Title
Primelink Properties and Development Corp. vs. Lazatin-Magat
Case
G.R. No. 167379
Decision Date
Jun 27, 2006
Primelink and Lazatins entered a joint venture for land development; Primelink breached terms, leading to JVA rescission. Lazatins retained land and improvements; reimbursement claims deemed premature. Arbitration clause bypassed due to valid rescission grounds.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 167379)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Joint Venture Agreement (JVA)
    • Primelink Properties and Development Corporation (developer), represented by its President Rafaelito W. Lopez.
    • Ma. Clarita T. Lazatin-Magat and her brothers Jose Serafin, Jaime Teodoro and Jose Marcos Lazatin (landowners), co-owners of two adjoining parcels (30,000 sqm) in Tagaytay City under TCT No. T-10848.
  • Key Terms of the JVA (March 10, 1994)
    • Land Contribution and Developer Obligations
      • Landowners contribute titles and possession of the parcels.
      • Developer to survey, plan, secure permits, provide labor, materials, equipment, marketing, management and complete development within 3 years (force majeure excepted).
    • Financial Arrangements
      • Profit sharing: 60% developer, 40% landowners.
      • Advances: up to 20% net revenue in first two years (60/40 split), thereafter 60/40 of total net revenue.
      • Arbitration clause for disputes and an escrow agreement depositing the owner’s duplicate title with China Banking Corporation.
  • Breach, Rescission and Trial Proceedings
    • Alleged Breaches by Primelink:
      • Delay in securing development permit; poor progress in phases I and II; complaints of substandard construction.
      • Failure to provide agreed accounting and hold regular meetings.
    • Lazatins’ Actions:
      • April 10, 1997 demand letter; October 22, 1997 formal rescission.
      • Filed suit (Jan 19, 1998, RTC Tagaytay, Civil Case No. TG-1776) for rescission, accounting, damages, and injunctive relief.
    • Trial Court Rulings:
      • Primelink defaulted after repeated extensions to answer; ex parte trial.
      • RTC Decision (Apr 17, 2000): rescinded JVA; returned land and improvements; awarded P1,041,524.26 (40% of net income as of Sept 30, 1995), attorney’s fees and costs.
    • Appeals and Final Resolution:
      • CA (Aug 9, 2004) affirmed with modification: released TCT from escrow; cancellation of JVA annotation.
      • SC denied Rule 45 petition (June 27, 2006), affirming CA decision.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering respondents to receive possession of the property with all improvements without first requiring them to reimburse petitioners for development and marketing expenses.
  • Whether such award is illegal, oppressive, or unconscionable and results in unjust enrichment, contrary to provisions on rescission, restitution and partnership law.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.