Case Digest (G.R. No. 109125)
Facts:
Ang Yu Asuncion, Arthur Go and Keh Tiong, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Buen Realty Development Corporation, respondents, G.R. No. 109125, December 02, 1994, Supreme Court En Banc, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.On July 29, 1987 the petitioners (lessees) filed a Second Amended Complaint for Specific Performance in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Manila (Civil Case No. 87-41058) against Bobby and Rose Cu Unjieng and Jose Tan, alleging long tenancy since 1935 and negotiations to buy the premises at Ongpin Street, Binondo. The complaint recited price negotiations (defendants' P6,000,000 offer; plaintiffs' P5,000,000 counter), letters of October 24, 1986 and January 28, 1987 requesting written terms, and defendants' alleged refusal to specify terms which prompted the suit.
The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no meeting of minds and thus no contract of sale; nonetheless it conditioned dismissal by recognizing a right of first refusal in favor of the lessees if the defendants later offered the property at a price of Eleven Million Pesos (P11,000,000) or below. The lessees appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 21123). On September 21, 1990 the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court but modified the condition by extending the right of first refusal to apply even if the property were sold for a price in excess of Eleven Million Pesos.
A petition for review to the Supreme Court was later filed but denied on May 6, 1991 “for insufficiency in form and substance” (G.R. No. L-97276). Meanwhile, on November 15, 1990 the Cu Unjiengs executed a Deed of Sale transferring the property to Buen Realty Development Corporation for Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000); TCT No. 105254/T-881 was cancelled and TCT No. 195816 was issued in Buen Realty’s name on December 3, 1990.
After Buen Realty, as record owner, demanded the lessees vacate on July 1, 1991, the lessees invoked the annotated notice of lis pendens and, on August 27, 1991, filed a Motion for Execution to implement the modified CA decision. The trial court issued orders on August 30 and September 22, 1991 directing execution: it ordered the defendants to execute a Deed of Sale in favor of the lessees for P15,000,000, directed cancellation of Buen Realty’s title as executed in bad faith, and issued a writ of execution (September 27, 1991).
Buen Realty appealed t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Can Buen Realty Development Corporation, a purchaser not impleaded in the original action, be bound by and ousted pursuant to a writ of execution issued under the judgment merely because of an annotated notice of lis pendens on the title at the time of purchase?
- Did the trial court’s writ of execution properly implement the judgment (as modified) by ordering the execution of a deed of sale, fixation of the purchase price and cancellation of the purchaser’s title?
- May a judicially-declared right of first refusal be enforced by writ of execution or specific pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)