Case Digest (G.R. No. 108478-79)
Facts:
In ANG YU ASUNCION, ARTHUR GO AND KEH TIONG v. COURT OF APPEALS AND BUEN REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (308 Phil. 624, December 2, 1994), petitioners Ang Yu Asuncion, Arthur Go and Keh Tiong, long‐time lessees of the property at Nos. 630–638 Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila, filed a Second Amended Complaint for Specific Performance on July 29, 1987 in Civil Case No. 87-41058 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Manila. They alleged continuous occupation since 1935 under a month‐to‐month lease, a priority offer by defendants Bobby and Rose Cu Unjieng and Jose Tan to purchase at P6 million, and their counteroffer of P5 million. After repeated requests for written terms, the lessees, fearing an unnotified sale, sued to compel sale. The RTC granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no meeting of minds and dismissing the complaint but granting a right of first refusal if the property were later offered at P11 million or less. On appeal, the Court of AppealsCase Digest (G.R. No. 108478-79)
Facts:
- Initial Litigation
- Petitioners Ang Yu Asuncion, Arthur Go and Keh Tiong (lessees since 1935) filed a Second Amended Complaint for Specific Performance on July 29, 1987 against Bobby and Rose Cu Unjieng and Jose Tan, alleging:
- They were tenants of property at Nos. 630–638 Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila, with continuous occupancy and payment of rent.
- Defendants offered the property for sale, giving lessees priority; price negotiations ensued (P6 M offer, P5 M counter‐offer).
- Plaintiffs requested written terms (Oct. 24, 1986 and Jan. 28, 1987) but received no reply, prompting the suit.
- Defendants denied material allegations and moved for summary judgment.
- Trial Court and Court of Appeals Decisions
- Trial Court (Branch 31, RTC Manila) granted summary judgment for defendants: held no perfected contract of sale, but granted lessees a right of first refusal if property sold at P11 M or below.
- Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 21123, Sept. 21, 1990) affirmed with modification: extended right of first refusal at any sale price.
- Supreme Court denied petition for review on certiorari on May 6, 1991 for insufficiency of form and substance.
- Subsequent Sale and Execution Proceedings
- On Nov. 15, 1990, the Cu Unjiengs sold the property to Buen Realty Development Corporation for P15 M; TCT No. 105254 canceled, TCT No. 195816 issued in Buen Realty’s name. Lis pendens from Civil Case No. 87-41058 remained annotated.
- Lessees wrote Buen Realty to vacate (July 1991) and filed a Motion for Execution of the CA decision.
- RTC issued orders (Aug. 30 and Sept. 27, 1991) directing:
- Execution of deed of sale in favor of petitioners for P15 M;
- Cancellation of Buen Realty’s title and issuance of new title to petitioners;
- Court of Appeals (Dec. 4, 1991) set aside these execution orders; petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether Buen Realty is bound by the right of first refusal under the notice of lis pendens and thus subject to the writ of execution.
- Whether a right of first refusal, as declared in the judgment, is enforceable by a writ of execution or by specific performance.
- Whether the trial court’s execution orders improperly vary the terms of the final judgment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)