosalina Yu Bee Hong sent the petitioner a demand letter for the settlement of her obligation within 15 days, but their demand was left unheeded. The respondents then sent the petitioner another demand letter to vacate the premises and to surrender possession of the premises within 15 days. The petitioner still refused to comply, prompting the respondents to file the present complaint for unlawful detainer.

On June 27, 2008, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tarlac City, ruled in favor of the respondents. It found that the petitioner had been remiss in paying her monthly amortizations, which gave the respondents the right to cancel the deed of conditional sale and to eject the petitioner from the property, subject to the respondents return to the petitioner 50% of the total amount she paid, or P257,661.35, pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6552 (also known as the "Realty Installment Buyer Act").

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Tarlac City, reversed the MTCC decision and ruled that the petitioner already paid her obligation in full; in fact, there was an overpayment of P115,322.70, which the respondents must return to the petitioner.

The respondents moved to reconsider the RTC's decision, but their motion was denied; hence, their appeal to the CA.

In a decision dated December 23, 2011, the CA ruled in the respondents' favor, and reversed the RTC's decision. 

From the evidence presented, the CA found that the petitioner still had a balance of P84,290.50. The CA ordered the petitioner to pay the respondents the amount of P84,290.50, within one (1) month from the finality of the decision; upon payment, the respondents must execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in the petitioner's favor. In case the petitioner fails to pay, she is ordered to immediately vacate the premises and to surrender possession to her (pursuant to R.A. No. 6552) of the subject house and lot to the respondents after the latter returns to her the amount of P257,661.35 representing 50% of her total payments.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in its resolution dated March 12, 2012.

In the present  petition for review on certiorari, the petitioner contends that the CA erred: in not finding that she had already paid the respondents the full purchase price of the subject house and lot; and in not finding that she made an overpayment of P115,322.70, which the respondents must return to her as ordered by the RTC. The petitioner also contends that the CA altered the terms of the subject deed of conditional sale by imposing the payment of interest.

We sustain the CA's findings.

The petitioner insists that the agreed price of the subject house and lot is P400,000.00. And after paying the respondents a total of P515,322.70 (the amount determined by the CA that the petitioner already paid to the respondents), the petitioner argues that she is entitled to the delivery of the property's title and the return of P115,322.70 as overpayment.

The petitioner is clearly mistaken. The petitioner's total obligation to the respondents is not only P400,000.00. P400,000.00 is the price of the subject house and lot had these been bought in cash. The petitioner, however, opted to pay the respondents in installments. The parties' agreement on the terms of payment is clear: the petitioner must pay the remaining balance of P320,000.00 in 60 monthly installments of P8,660.22, which in total amount to P519,613.20. Accordingly, the petitioner's total obligation to the respondents is P599,613.20 (P80,000.00 down payment, plus total monthly amortization of P519,613.20), not P400,000.00. The CA correctly found that the petitioner still has an outstanding obligation of P84,290.50 to the respondents.

Further, the CA did not alter the terms of the subject deed of conditional sale. It is clear from the said deed that the petitioner is liable to pay interest, particularly on the balance of P320,000.00, which was incorporated in the computation of the petitioner's monthly amortization payments.cralaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we deny the petition outright for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 25-40. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Yba�ez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.

^[2] Id. at 41-43.