Case Digest (G.R. No. 106837)
Facts:
The case of Henry Macion and Angeles Macion v. Hon. Japal M. Guiani, G.R. No. 106837, August 04, 1993, the Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Henry Macion and Angeles Macion (sellers) sued to annul and restrain the trial judge's order compelling them to execute a contract to sell; private respondent is De La Vida Institute, represented by Ms. Josephine Lanzaderas (buyer), and Hon. Japal M. Guiani is sued in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City.
On April 26, 1991 the parties executed a contract to sell under which De La Vida Institute agreed to buy two adjoining lots owned by petitioners for P1,750,000. Petitioners surrendered physical possession and the buyer constructed improvements. When the sale did not close by July 31, 1991, petitioners filed an unlawful detainer action (MTCC Civil Case No. 2739), and De La Vida Institute filed a suit for reformation of the April 26 contract (Civil Case No. 592). The parties then negotiated a settlement.
On February 6, 1992 the parties executed a compromise agreement approved by the Institute's Board of Trustees, giving the buyer five months to raise P2,060,000 (price plus interest and rentals); paragraph 7 expressly provided that if the buyer obtained funds within five months the sellers “shall oblige themselves to execute, sign and deliver to the former the corresponding Deed of Sale … and turn-over to said plaintiff the owner's duplicate copy of TCT Nos. T-22004 and T-22005.” The trial court approved the compromise on March 25, 1992.
After approval, the buyer sent a March 10, 1992 letter proposing adjustments to the terms and later sent letters on May 19, 20 and 26 requesting that petitioners execute a contract to sell in its favor. On May 28, 1992 the buyer filed an urgent motion in the trial court seeking an order directing petitioners to execute a contract to sell pursuant to paragraph 7. Petitioners filed a motion for execution of judgment on July 8, 1992, alleging the five-month period lapsed without payment. In an order dated August 6, 1992 the trial judge denied petitioners’ motion for execution and instead directed petitioners to execute the required contract to sell, reasoning the sellers’ refusal was the proximate cause of nonpayment and noting a contract to sell does not transfer title immediately.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging the August 6, 1992 order as a grave abuse of discretion and sought a temporary restraining order. Separately, petitioners so...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial judge commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioners to execute a contract to sell in favor of private respondent?
- Does paragraph 7 of the February 6, 1992 compromise agreement entitle private respondent to demand a contract to sell (as opposed to a deed of sale) ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)