Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18824)
Facts:
Rodrigo Coloso v. Domingo De Jesus, as Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the Deceased Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus, Lilia De Jesus-Sevilla and Herman Sevilla, G.R. No. L-18824, September 30, 1963, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.On February 12, 1955, Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus executed a written contract (Annex "A" to the complaint) granting Rodrigo Coloso the exclusive right to manage her 315-hectare property in Samal, Bataan, to introduce permanent improvements (trees, irrigation, annual crops) at his expense, to appoint tenants and make tenancy contracts, and to share the crops with the owner. The contract required Coloso to commence work and introduce improvements within two years, and it gave him an option to purchase the property within ten years for the agreed price of P60,000, the owner agreeing to execute a deed of absolute sale upon payment.
About a year after the contract, on November 28, 1956, tenants of Coloso sent a petition to the President seeking purchase of the land for resale to them; the matter was sent to the Land Tenure Administration (LTA). A committee appointed by the LTA recommended increasing the price to P700 per hectare "due to the various improvements introduced into the property," although negotiations ultimately failed when the owner's representative demanded P2,000 per hectare. Coloso sought to compel purchase through LTA; when that plan failed he sued for damages — a claim the trial court dismissed and this Court affirmed in a prior related decision, Coloso v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-16411 (promulgated August 31, 1963).
The present litigation arose from Coloso's suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking specific performance of the option to purchase: an order requiring defendants to execute a deed of sale to Coloso (or his assigns) of the two titled parcels (TCT Nos. 5702 and 5701, totalling about 315 hectares) upon payment of P60,000. The trial court (Hon. Magno Gatmaitan) found that Coloso had made the required improvements (clearing, irrigation) and ordered defendants to convey the property upon payment. Defendants — the administratrix of Florentina and her heirs — appealed that portion ordering sale, contending, inter alia, that no improvements were made and that Coloso failed to perfect his rights (failure to introduce improvements within two years, to consult with the owner, to render accounting, and failure to pay P20,000). Coloso had also appealed the dismissal of his damages claim, but that issue was resolved in G.R. No. L-16411 as noted above.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Did the plaintiff-appellee, Rodrigo Coloso, make the improvements required by the contract and thereby acquire the right to compel defendants to execute a deed of sale upon payment of P60,000?
- Did Coloso fail to perfect his contractual rights for other alleged defaults (failure to consult with the owner, to render accounting, to introduce improvements within two years, and to pay P20,000) so as to de...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)