Case Digest (G.R. No. 148514)
Facts:
Lucrative Realty and Development Corporation v. Ricardo C. Bernabe Jr., G.R. No. 148514, November 26, 2002, the Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.In 1961 spouses Ambrocio and Lourdes Baal leased a Malate, Manila parcel to Fil Oil Refinery Corporation (FILOIL) for ten years (renewable five), on which FILOIL constructed a gasoline station. In 1969 respondent Ricardo Bernabe Jr. acquired the right to manage and operate the station; later PETRON operated the station while Bernabe continued as operator. In 1977 the Baals mortgaged the Malate and a Caloocan property to Home Savings Bank and Trust Company (HOME SAVINGS) for P750,000, and in 1978 the mortgage was amended to secure P885,000.
When the 1961 lease expired, in August 1980 the Baals and Bernabe executed a new ten-year lease expressly granting Bernabe a right of first refusal should the property be sold. In 1989 the Baals defaulted on the Home Savings obligation; the bank foreclosed extrajudicially, bid as sole purchaser, and was issued a certificate of sale. The Baals then compromised with the bank, executed a dacion en pago on 29 December 1989 transferring the Malate property to HOME SAVINGS, which on the same day sold it to petitioner Lucrative Realty.
Believing foreclosure had occurred, Bernabe invoked his right of first refusal in January–March 1990; HOME SAVINGS denied his offer on March 7, 1990 and later informed him on May 1, 1991 that his lease would not be renewed. Bernabe filed Civil Case No. 91-58227: a complaint for annulment of sale with prayer for preliminary injunction against Lucrative Realty, HOME SAVINGS and Lourdes Baal, alleging they acted in bad faith to frustrate his preferential right and that HOME SAVINGS continued to represent itself as owner despite having sold the property.
While the annulment case proceeded, Lucrative Realty filed an ejectment suit in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) on February 24, 1992. The MeTC ordered Bernabe evicted; the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, holding Bernabe entitled to possession. Lucrative Realty appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On February 20, 1995 the RTC hearing the annulment action issued the writ of preliminary injunction in Bernabe’s favor; HOME SAVINGS secured a modification later limiting the injunction against Lucrative Realty only.
After Lourdes Baal presented evidence and with the ejectment petition pending at the CA, Lucrative Realty moved in the annulment case to dismiss/demur to evidence and to lift the injunction. On May 30, 1996 the CA granted Lucrative Realty’s appeal in the ejectment case and ordered eviction; Bernabe appealed to the Supreme Court. The trial court nonetheless denied the demurrer and refused to lift the injunction; Lucrative Realty moved for reconsideration. The Supreme Court on January 15, 1997 dismissed Bernabe’s appeal in the ejectment suit; Lucrative Realty then filed an omnibus motion asking Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo to inhibit and to promptly resolve its motion. On September 8, 1999 Judge Hidalgo denied the omnibus motion.
Lucrative Realty filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Hidalgo in refusing to li...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner barred by laches from assailing the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction?
- Was the petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals timely under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court?
- Did Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s demurrer to evidence and in refusing to inhibit himself?
- Is respondent Bernabe’s asserted right of first refusal supported by consideration and thus sufficient...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)