Case Digest (G.R. No. 129760)
Facts:
Ricardo Cheng v. Ramon B. Genato and Ernesto R. Da Jose & Socorro B. Da Jose, G.R. No. 129760, December 29, 1998, Supreme Court Second Division, Martinez, J., writing for the Court. This is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 7, 1997 (Thirteenth Division, penned by Justice Demetrio G. Demetria) which reversed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City judgment of January 18, 1994.Respondent Ramon B. Genato owned two parcels in Paradise Farms, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan covered by TCT Nos. T-76.196 (M) and T-76.197 (M) (aggregate about 35,821 sq.m.). On September 6, 1989 Genato executed a public Contract to Sell with respondents Ernesto R. Da Jose and Socorro B. Da Jose (the Da Jose spouses), annotated on the titles, at P80.00 per sq.m. The contract provided for an initial P50,000 partial payment and that a full downpayment of P950,000 was to be paid thirty (30) days after execution, after verification of documents. The Da Jose spouses were granted a 30-day extension to November 5, 1989; Genato later claimed the extension was conditioned on delivery of a new set of documents within seven days, which the Da Jose spouses denied.
On October 13, 1989 Genato executed an Affidavit to Annul the Contract to Sell, but did not immediately annotate it on the titles. On October 24, 1989 petitioner Ricardo Cheng inspected the titles and annotations, paid Genato P50,000 and received a handwritten receipt (Exh. D). Genato deposited Cheng’s check on October 25 and, on October 26 (at Cheng’s request), registered the Affidavit to Annul at the Registry of Deeds. On October 27 the Da Jose spouses, having discovered the affidavit, protested and obtained a conforme letter from Genato confirming continuation of their contract; they thereafter paid the P950,000 downpayment and delivered three postdated checks totaling the balance of the purchase price.
Cheng’s counsel demanded transfer; Genato returned Cheng’s P50,000 by cashier’s check on November 2 (which Cheng returned), and Cheng annotated an affidavit of adverse claim on the titles on November 2. On December 8, 1989 Cheng filed a complaint for specific performance asking enforcement of his agreement and preliminary attachment. Genato answered that the P50,000 was an option/option-bid deposit and not earnest money; the Da Jose spouses intervened asserting first-buyer rights.
After trial the RTC (Jan. 18, 1994) found the Genato–Da Jose contract rescinded by Genato’s affidavit, declared rescission effective, ordered Genato to return sums to the Da Jose spouses, and at the same time directed Genato to execute a deed of sale in favor of Cheng (treating Exh. D as a perfected contract to sell) and awarded nominal damages and attorneys’ fees. On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed (July 7, 1997), holding the Da Jose spouses’ contract had not been validly rescinded,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Contract to Sell between Genato and the Da Jose spouses validly rescinded by Genato by means of his Affidavit to Annul?
- Was the agreement between Cheng and Genato a perfected sale or conditional contract of sale that gave Cheng superior rights vis‑à‑vis the Da Jose spouses?
- Was it proper to hold Cheng liable for damages for...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)