Case Digest (G.R. No. 166391) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Gochan v. Gochan (G.R. No. 146089, December 13, 2001), the petitioners—Virginia Gochan, Louise Gochan, Lapu-Lapu Real Estate Corporation, Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corporation, and Mactan Realty Development Corporation—are heirs of the late Ambassador Esteban Gochan. The respondents—Mercedes Gochan, Alfredo Gochan, Angelina Gochan-Hernaez, Ma. Merced Gochan Gorospe, Crispo Gochan, Jr., and Marlon Gochan—were minority stockholders in the two corporations. In 1996, the respondents offered to sell their combined 1,878 shares for ₱200,000,000, which the petitioners paid, prompting issuance of receipts and execution of Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim documents. The respondents also required petitioners to sign a handwritten “promissory note” restricting disclosure of the true purchase price, in which a clause misleadingly stated that the ₱200 million was “partial consideration.” On April 3, 1998, the respondents filed Civil Case No. CEB-21854 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Case Digest (G.R. No. 166391) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Corporate Relations
- Petitioners Virginia Gochan, Louise Gochan, Lapu-Lapu Real Estate Corp., Felix Gochan & Sons Realty Corp., and Mactan Realty Development Corp. are heirs and related entities, purchasers of shares.
- Respondents Mercedes Gochan, Alfredo Gochan, Angelina Gochan-Hernaez, Ma. Merced Gochan Gorospe, Crispo Gochan, Jr., and Marlon Gochan are dissenting stockholders of Felix Gochan & Sons Realty Corp. and Mactan Realty Development Corp.
- Sale of Shares and Related Documents
- In 1996 respondents offered and sold all of their shares to petitioners for ₱200,000,000; petitioners paid the full amount, with respondents issuing receipts.
- Respondents executed “Release, Waiver and Quitclaim” barring any future suits; petitioners executed a handwritten “Promissory Note” drafted by Crispo Gochan, Jr., which deceptively described the ₱200M as “partial consideration.”
- Trial Court Proceedings
- On April 3, 1998 respondents filed a complaint in RTC Cebu City, Branch 11 (Civil Case No. CEB-21854), titled “Specific Performance and Damages,” seeking conveyance of shares and certain real properties allegedly promised in a Provisional Memorandum of Agreement.
- Petitioners answered, raising affirmative defenses: (a) improper docket fees; (b) unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds for lack of writing as to real property; (c) extinguishment by payment; (d) waiver and renunciation; and (e) non-joinder of indispensable parties.
- Petitioners moved for a preliminary hearing on their affirmative defenses; on August 11, 1998 the trial court denied the motion for lack of tenability of defenses; a Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied on September 11, 1998.
- Appeals and Petitions for Certiorari
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 49084); on September 10, 1999 the CA dismissed the petition for lack of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
- A Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied on November 22, 2000.
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, challenging:
- Jurisdiction due to non-payment of correct docket fees;
- Applicability of the Statute of Frauds;
- Extinguishment of respondents’ claims by full payment; and
- Non-joinder of indispensable parties.
Issues:
- Whether the complaint, in substance a real action for conveyance of real property, required payment of docket fees based on property value.
- Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying a preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses that appeared indubitable.
- Whether petitioners engaged in forum-shopping by filing two separate certiorari petitions in the Court of Appeals.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)