Facts:

• The case involves Rudy S. Ampeloquio, Sr. (petitioner) and Romeo Napiza (respondent).
• The dispute originated from an Assignment of Rights dated September 11, 1981.
• The properties in question are Lot No. 3424 (Palolang Malapit) and Lot No. 3445 (Palolang Malayo) in Lucban, Quezon.
• Ampeloquio was entitled to 55% of the developed property; Napiza was to receive 5% of Ampeloquio's share as a commission.
• Napiza filed a complaint for specific performance on June 22, 1995, due to Ampeloquio's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Napiza, ordering Ampeloquio to deliver land or pay its market value, along with attorney's fees.
• Ampeloquio appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the RTC's decision but reduced the attorney's fees.
• The case was escalated to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled against Ampeloquio on all issues.
• The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, confirming the Assignment of Rights related to the Palolang Malapit property.
• Napiza's cause of action had not prescribed, and he was not guilty of laches.
• Issues regarding the Ministry Order and pari deli...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court's reasoning was based on factual determinations by the lower courts, confirming the Assignment of Rights was linked to the Palolang Malapit property.
• The Court emphasized the need for comprehensive contract interpretation, considering the parties' intentions.
• The prescriptive period for enforcing the contract began upon breach, not at execution.
• Napiza's multiple demands for compliance rendered his action timely, not barred b...continue reading