Case Digest (G.R. No. 102096)
Facts:
Cuizon y Montalban v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Gerardo and Maria Paray, G.R. No. 102096, August 22, 1996, Supreme Court Second Division, Torres, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Carmela Cuizon y Montalban (plaintiff below) was a businesswoman who, beginning in 1983, agreed with respondents spouses Gerardo and Maria Paray (defendants below) that she would obtain loans using several of the Parays’ parcels as collateral, pay the amortizations, and that amounts actually received by the Parays from loan releases would be treated as purchase price computed at an agreed P170.00 per square meter. As an inducement, the Parays executed a Deed of Sale (Exhibit M) conveying Lot No. 800‑A‑1‑B (314 sq. m.) to petitioner for P25,120.00 and executed several Special Powers of Attorney (Exhibits A–C) enabling petitioner to secure loans from multiple banks. Petitioner obtained several loans (total loan face amount P544,851.75; net proceeds received P492,002.04), remitted P198,000.00 to the Parays (receipted), paid realty taxes, and built a house on Lot 800‑A‑1‑B.
Disputes arose when the Parays refused to convey Lot No. 800‑A‑1‑A (250 sq. m.), claiming an accounting or liquidation of loans and collateralization must first be made; the Parays also asserted the full purchase price for all six lots was P699,890.00 (P170/sq. m.) and that petitioner still owed balances, citing a Deed of Agreement and Supplemental Agreement referring to a supposed P33,380.00 balance on Lot 800‑A‑1‑B. The Parays filed a third‑party complaint against Antonio Montalban (alleged mortgagor/husband), who denied the marital relationship.
On May 5, 1985 petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance with damages. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Cebu City, rendered judgment on January 20, 1988 in favor of petitioner ordering the return of certain titles, conveyance of several lots to petitioner (at P170/sq. m.), reimbursement of taxes, and awards for damages and fees. The Parays appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a decision penned by Justice Artemon D. Luna (June 25, 1991), annulled the RTC decision and instead: (1) sustained the sale of Lot 800‑A‑1‑B to petitioner; (2) ordered return of TCT T‑8648; (3) ordered the Parays to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale for Lot 800‑A‑1‑A at P300.00/sq. m.; (4) ordered petitioner to discharge mortgages on other lots or pay their value at P300/sq. m.; and denied costs. Petitioner’s motion for recons...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact in this case?
- What was the real agreement between the parties concerning the sale and payment for the lots — in particular, which instrument (the Deed of Sale or the Deed of Agreement) fixes the consideration for Lot No. 800‑A‑1‑B?
- Is petitioner entitled to the conveyance of Lot No. 800‑A‑1‑A and monetary reimbursement, and at what price per square meter?
- Are private respondents liable for fraud for refusing to convey additional lots?
- May petitioner credit alleged “grease money” to bank fixers and construction expen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)