Case Digest (G.R. No. 161188)
Facts:
Heirs of Purisima Nala, represented by their attorney-in-fact Efegenia Digna Duyan, petitioner, vs. Artemio Cabansag, respondent, G.R. No. 161188, June 13, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court (Ynares‑Santiago, Chico‑Nazario, Reyes and Brion, JJ., concurring; In Lieu of Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Special Order No. 507).In October 1991 Artemio Cabansag filed Civil Case No. Q‑91‑10541 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 93, Quezon City, seeking damages. Cabansag alleged he bought a 50‑square‑meter parcel on July 23, 1990 from spouses Eugenio Gomez, Jr. and Felisa Duyan Gomez, and that in October 1991 he received demand letters from Atty. Alexander del Prado, sent on behalf of Purisima Nala, demanding payment of rentals (1987–1991) and threatening civil and criminal actions if he did not vacate. Cabansag claimed those demands caused him damages and filed suit against Nala and Atty. Del Prado.
Respondents (Nala and Atty. Del Prado) countered that the demand letters were sent in good faith to protect Nala’s ownership claim. Nala asserted the disputed property formed part of an 800‑sqm estate of her late husband, Eulogio Duyan, later divided; a 400‑sqm portion was allegedly placed in the name of the Gomez spouses under an implied trust to hold for Duyan’s children, and covered by TCT No. 281115 in the Gomez spouses’ names. Nala maintained Cabansag was a mere tenant.
The RTC (Branch 93) rendered judgment on August 10, 1994 in favor of Cabansag, awarding P150,000.00 moral damages, P30,000.00 exemplary damages, P20,000.00 attorney’s fees, and costs. Nala and Atty. Del Prado appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in CA‑G.R. CV No. 48580, issued a Decision dated December 19, 2002 affirming with modification (awarding P30,000.00 moral damages, P10,000.00 exemplary damages, and P10,000.00 attorney’s fees) and a Resolution dated October 28, 2003 dismissing the appeal. The CA noted an RTC, Branch 80, decision (Sept. 5, 1994) dismissing Civil Case No. 91‑8821 (Nala’s reconveyance/cancellation action) but the record later showed the CA itself reversed that RTC decision in CA‑G.R. CV No. 49163 (Decision dated March 8, 2000) ordering reconveyance and cancellation of TCT No. 281115; this Court affirmed that reconveyance in G.R. No. 144148 (March 18, 2005), final and executory July 27, 2005.
After Nala’s death (January 28, 2002) her heirs substituted as petitioners and filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the CA Decision and Resolution. Atty. Del Prado’s separate motion for extension to file a petition was denied (Resolution dated January 19, 2004 in G.R. No. 160829). Petitioners assigned errors alleging the CA erred in...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to properly consider Purisima Nala’s right to assert ownership or equitable interest in the property?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to give effect to the CA decision ordering reconveyance (CA‑G.R. CV No. 49163) and this Court’s affirmation (G.R. No. 144148) insofar as they affect the title dispute?
- Was the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to Artemio Cabansag supported by the requisite proof of bad faith or othe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)