Case Digest (G.R. No. 176425)
Facts:
Heirs of Manuel Uy Ek Liong, represented by Belen Lim Vda. de Uy v. Mauricia Meer Castillo, et al., G.R. No. 176425, June 05, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns two notarized instruments executed on 20 September 1978: an Agreement by which respondents engaged Atty. Edmundo Zepeda for legal services and Manuel Uy Ek Liong as financier in return for 40% of the avails of Civil Case No. 8085 if the suit proved favorable, and a separate Kasunduan by which respondents agreed to sell 60% of their share in four parcels in Silangan Mayao, Lucena City to Manuel for P180,000 (with a P1,000 downpayment and retention by respondents of a 1,750-sq.m. portion). The parcels had earlier been the subject of litigation (CFI Civil Case No. 8085) that culminated in this Court’s decision in G.R. No. 89561 (13 September 1990) declaring prior titles null and restoring ownership to respondents and co-plaintiffs.
After finality of that decision the parcels were subdivided: 60% (31,983 sq.m.) registered in the names of respondents under several TCTs, and 40% (21,324 sq.m.) registered in the names of petitioners and Atty. Zepeda under TCT No. T-72026. Manuel died in 1989; his heirs (petitioners here) and Atty. Zepeda succeeded to his interests. Beginning in 1993 respondents were alleged to have refused to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale pursuant to the Kasunduan despite petitioners’ offer to pay the balance.
Petitioners filed a complaint for specific performance and damages (Civil Case No. 93-176, RTC, Lucena City) on 6 October 1993 seeking enforcement of the Kasunduan. Respondents answered, counterclaimed and moved to file a third-party complaint against Atty. Zepeda, asserting the Agreement and the TCT in his name were void as unconscionable and violative of the Canons and Article 1491. The RTC (in an interlocutory order dated 18 July 1997) disallowed the third-party complaint against Atty. Zepeda and later denied reconsideration; respondents’ attempted appeal was denied for being premature. Trial proceeded before the RTC, which on 27 January 2005 found the Kasunduan valid and ordered respondents to convey their 60% share (subject to payment of the P179,000 balance), and awarded P50,000 each for moral damages, exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 84687). On 23 January 2007 the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC decision, declaring the Agreement and the Kasunduan void ab initio as violative of Art. 1491...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing the RTC and declaring the Agreement and the Kasunduan void ab initio for being contrary to law and public policy, specifically violative of Art. 1491 of the Civil Code and the Canons of Professional Res...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)