Case Digest (G.R. No. 177783)
Facts:
Heirs of Fausto C. Ignacio, namely Marfel D. Ignacio Manalo, Milfa D. Ignaciomanalo and Faustino D. Ignacio, petitioners, vs. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company, spouses Phillip and Thelma Rodriguez, Catherine, Reynold & Jeanette, all surnamed Zuniga, respondents, G.R. No. 177783, January 23, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.In August 1981, Fausto C. Ignacio (later substituted by his heirs) mortgaged two parcels in Cabuyao, Laguna to Home Savings Bank and Trust Company (predecessor of Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company) as security for a P500,000 loan. After Ignacio defaulted, the bank foreclosed; it was the highest bidder at the January 26, 1983 sale, the Certificate of Sale was registered February 8, 1983, and, upon the expiration of the redemption period, titles were consolidated in the bank's name as TCT Nos. 111058 and 111059.
Petitioner claimed he negotiated a repurchase of the properties. On March 22, 1984, UPI (a corporate vehicle formed to dispose of foreclosed assets) sent a letter offering terms for repurchase; petitioner later added handwritten notations asserting a different price and payment schedule and alleged that bank representatives orally agreed to those altered terms. While negotiations continued, respondent bank subdivided the consolidated property and sold several lots to various third parties; petitioner paid subdivision expenses and participated in negotiating sales of subdivided parcels.
In mid- to late-1989 petitioner offered to pay P600,000 as balance and requested release of remaining parcels; the bank refused and the petitioner annotated an adverse claim on September 18, 1989. Meanwhile, the bank sold portions to the Rodriguez spouses and to the Zunigas in August and October 1989, before or contemporaneous with the adverse claim. On December 27, 1989 petitioner filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 151 (Civil Case No. 58980), seeking reconveyance and damages, alleging a perfected repurchase/compromise agreement.
At pretrial the bank was declared in default for non-appearance and petitioner was allowed to present evidence ex parte and tendered P235,000 by consignation; the default order and judgment were subsequently set aside upon the bank’s motion for reconsideration. Intervening purchasers (the Rodriguez spouses and the Zunigas) were permitted to intervene and counterclaimed for damages and reimbursement from the bank if reconveyance were ordered. Petitioner later amended his complaint to seek, alternatively, the prevailing market value less any outstanding obligation.
On June 15, 1999, the RTC ruled for petitioner: it declared the deeds of sale to intervenors null and void, ordered cancellation of TCT Nos. T-154658 and T-111058, directed the bank to refund P1,004,250 to intervenors, required reconveyance after petitioner paid P600,000, awarded attorney’s fees and dismissed intervenors’ counterclaims. The bank appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On July 18, 2006 the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 73551 reversed and set aside the RTC decision, holding that petitioner modified the March 22, 1984 offer (thus making a counter-offer) and that no written acceptance by authorized bank officers existed; the CA also regarded the receipts as evidence that petitioner acted as a broker and found the intervenors to be purchasers in good faith. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied (Resolu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was it procedurally proper to couch the alleged errors as grave abuse of discretion (a Rule 65 ground) in a petition for review under Rule 45?
- Was there a perfected contract of repurchase between petitioner and respondent bank?
- Did the receipts and other documentary circumstances prove that petitioner made installment payments as buyer (not as broker) and/or that intervenors were n...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)