ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 141311.� August 15, 2005]

LEGASPI vs. ONG

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 15 2005.

G.R. No. 141311 (Bernice Legaspi vs. Spouses Rita and Francisco Ong.)

R E S O L U T I O N

Before us is respondents' motion for partial reconsideration with prayer to clarify dispositive portion of our decision dated May 26, 2005 which reads as follows:

Wherefore, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the effect that the award of monthly rentals on the subject property and attorney's fees in favor of respondent is DELETED.

The dispositive portion of the decision dated July 30, 1998 of the Court of Appeals (CA) reads:

Wherefore, judment is hereby rendered setting aside the decision of the court a qou dated July 6, 1993 in Civil Case No. 90-54623 and dismissing the complaint of plaintiff-appellee.

The appellants are hereby ordered to redeem the property from appellee in the amount of P2,655,000.00 with legal interest computed from the time the sale of redemption fell due up to the time the obligation is fully paid.

Appellee is hereby ordered to pay appellants the monthly rent of the subject premises from October 1993 up to the time possession thereof is turned over to appellants, which is hereby fixed in the amount of P25,000.00 a month; attorney's fees in the amount of P100,000.00; and cost of suit.

In deleting the awards for monthly rentals and attorney's fees, we found that the appellate court did not make any discussion on the bases of how it arrived at these awards since they were only mentioned in the dispositive portion of the decision.

Respondents seek the restoration of the monthly rentals contending that although the appellate court did not state how it arrived at such amount of monthly rentals, the same could have been derived from the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court in a separate ejectment case filed by petitioner against respondents.

The argument does not persuade us.

In the ejectment case mentioned by respondents which was filed by petitioner while the instant petition for consolidation of ownership was on-going in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, a decision was rendered in favor of petitioner, thus respondents were ordered to vacate the subject property and pay the amount of P25,000.00 as monthly rental. A writ of execution was issued and possession of the subject property was delivered by the sheriff to petitioner's father on October 11, 1993. Respondents would want us to consider the amount of P25,000.00 awarded in the ejectment case as the basis of the CA in its award in the consolidation case appealed before it. The ejectment case is different from the instant case, thus it could not be made as basis for the award of the CA. Moreover, the CA did not point out the specific facts which could afford the reason for such award of rentals as even respondents could only surmise that the award could have been derived from the decision in the ejectment case. Decisions are not based on speculations and conjectures but must state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based.

As to attorney's fees, there was no factual basis stated in the text of the decision for such award, and in the absence of a statement why attorney's fees were awarded, the same should be disallowed and deleted.

Respondents seek clarification on what would be the effect of the payment of the amount adjudged in the decision. The transaction between petitioner and respondents was found to be an equitable mortgage, thus, respondents are ordered to redeem the property from petitioner in the amount of P2,655,000 with legal interest computed from the time the sale of redemption fell due up to the time the obligation is fully paid. Naturally, upon respondents' payment, they are then entitled to the ownership as well as possession of the subject property.

WHEREFORE, the motion for partial reconsideration is DENIED. As soon as respondents had complied with the payment of redemption price adjudged in our decision, they are deemed entitled to the ownership and possession of the subject property.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE