Case Digest (G.R. No. 196419)
Facts:
Pilipinas Makro, Inc. v. Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc. and Lim Kim San, G.R. No. 196419, October 04, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Martires, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Pilipinas Makro, Inc. (Makro), respondents are Coco Charcoal Phils., Inc. and Lim Kim San (respondents).In November 1999 Makro purchased two contiguous 1,000 sq. m. parcels in Davao City: one from Coco Charcoal (TCT No. 208776) and one from Lim (TCT No. 282650), each for P8,500,000.00 under notarized Deeds of Absolute Sale that contained identical provisions, notably Section 2 (survey/area adjustment at P8,500.00 per sq. m.) and Section 4(i) (seller warrants the property is free from easements, liens and encumbrances). After registration, TCT Nos. T-321199 and T-321049 were issued in January 2000 in Makro’s name.
Makro engaged a geodetic engineer for resurvey/relocation; the resurvey revealed DPWH had encroached—131 sq. m. on Coco Charcoal’s lot and 130 sq. m. on Lim’s—due to a road widening/drainage project. Makro first sought compromise and then sent demand letters claiming refunds of P1,113,500.00 from Coco Charcoal and P1,105,000.00 from Lim pursuant to Section 2; respondents did not pay, so Makro filed separate collection actions.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 276, Muntinlupa City, rendered a 16 August 2004 Decision in favor of Makro ordering each respondent to refund Php1,500,000.00, pay attorney’s fees of Php200,000.00 and exemplary damages of Php200,000.00, and costs. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a 30 December 2010 Decision, the CA reversed the RTC, finding Makro had actual knowledge of the road works and treating Section 4(i) as akin to an implied warranty against eviction (thus requiring good faith), and dismissed Makro’s refund actions for lack of cause of action. Makro filed motions for extension to file a motion for reconsideration (citing counsel withdrawal due to a cabinet appointment and counsel’s illness) and eventually filed a motion for reconsideration on 7 March 2011; the CA denied the motions and Makro’s motion for reconsideration in a 7 April 2011 Resolution. Makro then filed this Pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying Makro’s motions for extension to file a motion for reconsideration?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying Makro a refund on the ground that Makro acted in bad faith and by treating the sellers’ contractual warranty as a warran...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)