Case Digest (G.R. No. 80397)
Facts:
This case revolves around a legal dispute between S & A Gaisano Incorporated and Victor Chan involving a parcel of commercial land located on Zamora Street in Butuan City. The petitioners—S & A Gaisano and various members of the Cupin family (Canuto Cupin, Vicente Cupin, Evaristo Cupin, Ramon Cupin, and Buenaventura Cupin)—filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunction against Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo, Victor Chan, Arturo Ricaforte (the Register of Deeds), and Victorioso Go (the National Building Official). The case originated on March 4, 1987, when S & A Gaisano purchased two parcels of land from Isidro Villanueva. However, a strip of land measuring 5 meters wide and 43 meters long became a point of contention as petitioners discovered Victor Chan had acquired it from the heirs of Generoso Cupin and subsequently registered ownership. The petitioners contested the validity of Chan's purchase, claiming they were led to believe it was a con
Case Digest (G.R. No. 80397)
Facts:
- Transactions and Property Acquisition
- On March 4, 1987, petitioner S & A Gaisano purchased a parcel of commercial land from Isidro Villanueva consisting of:
- Lot No. 423-A-1 covered by TCT-RT-935 with an area of 1,711 square meters.
- Lot No. 8-E-1 covered by TCT-RT-1090 with an area of 296 square meters.
- The purchased lots are situated in the commercial section along Zamora Street, Butuan City.
- After acquisition, Gaisano discovered an intervening strip of land (5 meters wide and 43 meters long, totaling 214 square meters) positioned between its acquired property and Zamora Street.
- Negotiations and Contested Sale
- To facilitate expansion, Gaisano negotiated with the heirs of Generoso Cupin for the purchase of the intervening strip.
- Although the parties agreed to the sale, the formal execution of the Deed of Sale was deferred pending an agreed partition among the heirs.
- Despite the pending execution, respondent Victor Chan succeeded in purchasing the subject property and had the sale duly registered with the City Register of Deeds, resulting in the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in his favor.
- Petitioners (representing various Cupin heirs) contended that the sale:
- Was only meant to be a conditional sale.
- Contained defects in the execution of the contract.
- Lacked proper consideration, rendering the sale null and void.
- Initiation of Court Proceedings
- On May 29, 1987, petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, Branch V.
- The complaint sought:
- Annulment of the deed of sale.
- Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-18812 (issued in favor of respondent Chan).
- Damages and injunctive relief.
- In a related prior case (Civil Case No. 3151), petitioner Gaisano in its complaint had already admitted respondent Chan’s ownership of the property, thereby complicating the petitioners’ claim.
- Lower Court and Pre-Injunction Proceedings
- In response to the complaint, respondent judge scheduled a hearing for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
- On June 4, 1987, a hearing was set, and subsequent evidentiary presentations by both parties followed.
- On September 30, 1987, the RTC issued an order denying the writ of preliminary injunction, stating:
- There was no valid justification for such an injunction since the title had not been cancelled.
- The owner (respondent Chan) could not be deprived of his right as owner.
- Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 10, 1987, and a Supplemental Motion on October 23, 1987.
- Without waiting for the RTC’s action on these motions, petitioners filed the present petition on November 5, 1987.
- Further Procedural Developments and Additional Filings
- On November 9, 1987, the Supreme Court resolved to require respondents to comment and issued a temporary restraining order.
- Instead of responding with comments, respondents filed their respective answers and subsequent motions (including an Urgent Motion to Set Petition for Immediate Oral Arguments and an Offer of Bond by December 4, 1987).
- The resolution dated February 15, 1988, required petitioners to post a bond (P100,000), which was complied with on March 17, 1988.
- In the August 15, 1988 resolution, the petition was given due course with the submission of memoranda by both parties and the granting of intervention to the Republic of the Philippines.
- Memoranda and responses were subsequently filed by October and December 1988, respectively; the Solicitor General later sought to be excused from filing for the Registry of Deeds.
- Central Issues Raised in the Petitioners’ Memorandum
- Allegation that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he denied the writ of preliminary injunction.
- Allegation that respondent Victorios Go, in his capacity as National Building Official, abused his discretion by issuing a building permit in favor of respondent Chan.
Issues:
- Whether the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in denying petitioners’ request for a writ of preliminary injunction by:
- Failing to consider the argued defects in the contract, conditional nature of the sale, and lack of consideration.
- Ignoring petitioners’ claims regarding their right over the intervening strip of land.
- Whether respondent Victorios Go abused his discretion in issuing a building permit to respondent Chan for constructing a building on the disputed land.
- (Subsidiary Issue) Whether the annulment of the deed of sale and the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title should proceed given the conflicting claims over the property.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)