ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[.� August 24, 2005]

RODRIGUEZ vs. CA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 24 2005.

G.R. No. 168286 (Wilfred Rodriguez vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Fourth Division, The Hon. Judge Fortunito L. Madrona, Regional Trial Court, Branch 274, Para�aque City, Masaito Development Corporation and SM Prime Holdings, Inc.)

For resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 15 February 2005 and its Resolution dated 25 May 2005 denying petitioner's original action for certiorari.

The facts of the case can be culled from the narration of the Court of Appeals:

The petitioner, Wilfred Rodriguez (Wilfred for brevity), is one of the surviving heirs of the deceased spouses Abelardo Rodriguez and Carmen Bond Rodriguez who died intestate, leaving one-third (1/3) share on a parcel of land then covered by TCT No. 40264 of the Registry of Deeds for Para�aque, Metro Manila, with an area of 13,677 square meters. On December 26, 1991, the Rodriguez heirs, including Wilfred, as sellers, and herein private respondent Masaito Development Corporation (Masaito), as buyer, executed a Deed of Conditional Sale over the subject property for a total consideration of P13,677,000.00, to be paid in uneven installments. Subsequently, a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the estate of deceased spouses Rodriguez was executed by the Rodriguez heirs, under which the petitioner, being a legitimate child of the deceased spouses, became the owner of an undivided interest in the subject property to the extent of 1,719 square meters. Masaito then paid the Rodriguez heirs the first installment in the amount of P825,000.00 upon the presentation of the latter's Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement. In accordance with the proportion of sharing agreed upon in the said Deed, the petitioner received P100,000.00 as his proportionate share in the subject property.

According to Masaito, Wilfred approached him and proposed some amendments to the Deed of Conditional Sale relating to the installment payments which Masaito rejected. Feeling slighted, Wilfred unjustly refused to accept his proportionate share in subsequent installment payments tendered to him by Masaito. Further, Wilfred advised Masaito that he and his co-heirs would return their respective shares in the initial installment payment in the amount of P825,000.00. However, the rest of the Rodriguez heirs continued accepting the subsequent payments while fulfilling their corresponding obligations under the Deed of Conditional Sale. Thus, the entire property with the exception of the undivided portion belonging to Wilfred had already been transferred and conveyed to Masaito by virtue of separate Deeds of Absolute Sale duly executed by the other Rodriguez heirs. Worse, Wilfred offered the subject portion of the property and sold the same to SM Prime Holdings, Inc. (SM Prime), compelling Masaito to file a complaint for specific performance with damages against Wilfred. On June 15, 1998, SM Prime, with leave of court, caused a complaint-in-intervention to be filed against Wilfred, which was admitted by the trial court.

On April 24, 2002, Masaito and SM Prime entered into and executed a Memorandum of Agreement wherein SM Prime offered to lease from Masaito, and the latter agreed to lease, the property in question to SM Prime. Subsequently, or on August 4, 2003, Masaito and SM Prime filed a joint manifestation wherein Masaito now recognizes SM Prime's right of ownership over the subject land as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Wilfred and SM Prime on October 10, 1995. Upon receipt of a copy of the said joint manifestation, Wilfred filed a Comment thereon, and at the same instance, a motion to dismiss, reasoning out that the respective complaints filed against him by Masaito and SM Prime had been rendered moot and academic because of the provisions in the joint manifestation recognizing SM Prime's right of ownership over the property and at the same instance, Masaito's renunciation and waiver of all its rights over the same. Masaito thereafter filed its comment to the said motion to dismiss. SM Prime likewise filed its reply.

On February 11, 2004, the public respondent promulgated his assailed order which had the following dispositive portion:

Finding thus no merit therein, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

Set the hearing for the reception of evidence for the plaintiff-intervenor on May 31, 2004 at 8:30 o'clock (sic) in the morning.

Petitioner then went up to the Court of Appeals via an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court ascribing grave abuse of discretion upon respondent Judge in denying his Motion To Dismiss. Petitioner repeated his argument that the case for specific performance with damages filed by respondent Masaito Development Corp. (Masaito) as well as the complaint-in-intervention filed by respondent SM Prime Holdings, Inc. (SM Prime) for specific performance with damages had been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the Joint Manifestation and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), recognizing SM Prime's right of ownership over the property in question and at the same instance, Masaito's renunciation and waiver of all its rights over the same.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition holding that the action of respondent Court, denying the Motion To Dismiss was not attended by grave abuse of discretion; hence, the original action for certiorari cannot lie. For its relevance, we quote the appellate court's ratiocination:

It is a well-settled rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for certiorari. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the objections raised in his motion to dismiss, proceed to trial, and in case of an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due course. This is so because "it does not dispose of the case but leaves something else to be done by the trial court on the merits of the case." Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in the 'sorry spectacle' of a case being subject of a counterproductive ping-pong to and from the appellate court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an error in any of its interlocutory rulings.

Moreover, a close scrutiny of the Joint Manifestation would reveal that Masaito's renunciation and waiver of all rights, interests and participation over the subject property is without prejudice to its right to pursue its claim against Wilfred for unjust enrichment, and to recover actual damages consisting of the advance payments made to the latter, interests and attorney's fees as well as such other damages which the trial court may deem just and equitable. Thus, Masaito's claim against Wilfred is not rendered moot and academic. And since the terms of the instruments are clear and leave no doubt as to their meaning, they should not be disturbed. It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that the intention of the parties shall be accorded primordial consideration.

Neither was SM Prime's complaint-in-intervention rendered moot and academic. The rule is well-settled that after the intervenor has appeared in the action, the plaintiff has no absolute right to put the intervenor out of court by the dismissal of the action. The parties to the original suit have no power to waive or otherwise annul the substantial rights of the intervenor.

In sum, since Wilfred failed to substantiate his claim that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the public respondent in promulgating the assailed order, the petition for certiorari will not lie. Besides, as a rule, the resolution of a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is left to the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Unless there is a grave abuse amounting to lack of jurisdiction which is completely absent in the case at bench, the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss may not be disturbed.

We are in full accord in the above-quoted disquisition. Be it noted that private respondents Masaito (the original complainant) and SM Prime (the intervenor) both claimed ownership over the property subject matter of the specific performance case. They later entered into a MOA whereby the subject property would be leased to SM Prime by Masaito. Then, through their Joint Manifestation filed before the trial court, they clarified that Masaito now recognizes SM Prime's ownership over the subject property. In effect Masaito and SM Prime entered into a compromise agreement. Necessarily, as Masaito has waived its rights over the subject property, it is but proper that the specific performance case it filed against petitioner be dismissed as it is no longer asserting rights of ownership over the same.

Masaito's claim for damages against petitioner, on the other hand, stands on a different plain. Due consideration must be made to the reason behind the MOA and the Joint Manifestation - that of settling the issue of ownership over the property as between Masaito and SM Prime. The claim for damages filed by Masaito against petitioner is alien to the subject matter in the MOA, as the same is a matter solely between Masaito and petitioner. Thus, the MOA clearly states that what is to be dismissed is merely the case for specific performance without mention as to the case for damages.

Petitioner, in insisting that the claim for damages against him has been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the agreement entered into between Masaito and SM Prime, has read into said agreement something that is obviously not included therein.

There was, therefore, no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the petition filed before it.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE