Facts:

The case revolves around Rudy S. Ampeloquio, Sr. as the petitioner and Romeo Napiza as the respondent. The legal proceedings often originated from disputes over property rights and commission agreements concerning lands in Lucban, Quezon, particularly two parcels known as Lot No. 3424 and Lot No. 3445. The central element of the case is an Assignment of Rights executed on September 11, 1981, whereby Ampeloquio, a real estate developer, enlisted Napiza's assistance to secure agreement from other co-owners to develop a specific parcel of land—the Palolang Malapit property, in exchange for a 5% commission of Ampeloquio’s share as the developer.

The development project was formally initiated with a "Kasunduan sa Pagde-develop" and later through a notarized "Contract of Development." Although Napiza was able to persuade other co-owners, Ampeloquio contended that the Assignment of Rights referenced Lot No. 4685 due to a typographical error, arguing it was meant

...

Facts:

Parties and Properties

• Petitioner: Rudy S. Ampeloquio, Sr., a real estate developer.
• Respondent: Romeo Napiza, together with other co-owners (Julio Napiza, Tomas Faller, Justina Dayahan, Andalicia Maderal, Luisa Maderal, Ursula Maderal, Marcelina Maderal, Pablo Maderal, Marte Maderal, Myrna Maderal, Fernando Maderal, and Rosalinda Maderal).
• Subject Properties:
• Palolang Malapit property – a 23,030 square meter parcel located at Barangay Palola (Malapit), Lucban, Quezon, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-10786 and identified as Lot No. 3424 in the Lucban Cadastral Survey with Tax Declaration No. 4675.
• Palolang Malayo property – another parcel identified as Lot No. 3445 with Tax Declaration No. 4630, also situated at Barangay Palola (Malayo), Lucban, Quezon.

Contractual Agreements and Transactions

• Assignment of Rights (11 September 1981):
• A written contract executed by petitioner and respondent.
• Stipulated that in connection with the early development of the property, the petitioner (as subdivider and developer) would obtain the services of respondent to secure the consent of his fellow co-owners.
• In consideration for respondent’s efforts, he was to receive a commission amounting to 5% of the disposable area of petitioner’s share.
• The contract stated the subject matter as Lot No. 4685; however, both parties later explained that this was a typographical error intended to refer to Lot No. 4675 corresponding to the Palolang Malapit property.
• The agreement was said to function as an amendment to an earlier subdivision agreement with the co-owners.

Dispute and Subsequent Litigation

• Alleged Breach and Non-compliance:
• Respondent maintained that petitioner did not fully comply with the obligations stipulated in the Assignment of Rights concerning the 5% commission.
• Respondent made numerous verbal and written demands for compliance, culminating in a Final Demand Letter on 2 March 1995.
• RTC Action:
• On 22 June 1995, respondent filed a complaint for specific performance before the RTC, Branch 27, Santa Cruz, Laguna (Civil Case No. SC-3294).
• The complaint sought the delivery (or its cash equivalent) of 891.4 square meters of land – representing the 5% commission – from petitioner’s 55% share in the subdivision project, along with attendant expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees.
• Trial Court Decision:
• On 5 April 1999, the RTC ruled in favor of respondent.
• The decision affirmed that the subject matter of the Assignment of Rights was the Palolang Malapit property and held petitioner liable to deliver the required 891.4 square meters or its market value, and to pay attorney’s fees (initially set at P50,000.00).
• Appeal and Further Proceedings:
• Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals, arguing that:
• The subject matter of the Assignment of Rights was in fact the Palolang Malayo property.

ii. His obligations had prescribed due to the lapse of time, invoking claims of prescription and laches. iii. Additional defenses including improper venue, lack of jurisdiction, and issues related to violating Ministry Order No. 35, Series of 1995, and in pari delicto were raised.

Issue:

• Whether the subject matter of the Assignment of Rights was the Palolang Malapit property (Lot No. 3424, with the typographical correction from Lot No. 4685 to Lot No. 4675) or the Palolang Malayo property as claimed by petitioner.
• Whether petitioner’s alleged failure to perform his contractual obligations is barred by the statute of limitations (prescription) and/or by laches, given that the right of action did not accrue until petitioner’s breach evidenced by his Reply Letter and subsequent actions.
• Whether respondent is entitled to claim his 5% commission when the transaction may contravene Ministry Order No. 35, Series of 1995 (regulating the practice of real estate service), and if such a violation, coupled with considerations of in pari delicto, could deprive him of his recovery.
• Whether issues that were not raised in the lower courts (particularly regarding the licensing violation and in pari delicto defense) can be entertained on appeal.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)