G.R. No. 233217 - Hidalgo vs. Bascuguin

Alberto C. Hidalgo and his wife, Evelyn Flaminiano Hidalgo, acquired a house and lot in Lian, Batangas during their marriage.
Alberto was employed in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and was away from the Philippines at the time of a key transaction.

Upon his return to the Philippines in March 2004, Alberto discovered that Evelyn had allegedly sold the conjugal property without his consent.
The sale was evidenced by a document dated December 9, 2002, titled “Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Bahay at Lupa na Muling Mabibili.”
Alberto contended that his signature on the Kasulatan was forged, asserting that he was not even in the country until December 23, 2002.
On April 22, 2004, Alberto sent a Demand Letter to Conrado Bascuguin, stating that the transaction was null and void due to the absence of his consent and offered to refund the purchase price plus legal interest should the title be returned.

On May 6, 2004, Alberto filed a Complaint for annulment of the sale and for damages, alleging lack of consent and forgery.
Conrado Bascuguin, in his Answer, argued that Evelyn had solicited him to enter into a pacto de retro sale (sale with right to repurchase) and that he had acted upon her assurance, noting a prior history of similar agreements with the Hidalgo Spouses.
The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision categorizing the transaction as an equitable mortgage, ordering the Hidalgo Spouses to reimburse Bascuguin the purchase price with legal interest and mandating the return of the property title upon payment.
Unsatisfied with the RTC decision, the Court of Appeals reversed it, declaring the pacto de retro sale void for lack of Alberto’s consent and directing the restitution of the property title to the Hidalgo Spouses along with the appropriate reimbursement, with legal interest computed from specific dates.

Alberto filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration which was denied as being filed too late.
Later, on September 20, 2017, Alberto filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals decision.
Additional pleadings involved:

Alberto’s assertion that he should not be compelled to reimburse the purchase price for a transaction never consented to by him and that he was entitled to damages.
Respondent Bascuguin’s argument that under Article 1398 of the Civil Code he was entitled to the reimbursement of the purchase price with interest.

The case also involved issues of procedural default due to the inexcusable negligence of petitioner’s counsel concerning the change of address, which led to the lapse of the motion for reconsideration within the prescribed period.

Whether the petition should be denied on the ground that the motion for reconsideration was filed late, rendering the decision final and executory.

Whether the pacto de retro sale is null and void due to lack of consent from both spouses, as mandated by the Family Code.

Whether respondent Bascuguin is entitled to recover the purchase price, together with legal interest, as a consequence of the void transaction.

Whether petitioner Alberto is entitled to any damages, including moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, based on the alleged bad faith and harm suffered.