Case Digest (G.R. No. 185530)
Facts:
This is Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation v. Multi-Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 185530, April 18, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation (MATUSCO); respondent is Multi-Realty Development Corporation (Multi‑Realty). The dispute concerns ownership of 98 parking slots originally described in the project’s Master Deed and Deed of Transfer as part of the common areas.In 1974 Multi‑Realty constructed the 26‑storey Makati Tuscany condominium with 160 units and 270 parking slots. On July 30, 1975 Multi‑Realty executed the Master Deed and, pursuant to R.A. No. 4726, created MATUSCO in 1977 and executed a Deed of Transfer conveying the common areas to MATUSCO. Sections 5 and 7(d) of the Master Deed, when read literally, assigned parking slots not specifically reserved under Section 5 to the common areas under Section 7(d).
Believing the 98 unassigned parking slots were retained by Multi‑Realty for sale, Multi‑Realty sold 26 of them to unit buyers between 1977 and 1986; MATUSCO issued Certificates of Management for those sold slots and did not protest. MATUSCO’s board also twice considered buying unassigned slots from Multi‑Realty, evidencing knowledge of Multi‑Realty’s claimed retention. In September 1989 MATUSCO first asserted ownership of the remaining slots, and Multi‑Realty filed suit for damages and/or reformation of instrument on April 26, 1990 (Civil Case No. 90‑1110, RTC Branch 59).
The Regional Trial Court dismissed Multi‑Realty’s complaint on October 29, 1993, finding it unlikely Multi‑Realty mistakenly included the slots in the Deed and ruling Multi‑Realty estopped by deed; the RTC awarded attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CV No. 44696). On August 21, 2000 the Court of Appeals dismissed both appeals on prescription grounds; Multi‑Realty sought relief before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 146726).
In Multi‑Realty Development Corporation v. The Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation, 524 Phil. 318 (2006) (per J. Callejo, Sr.), the Supreme Court granted Multi‑Realty’s petition, set aside the CA decision for addressing prescription motu proprio, and remanded the appeal for resolution on the merits. The Court of Appeals then denied the appeals on November 5, 2007 but later, upon reconsideration, issued an Amended Decision on April 28, 2008 ordering reformation of the Master Deed and Deed of Transfer to show that 98 parking slots were retained by Multi‑Realty; it de...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Master Deed and Deed of Transfer should be reformed to show that Multi‑Realty retained ownership of the 98 parking slots.
- Whether this Court’s earlier ruling in Multi‑Realty Development Corporation v. The Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation (G.R. No. 146726) has preclusive effect on the merits...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)