Facts:

In the case of Lauro Adamos et al. vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Gregorio Araneta, Inc., the dispute arose out of a complaint for specific performance and damages filed by thirty-three plaintiffs in the Court of First Instance of Manila on December 12, 1961. The plaintiffs collectively claimed that they purchased certain residential lots located in Matalahib and Tatalon, Quezon City, in 1949 from a group termed "the Deudors." These lots were part of a larger parcel of land covered by a Torrens title in the name of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. A significant event occurred on March 16, 1953, when a compromise agreement was reached among the Deudors and J.M. Tuason & Co. regarding the lots, allowing the legitimate purchasers, including the plaintiffs, to continue their purchase under certain conditions outlined in the agreement. Despite attempts from the plaintiffs to sign new purchase contracts with the defendants, they alleged that the defendants continuously r

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Plaintiffs
• Thirty-three individuals who claim to be the legitimate purchasers of certain residential lots in Matalahib and Tatalon, Quezon City.
• Alleged to have bought these lots in 1949 from several persons collectively designated as the Deudors.
• Defendants
• J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. – holder of the Torrens title covering the larger parcel of land which includes the lots.
• Gregorio Araneta, Inc. – acting in its capacity as managing partner and attorney-in-fact of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc.

Transactional History and the Compromise Agreement

• Purchase and Subsequent Dispute
• Plaintiffs assert that after their 1949 purchase, the lots became the subject of several civil cases between the Deudors and J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc.
• A compromise agreement was entered on March 16, 1953, resolving the disputes:
• It provided that the legitimate purchasers—including the plaintiffs—would be credited for sums previously paid.
• It stipulated that J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. should execute new purchase contracts with the plaintiffs at the then current market rate.
• Alleged Nonperformance by Defendants
• Plaintiffs allege that despite their willingness to sign new purchase contracts and repeated verbal and written demands, defendants refused to execute the appropriate contracts.
• Additional causes of action were incorporated to address issues with the pricing under the agreement and claims for damages and attorney’s fees.

Procedural History and Related Developments

• Motion to Dismiss in Lower Court
• The case was initially filed as civil case No. 53067 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, asserting improper venue and failure to state a valid cause of action.
• Basis for Dismissal by Lower Court
• The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action.
• The dismissal was largely premised on findings that the compromise agreement had been rescinded and set aside:
• Incidents arising from its implementation led to orders from the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch) on February 28, 1957, and January 10, 1958.
• These orders concentrated on the delivery of the 30 “quinones” of land by the Deudors.
• Subsequent Supreme Court rulings in related cases (Florencio Deudor vs. Tuason and J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Bienvenido Sanvictores) affirmed that the rescission effected through the lapse of a resolutory period.

Additional Factual Considerations

• Nature of Relief Sought by Plaintiffs
• Specific performance – to compel the defendants to execute new purchase contracts for the respective lots.
• Damages and attorney’s fees arising from the defendants’ alleged improper conduct.
• Venue Issue
• Defendants argued that venue was improperly laid on the basis that the properties were not claimed by the plaintiffs.
• Plaintiffs maintained that it was a personal action for specific performance rather than a petition for possession of property, noting that they recognized the Torrens title held by the defendant.

Issue:

Whether the complaint, when read as a whole and with all allegations assumed true, sufficiently states a cause of action for specific performance and damages.

• Does the alleged failure of defendants to execute new purchase contracts, despite the existence of a compromise agreement, form a valid basis for a cause of action?
• Are the additional claims concerning price adjustments and the claim for damages supportable from the facts alleged in the complaint?

Whether the alleged rescission of the compromise agreement, based on subsequent orders and related jurisprudence, should be taken as a ground to dismiss the complaint.

• Should facts not raised in the plaintiff’s complaint (e.g., the precise impact of the rescission) influence the dismissal decision at this stage?
• Whether the proper venue for the action is determinable from the complaint’s allegations, given the dispute centers on a personal claim rather than ownership or possession of real property.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)