Case Digest (G.R. No. 116847)
Facts:
Manufacturers Building, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Philippine Merchant Marine School and Juan Nolasco III, G.R. No. 116847, March 16, 2001, the Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Manufacturers Building, Inc. leased three portions of the Manufacturers Building to Philippine Merchant Marine School (PMMS) in 1979–1980. PMMS later became delinquent. Petitioner filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila on April 12, 1984. On May 7, 1984 the parties executed a written compromise (approved May 21, 1984) in which respondents admitted indebtedness (about P510,200), agreed to new monthly rentals and installment payments, and consented that failure to comply would entitle petitioner to immediate issuance of a writ of execution for ejectment.
Respondents did not comply with the compromise terms. Petitioner sought writs of execution (initial writ granted May 3, 1985; alias writs sought July 1986 and issued February 19, 1987). On January 23, 1986 respondents executed a deed of second real estate mortgage in favor of petitioner to secure P823,494.50, stipulating 12% interest per annum and a six-month payment term. The sheriff levied two parcels of land (TCT Nos. 100612 and 100613) on August 22, 1986. Respondents vacated the premises October 30, 1986; petitioner included repair costs in its account. Petitioner later demanded payment and instructed the sheriff to proceed; a notice of sale was set for December 29, 1989.
On December 19, 1989 respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, Manila, a petition for injunction to enjoin the auction sale. The RTC denied the petition on November 2, 1990 and ordered the sheriff to proceed with public auction to satisfy P1,520,065.75 (computed to December 31, 1990). Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration and its motion was denied. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 32312). The Court of Appeals, by decision promulgated June 15, 1994, affirmed the RTC in toto, holding the parties were bound by the written compromise (applying the parol...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the parol evidence rule in computing the monthly rental and excluding extrinsic evidence that allegedly changed the agreed rentals?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that 12% interest per annum (as stated in the deed of second mortgage) — and not 2.5% per month — governs the outstanding rental arrearages and in denying compounded interest?
- Was petitioner entitled to recovery of damages for repair and rehab...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)