Case Digest (G.R. No. 137162)
Facts:
Corazon L. Escueta, assisted by her husband Edgar Escueta, Ignacio E. Rubio, the heirs of Luz R. Baloloy, namely Alejandrino R. Baloloy and Bayani R. Baloloy, petitioners v. Rufina Lim, G.R. No. 137162, January 24, 2007, Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Rufina Lim filed a complaint for removal of cloud on title/quieting of title against Ignacio E. Rubio, later amended to include specific performance and damages, alleging she purchased hereditary shares (comprising ten lots) from Rubio and the heirs of Luz Baloloy pursuant to a contract of sale dated April 10, 1990, and paid earnest money/partial payments. Lim alleged the vendors agreed to secure individual certificates of title and that she was ready to pay the balance upon presentation of those titles, but that Rubio and the Baloloy heirs refused to deliver the certificates and thereby clouded her title. Lim also alleged Rubio had subsequently executed a simulated deed in favor of Corazon Escueta, creating a competing claim.
The Baloloy heirs, Rubio, and Escueta denied material allegations. The Baloloys contended they withdrew their offer because Lim failed to pay the balance as orally promised; Rubio and Escueta asserted Rubio did not contract with Lim, that Rubio had given a special power of attorney to his daughter Patricia Llamas (not to Lim), and that the P100,000 alleged down payment was in truth a loan.
At trial the Baloloys failed to appear at pre-trial; the trial court declared them in default and, upon Lim's motion, allowed ex parte proof and on July 23, 1993 rendered a partial decision directing the Baloloys to execute deeds of sale (or for the Clerk to do so on their behalf), canceling adverse claims on specified Torrens certificates, and awarding moral damages and attorney’s fees against them. The Baloloys moved for relief from judgment; the trial court denied the motion on September 16, 1994, and the Baloloys appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Trial on the merits proceeded as to Lim, Rubio and Escueta. The trial court later dismissed Lim’s complaint against Rubio and Escueta but ordered Rubio to return P102,169.80 with interest. On appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 48282, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders against the Baloloys (dismissing their appeal from the order denying relief from judgment) but reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Lim’s complaint as to Rubio and Escueta, upheld the validity of Lim’s contract of sale, ordered Rubio to execute a deed of absolute sale upon payment of the balance, d...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the Baloloys’ petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38) and in sustaining the order that declared them in default?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reinstating Lim’s complaint and awarding moral damages and attorneys’ fees to Lim, given the contentions that Rubio was not bound by the sale to Lim, that the contract was a mere contract to sell, and that Lim failed to comply with her obligations?
- Is the contract of sale executed between Rubio and Escueta valid?
- Did the Court of App...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)