Case Digest (G.R. No. 170483)
Facts:
Manuel C. Bungcayao, Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 170483, April 19, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Manuel C. Bungcayao, Sr. and other foreshore occupants formed the D'Sierto Beach Resort Owner's Association after improvements were introduced along Calayab (Calayad) Beach beginning in 1978, contemporaneous with construction of the Fort Ilocandia Hotel. In July 1980 six parcels in the area were transferred to the Philippine Tourism Authority pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1704; Fort Ilocandia was later developed thereon.
In 1992 petitioner and other D'Sierto members applied for foreshore leases and were granted provisional permits by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO). On 31 January 2002 respondent Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and Development Corporation filed its own foreshore application over some 14 hectares abutting its property, which overlapped the portion claimed by D'Sierto. The competing applications were docketed as DENR Case No. 5473; in an undated order the DENR Regional Executive Director denied the D'Sierto applications and, on appeal, DENR Secretary Elisea G. Gozun denied the appeal in a Resolution dated 21 August 2003, finding encroachment on respondent's titled property per the final verification plan.
By letter dated 18 September 2003 respondent invited D'Sierto claimants to a mediated luncheon in which Atty. Liza Marcos, acting as mediator, offered P300,000 per claimant conditioned on vacatur; a counter-offer of P400,000 was accepted. Petitioner alleges his son Manuel, Jr. signed a Deed of Assignment, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim under undue pressure without authority; respondent alleges Manuel, Jr. and Romel attended freely and consulted their parents by phone before acceptance.
Petitioner filed suit for declaration of nullity of contract in the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case Nos. 12891-13), alleging lack of authority and vitiated consent. Respondent counterclaimed for (1) recovery of P400,000, (2) recovery of possession of the subject property, and (3) damages for delay in its expansion plans. On 6 November 2003 the trial court confirmed the parties' agreement to cancel the deed and return P400,000, but petitioner maintained his claim for damages; the parties later agreed to submit the case for resolution and the trial court considered it submitted on 28 November 2003.
On 13 February 2004 the trial court rendered summary judgment dismissing petitioner's claim for damages and granting respondent's counterclaim for recovery of possession, directing petitioner to vacate; it did not then pronounce damages for respondent. Petitioner appealed. In CA‑G.R. CV No. 82415 th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is respondent's counterclaim for recovery of possession a compulsory counterclaim?
- Was summary judgment appropriate in this c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)