Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24794)
Facts:
The case involves two separate appeals from the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental concerning the rights to a specific lot in Bacolod City. The petitioners-appellants are Isabel G. Cabungcal and her husband Juan Cabungcal, along with Socorro de Paez and her husband Emiliano Paez. The respondents-appellees include Teofisto M. Cordova, the Mayor of Bacolod City, and Daisy B. Gustilo. The events leading to the case began when the City of Bacolod, under Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1959, sought to allocate lots in the Bacolod City RFC Subdivision, which had been acquired from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC). The ordinance stipulated that actual occupants of the lots would have preferential rights to purchase them.
In the specific lot in question, Lot No. 379B-40, which measures 289 square meters, several occupants were present, including the Cabungcals, the Paezes, and Gustilo, each occupying different portions of the lot. The Cabungcals and the Paezes oc...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24794)
Facts:
1. Background of the Case:
Isabel G. Cabungcal and Socorro de Paez, assisted by their respective husbands, appealed against Teofisto M. Cordova, Mayor of Bacolod City, and Daisy B. Gustilo, regarding the award of Lot No. 379B-40 in the Bacolod City RFC Subdivision. The lot was acquired by the City of Bacolod from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) under Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1959, which governed the sale of the subdivision lots to occupants-applicants.
2. Occupants and Applications:
The lot had several occupants, including Isabel Cabungcal (36 sq. m.), Socorro Paez (36 sq. m.), Pedro Hablo (33 sq. m.), Apolonia Bolivar (14 sq. m.), and Daisy Gustilo (170 sq. m.). Daisy Gustilo filed her application to purchase the lot on June 3, 1958, while the Cabungcals and Paezes filed theirs on June 4, 1958, and June 9, 1958, respectively.
3. Initial Award and Legal Proceedings:
On November 10, 1958, the Mayor awarded the lot to Daisy Gustilo without conducting a lottery, claiming that the occupants had expressed interest only in purchasing the portions they occupied. The Cabungcals and Paezes filed Civil Case No. 5186 to annul the award and compel the Mayor to conduct a lottery as required by the ordinance. The Court of First Instance ruled in their favor, and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision on July 31, 1964.
4. Post-Judgment Developments:
On March 3, 1965, the Mayor scheduled a lottery to determine the awardee. However, Gustilo objected, asserting that she had acquired additional portions of the lot from Bolivar and Hablo, bringing her total occupancy to more than two-thirds (2/3) of the lot. The Mayor then refused to conduct the lottery, and the court upheld his decision, stating that Gustilo was entitled to the lot under the ordinance.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Res Judicata: The issue of Gustilo’s occupancy of more than two-thirds of the lot was not part of the stipulation of facts or the decision in the previous case. Therefore, it was not barred by res judicata.
- Interpretation of the Ordinance: The ordinance’s requirement that an occupant possess more than two-thirds of the lot to be exempt from a lottery could reasonably be interpreted as of the date of the award. Gustilo’s substantial compliance (with 184 sq. m. out of 289 sq. m.) met this requirement.
- Substantial Compliance: The ordinance’s purpose was to favor the occupant with the largest portion of the lot. Exact calculations were not necessary, and substantial compliance sufficed.
- Mootness of Other Issues: The issues in the related ejectment case (G.R. No. L-24879) became moot due to the decision upholding Gustilo’s entitlement to the lot.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 5186 and the judgment in Civil Case No. 7544. Daisy Gustilo was declared the rightful awardee of the lot, and the appeals of the Cabungcals and Paezes were dismissed.