Title
Supreme Court
Mancol, Jr. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 204289
Decision Date
Nov 22, 2017
Petitioner claimed DBP breached a verbal agreement to transfer title and eject occupants, but the Supreme Court ruled testimonies inadmissible as hearsay and upheld the parol evidence rule, finding no breach as terms weren’t in the written deed.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 204289)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Contract of Sale and Special Power of Attorney
    • On October 13, 2004, Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) invited bids for a negotiated sale of a residential lot with two-storey building in Calbayog City (TCT No. 2041; TD Nos. 990100600931 & 990100600479), at a base price of ₱1,326,000.
    • Fernando Mancol, Jr. executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) appointing his father, Fernando Mancol, Sr., to represent and negotiate the sale. Under the SPA, Mancol, Sr. signed the Negotiated Offer to Purchase and Sale Rules and Procedures.
  • Performance of the Sale Contract
    • Mancol, Sr. paid an initial ₱265,200 (O.R. No. 3440018) and later the balance of ₱1,060,800 (O.R. No. 3440451). DBP executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Mancol, Jr.
    • On December 21, 2004, Mancol, Jr. deposited ₱99,450 for capital gains tax (CGT) and documentary stamp tax (DST) (O.R. No. 3440537).
  • Alleged Oral Undertakings and Reneging by DBP
    • Petitioner alleges that, during negotiations, DBP verbally agreed to arrange the transfer of title in his name (including tax payments) and to eject occupants. In 2006 DBP returned all documents and issued a Manager’s Check for ₱99,450, repudiating any obligation.
    • Petitioner’s letters to DBP (Feb. 21, 2006 & June 2, 2006) and to BIR (May 15, 2006) prompted BIR’s tax computation of ₱160,700.88 (May 24, 2006), which later increased to ₱183,553.61 by March 2007.
  • Proceedings Before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
    • On August 24, 2006, Mancol, Jr. filed a Complaint for damages for breach of contract, seeking return of the ₱99,450 check, payment of tax surcharges, damages and attorney’s fees. DBP counter-claimed for unpaid ejectment expenses and other damages.
    • The RTC declared DBP in default (Feb. 20, 2007). Trial ensued with testimonies from DBP’s agent Rodel Villanueva and Mancol, Sr. On April 14, 2008, the RTC ordered DBP to return ₱99,450, pay tax surcharges from June 12, 2005, and award ₱15,000 attorney’s fees.
  • Subsequent RTC and Court of Appeals (CA) Actions
    • DBP’s motion for reconsideration was granted on June 13, 2008, dismissing the complaint. Petitioner’s own reconsideration failed (Nov. 4, 2008), though the RTC modified to order return of ₱99,450 with 6% interest from December 21, 2004. DBP’s further motion was denied (Apr. 17, 2009).
    • Both parties appealed to the CA. On February 22, 2012, the CA denied both appeals and affirmed the RTC’s orders. Motions for reconsideration were denied on September 27, 2012. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in admitting and giving weight to the testimonies of Villanueva and Mancol, Sr., which allegedly established a subsequent oral agreement contradicting the written sale agreement.
  • Whether petitioner is entitled to moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.