Case Digest (G.R. No. 144661)
Facts:
Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 144661 and 144797, June 15, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review of the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 5, 1999 and Resolution dated July 19, 2000 in CA‑G.R. CV No. 54919, which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Cagayan de Oro City, in a suit instituted by the Spouses Francisco Ong and Leticia Ong for breach of contract and/or specific performance with prayer for preliminary injunction and damages against petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).The dispute concerns a foreclosed lot formerly titled in Enrique Abada (TCT No. T‑4786). On May 25, 1988 respondent Francisco Ong, with his wife's conformity, submitted a written offer to buy the property for P136,000 with a P14,000 deposit and expressly stated that the deposit did not bind DBP until approval by higher authorities; the branch noted the offer (signature/notation by Branch Manager Jose Z. Lagrito) and issued Official Receipt No. 3081947 for P14,000. On October 21, 1988 the branch (via Lagrito) notified respondents of a competing offer and gave them three days to match it; on October 28, 1988 respondents submitted a matching offer by assuming responsibility for ejecting occupants.
After a conference on April 7, 1989 and a later notice (September 6, 1990) that the property would be publicly bidded, respondents filed Civil Case No. 90‑422 in the RTC for breach of contract/specific performance. The RTC initially dismissed the complaint (April 25, 1995) for lack of a perfected contract, but upon respondents' motion for reconsideration vacated that judgment and reopened the case for reception of evidence. Respondents presented testimony (Francisco Ong) and documentary exhibits; petitioner offered only documentary exhibits and did not present witness testimony.
On September 26, 1996 the RTC rendered judgment for respondents, ordering DBP to execute final sale at P136,000, accept the balance from respondents, and to pay moral damages (P30,000), litigation expenses (P10,000) and attorney’s fees (P20,000). DBP appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CV No. 54919), which on March 5, 1999 affirmed the RTC in toto. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 19, 2000. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorar...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the parol evidence introduced by respondents admissible to prove a meeting of the minds and thus establish a perfected contract of sale despite the written offers stating required approval by higher authorities (Rule 130, Sec. 9, Rules of Court)?
- Did the evidence (uncorroborated oral testimony and documents) suffice to prove the perfection of a contract of sale, thereby obligating DBP to execute a deed of sale or be liable for breach?
- Does the encashment/acceptance of the P14,000 deposit check by DBP constitute partial payment or acceptance suff...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)