Case Digest (G.R. No. 214087)
Facts:
Heirs of Spouses Silvestre Manzano and Gertrudes D. Manzano, represented by Conrado D. Manzano as Attorney-in-Fact and also in his personal capacity v. Kinsonic Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 214087, February 27, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.In July 1993 the parties executed a Contract to Sell over a 35,426 sq. m. parcel in Barangay Lias, Marilao, Bulacan (OCT No. 0-3705) at P650.00 per sq. m. Kinsonic Philippines, Inc. (respondent) paid P8,000,000.00 by January 27, 1995 and expended about P700,000.00 converting the land from agricultural to industrial. Respondent later tendered additional payments (P5,000,000.00 and P10,000,000.00) in February–March 1995 which petitioners refused to accept, asserting the Contract had been automatically cancelled under its paragraph 5 for respondent’s alleged failure to complete payment within the agreed period.
Respondent filed a complaint for specific performance and/or sum of money in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City (Branch 80), praying inter alia for enforcement of the Contract or return of payments and damages. Before trial respondent moved for summary judgment on March 19, 2002; the trial court denied the motion and denied reconsideration. Respondent petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 74623). On March 21, 2003 the CA Fourth Division granted the petition, annulled the trial court’s orders, and entered summary judgment in favor of respondent, ordering petitioners to execute the deed of sale upon payment of the balance or, alternatively, to return P8,000,000.00 and reimburse P700,000.00 with legal interest, and remanding the case for reception of evidence on respondent’s claim for damages.
Petitioners filed a first Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s grant of summary judgment; the Court denied relief in a Resolution dated July 28, 2003, which became final and executory on November 6, 2003. On remand the RTC rendered a judgment dated April 15, 2009 ordering petitioners to pay P200,000.00 in attorney’s fees and P50,000.00 exemplary damages; petitioners failed to appear at trial despite notice. Petitioners appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 93799). In its Decision dated November 13, 2013 the CA Fifth Division affirmed the RTC judgment but deleted the exemplary damages for lack of legal basis. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated August 29, 2014.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed the present second Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, again contesting, prin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the administrator of the estates/conjugal partnership of the Spouses Manzano an indispensable party to respondent’s complaint for specific performance and/or sum of money?
- May petitioners raise for the first time on appeal the issue of the non-joinder of such administrator?
- Are petitioners estopped from invoking the non-joinder issue and other new theories a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)