Case Digest (G.R. No. 155223)
Facts:
Bobie Rose V. Frias, represented by her attorney-in-fact, filed a petition seeking review of the CA Decision of June 18, 2002 and Resolution of September 11, 2002. On December 7, 1990, petitioner and Flora San Diego‑Sison executed a Memorandum of Agreement by which respondent paid P3,000,000 as deposit/advance with an option to purchase; if respondent declined, the P3,000,000 was to be treated as a loan and the property (covered by TCT No. 168173) as security, with interest to be charged “for the last six months only.” Respondent paid P2,000,000 in cash (plus a stale P1,000,000 check), later decided not to buy, and sued in 1993 for P2,000,000 with interest; the RTC (Jan. 31, 1996) awarded the P2,000,000 plus 32% interest, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, and the CA modified interest to 25% per annum but otherwise affirmed.Issues:
- Is the compounded bank interest limited to six months as provided in the Memorandum of Agreement?
- Is respondent entitled to moral
Case Digest (G.R. No. 155223)
Facts:
- Background and parties
- Bobie Rose V. Frias, represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Marie Regine F. Fujita (petitioner), owned a house and lot located at No. 589 Batangas East, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, acquired from Island Masters Realty and Development Corporation (IMRDC) by a Deed of Sale dated November 16, 1990; the property was covered by TCT No. 168173 in the name of IMRDC.
- Dra. Flora San Diego-Sison (respondent) executed with petitioner a Memorandum of Agreement dated December 7, 1990 concerning the subject property.
- Terms of the Memorandum of Agreement and payments made
- The agreement recited receipt by the FIRST PARTY (petitioner) of THREE MILLION PESOS (P3,000,000.00) from the SECOND PARTY (respondent) and provided respondent six months to notify petitioner of her intention to purchase the property at P6,400,000.00 and another six months thereafter to pay the remaining P3.4 million.
- The agreement allowed the FIRST PARTY to offer the property to others during the first six months provided respondent’s P3,000,000.00 would be returned with interest if paid out; if respondent decided not to purchase on the sixth month, the FIRST PARTY had another six months to pay the P3,000,000.00 and the amount would earn compounded bank interest for the last six months only, and the amount would be treated as a loan with the property considered security for a mortgage enforceable by law.
- Respondent paid petitioner two million pesos in cash and one million pesos by a post-dated check mistakenly dated February 28, 1990 (rendering it stale); respondent did not replace or correct the check.
- Petitioner delivered to respondent TCT No. 168173 and the Deed of Absolute Sale between petitioner and IMRDC.
- Respondent’s election not to purchase and subsequent events
- Respondent notified petitioner by letter dated March 20, 1991 of her decision not to purchase; petitioner received the letter on June 11, 1991 and subsequently failed to return or pay the two million pesos.
- Petitioner filed an affidavit of loss and a petition in RTC Makati for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title; respondent alleged petitioner knowingly filed the affidavit despite respondent’s possession of the title, and respondent’s petition for relief from judgment was granted by RTC Makati on April 10, 1992, setting aside issuance of the new title and directing investigation for perjury and false testimony.
- Civil suit and preliminary attachment
- On April 1, 1993, respondent filed a complaint for sum of money with preliminary attachment against petitioner in the RTC of Manila (Civil Case No. 93-65367), alleging entitlement to P2,000,000.00 plus interest, P100,000.00 moral, corrective and exemplary damages, P200,000.00 attorney’s fees, and payment of attachment bond premiums.
- The Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila issued a writ of preliminary attachment on April 6, 1993 upon filing of a P2,000,000.00 bond.
- Petitioner’s Amended Answer and factual contentions
- Petitioner alleged the Memorandum of Agreement was conceived by her lawyer Atty. Carmelita Lozada, who was also respondent’s lawyer; petitioner claimed she signed without reading, the title and Deed of Sale were entrusted to Atty. Lozada for safekeeping, and Atty. Lozada took P1,000,000.00 of the cash payment.
- Petitioner claimed the brown envelope allegedly containing the title and Deed of Sale was returned by Atty. Lozada on May 5, 1991 and was stolen from her car the following day, prompting counsel’s advice to file an affidavit of loss and a petition for issuance of a duplicate title without petitioner’s knowledge or testimony; petitioner asserted fraud by Atty. Lozada and respondent and denied liability.
- Trial court findings and judgment
- After trial, the RTC, Branch 30, issued a Decision dated January 31, 1996 ordering petitioner to pay respondent P2,000,000.00 plus int...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Contract interpretation and interest
- WHETHER OR NOT the compounded bank interest should be limited to six months as contained in the Memorandum of Agreement.
- Damages for fraudulent conduct
- WHETHER OR NOT respondent is entitled to moral damages (and exemplary damages) for petitioner’s alleged scheme to deprive respondent of the security for her loan.
- Attorney’s fees and adequacy of findings
- WHETHER OR NOT the grant of corrective and ex...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)