Case Digest (G.R. No. 205113)
Facts:
Honorlita Ascano‑Cupino and Flaviana Ascano‑Colocado v. Pacific Rehouse Corporation, G.R. No. 205113, August 26, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.On 1 October 1994, petitioners Honorlita Ascano‑Cupino and Flaviana Ascano‑Colocado (together with their sister Noeminia Ascano, collectively the Ascanos) entered into a Deed of Conditional Sale with respondent Pacific Rehouse Corporation for a 59,753‑square‑meter parcel in General Trias, Cavite for P5,975,300. Pacific paid a downpayment of P1,792,590 and later additional payments (P600,000 and P1,000,000), and Pacific (through Melecio P. Fortuno, Jr.) deposited P1,005,180 in a bank account in the Ascanos’ names; the Ascanos later withdrew those funds. The conditional deed required among other things that the vendors (the Ascanos) secure removal of tenants/squatters and furnish documents necessary to transfer the title, while payment of the balance was to be made upon completion by the vendors of those documents.
By 1995 the Ascanos failed to deliver the remaining documents and allegedly began negotiating with other buyers; Pacific annotated an adverse claim and made repeated demands. On 2 September 1999 Pacific filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Trece Martires, Cavite (Civil Case No. TM‑936) initially seeking cancellation/rescission and damages; before pretrial Pacific discovered the Ascanos had withdrawn the bank deposit and then filed an Amended Complaint seeking specific performance (i.e., execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale and delivery of transfer documents).
On 15 April 2005 the RTC granted rescission and ordered the Ascanos to return P2,602,000 to Pacific while awarding petitioners damages and attorney’s fees. Pacific’s motion for reconsideration was denied (9 May 2006), and Pacific appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In its 17 July 2012 decision, the CA reversed the RTC: it held that the RTC erred in deciding on the original complaint (which had been superseded), found Pacific to be the injured party entitled to elect rescission or specific performance, and because Pacific elected specific performance ordered Pacific to pay the balance of P1,577,530 upon the Ascanos’ execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale and delivery of documents; it also directed the Ascanos to commence eviction proceedings at their expense. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on 8 January 2013.
Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition for review with the Supreme Court, praying that the RTC decision be reinstated and seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court granted a TRO upon bond, which petitioners later withdrew after they could not post the bond. Petitioners contended Paci...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering specific performance instead of rescission, notwithstanding petitioners’ claim that respondent Pacific was remiss as vendee and that cancellation of the Deed of Conditional Sale ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)