Case Digest (G.R. No. 155043)
Facts:
The case is Arturo R. Abalos v. Dr. Galicano S. Macatangay, Jr., G.R. No. 155043, September 30, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petition seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 48355 (Dr. Galicano S. Macatangay, Jr. v. Arturo R. Abalos and Esther Palisoc‑Abalos) promulgated March 14, 2002, which had reversed the Regional Trial Court and ordered execution of a deed of sale in favor of respondent.Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos were registered owners of a Makati parcel (TCT No. 145316). On June 2, 1988 Arturo allegedly held a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Esther. Arturo executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) dated October 17, 1989 in favor of respondent Macatangay, offering to sell the property for P1,300,000 and acknowledging receipt of P5,000 as earnest money; the RMOA purported to bind Arturo not to offer the property to others for 30 days and stated full payment would follow turnover of possession. Arturo did not sign the RMOA as vendee.
Esther executed a distinct SPA dated October 25, 1989 appointing her sister Bernadette Ramos as attorney‑in‑fact to handle transfer of the property. Respondent annotated an adverse claim on the title (Nov. 14, 1989). On November 16, 1989 respondent notified the spouses of his readiness to pay; that same date Esther, through her attorney‑in‑fact, executed a Contract to Sell conveying her conjugal interest for P650,000 (less amounts already received) and promising to surrender possession within twenty days, respondent undertaking to pay the balance of P1,290,000 after possession and to deliver a deed of absolute sale upon full payment.
Respondent later informed the spouses (Dec. 7, 1989) he had set aside a Citibank check for P1,290,000 as full payment and again demanded turnover; the parties did not effect possession, respondent annotated another adverse claim, and on January 12, 1990 respondent filed a complaint for specific performance with damages. At trial Arturo answered; Esther was declared in default.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for specific performance, finding (a) the SPA allegedly executed by Esther in favor of Arturo was falsified so that Arturo lacked authority to sell, and (b) the check for earnest money was dishonored and the record did not establish a valid replacement payment. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that even if the SPA in favor of Artu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner denied due process by the Court of Appeals when it decided the appeal without affording him notice or opportunity to participate?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave error in reversing the trial court's findings of fact and ordering specific performance?
- Whether the RMOA and the Contract to Sell constituted an enforceable contract of sale obligating petitioner to e...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)