Case Digest (G.R. No. 146365)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 146365)
Facts:
Simplicio A. Palanca v. Ulyssis Guides, G.R. No. 146365, February 28, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Simplicio A. Palanca (vendor) sold a parcel of land under a Contract to Sell to Josefa A. Jopson on 23 August 1983 for P11,250.00; Jopson paid P1,650.00 down, leaving a balance of P9,600.00. In December 1983 Jopson assigned her rights to respondent Ulyssis Guides, who agreed to assume the outstanding balance, reimbursed Jopson the P1,650.00 down payment, took possession, and thereafter paid monthly amortizations acknowledged by receipts in Guides’s name.Guides discovered the Torrens title to the lot remained in the name of Carissa T. de Leon and demanded that Palanca deliver transfer documents; Palanca refused, asserting unpaid balances and other charges. Guides (joined by her husband Lorenzo Guides) filed a complaint for specific performance with damages on 16 December 1987. Palanca moved to dismiss, alleging noncompliance with the barangay conciliation prerequisite under P.D. No. 1508, Sec. 6, because the certification initially named his subdivision manager, Oscar Rivera, rather than him; the trial court denied the motion, finding substantial compliance after the Lupon secretary corrected clerical errors.
Pretrial began in 1989; Atty. Renecito Novero represented Palanca through 1994. On 16 March 1995 Atty. Teodulo Cario entered a special appearance for Palanca and the parties closed pretrial. Respondent presented evidence; several hearings to receive petitioner’s evidence were postponed at petitioner’s instance. On 6 November 1995 Atty. Cario agreed to reset Palanca’s presentation of evidence to 10 November 1995 (he signed the minutes). On 10 November 1995 neither Palanca nor his counsel appeared; the trial court, upon motion of Guides, ruled Palanca waived his right to present evidence and declared the case submitted. Motions for reconsideration were denied. The Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 42, rendered judgment on 4 November 1996 ordering Palanca to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Guides, to cause issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title, to pay moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, and to reimburse Guides P2,580.00 as overpayment.
Palanca appealed; the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 17 November 1999 and Resolution dated 15 November 2000 (CA-G.R. CV No. 56258), affirmed the trial court, holding Palanca had due process, there was substantial compliance with P.D. No. 1508, and that Guides had overpaid. Palanca filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, assigning errors chiefly alleging denial of right to present evidence, defective barangay conciliation, miscalculation of amounts due, and improper award of damages and attorney’s fees.
Issues:
- Was petitioner Palanca denied due process when the trial court deemed him to have waived his right to present evidence after his counsel and he failed to appear on 10 November 1995?
- Was there substantial compliance with Section 6 of P.D. No. 1508 (barangay conciliation prerequisite) so that the complaint was properly entertained?
- Did respondent Guides overpay and, if so, what is the correct overpayment to be refunded?
- Did petitioner waive claims for penalties, devaluation adjustments and other charges by accepting payments without protest, and is he liable for moral/exemplary damages and attorney’s fees?
- Was Palanca guilty of bad faith in selling property still titled in another’s name and thus obliged to convey the property upon Guides’s payment?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)