G.R. No. 236408 - Baterina vs. Sandiganbayan, 2nd Division

Petitioners Marcelino E. Lopez, Feliza Lopez, heirs of Zoilo Lopez, Leonardo Lopez, and Sergio F. Angeles (also counsel for petitioners) were involved in a dispute with respondent Primex Corporation concerning the sale of a 14-hectare property in Antipolo City.
Primex Corporation, as vendee, entered into a Deed of Conditional Sale (DCS) on September 12, 1989, for a portion of land designated as Lot 15, PSD-328610, approximately 140,029 square meters, formerly part of a larger homestead patent.
The parties agreed on a purchase price of ₱280.00 per square meter, amounting to ₱39,208,120.00. Primex claimed full compliance with monetary obligations and readiness to pay an additional ₱2,000,000 upon delivery of a valid certificate of title.

The Lopezes delivered Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 196256, registered in part under Marcelino Lopez’s name, but derived from an Original Certificate of Title declared null and void by the Supreme Court.
Primex refused this title as valid and withheld payment accordingly. The Lopezes threatened to sell or mortgage the property to others, prompting Primex to file a complaint for specific performance and preliminary injunction.
The Lopezes filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of improper venue and litis pendencia due to their prior complaint for rescission and damages filed against Primex. Motion denied; defendants filed answer and compulsory counterclaim seeking rescission and damages, alleging Primex’s breach by withholding payment.

Defendants delivered another TCT No. 208538; parties executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on March 30, 1992. By March 7, 1993, Primex had made payments amounting to ₱24,892,805.85 plus a real estate mortgage loan to one defendant.
Primex sought dismissal of case. Opposition filed citing encumbrances and pending litigations affecting the land. A lis pendens was noted on relevant titles.
The trial court declared Primex non-suited for failure to appear; defendants presented evidence ex parte, court ruled in their favor ordering Primex to pay balances with interests and damages.

Primex appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court later ordered trial de novo. After another trial, the RTC declared the contract rescinded and ordered mutual restitution plus damages and interests.
Petitioners moved for Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal on Possession and Damages. RTC granted; CA granted petition for certiorari annulling the special order for execution. Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
On January 23, 2007, CA reversed the RTC ruling and ordered Primex to pay the full balance plus 6% legal interest.
Dispute arose regarding timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration due to two separate counsels (Atty. Angeles and Atty. Pantaleon); notice to one counsel considered notice to petitioners. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Angeles was declared late and denied. Decision became final and executory as of February 14, 2007.

On February 21, 2012, parties submitted a Compromise Agreement and joint motion to dismiss petition.
On March 7, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a resolution: (a) noting the Compromise Agreement, (b) granting the joint motion to dismiss, and (c) dismissing petitions on mootness grounds.
Heirs of the deceased Marcelino Lopez filed Motion to Recall/Reconsider, arguing the agreement was void as Atty. Angeles had no authority, due to the death of Marcelino Lopez (principal) on December 3, 2009, before the Compromise Agreement was executed in 2012.

Whether the agency created by the special power of attorney terminated upon the death of the principal, Marcelino Lopez, such that the purported execution of the Compromise Agreement by Atty. Angeles was void ab initio.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring its decision final and executory given the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Angeles and the existence of two counsels for the petitioners.
Whether the March 7, 2012 resolution granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss based on the Compromise Agreement should be set aside for want of authority and other irregularities.