Title
San Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 129459
Decision Date
Sep 29, 1998
Petitioner paid P100,000 for land sale, but respondent’s treasurer lacked authority to sell. SC voided contract, ordered return of payment, denied damages, upheld corporate veil.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 129459)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Contractual Background
    • On February 14, 1989, San Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc. (SJSSF), represented by its president Andres T. Co, entered into an “Agreement” with Motorich Sales Corporation, represented by its treasurer Nenita Lee Gruenberg, for the purchase of Lot 30, Block 1, Acropolis Greens Subdivision, Murphy, Quezon City (414 sqm).
    • The purchase price was set at ₱5,200.00 per sqm; SJSSF paid an earnest money downpayment of ₱100,000.00, with the balance due on or before March 2, 1989, and Motorich to execute a Deed of Assignment upon full payment.
  • Performance, Title Transfers, and Litigation
    • SJSSF tendered a Metrobank cashier’s check for the balance but Gruenberg failed to appear and refused to execute the transfer documents. Meanwhile, ACL Development Corp. sold the same lot to Motorich, and a new title issued in Motorich’s name, represented by the Gruenbergs.
    • SJSSF sued Motorich, Gruenberg, ACL Development Corp. and JNM Realty & Development Corp. for specific performance, damages (moral, exemplary, lost opportunity, attorney’s fees) and named ACL and JNM as necessary parties.
    • The Regional Trial Court dismissed SJSSF’s complaint and the counterclaim of Motorich/Gruenberg for lack of authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, ordering Gruenberg to refund the ₱100,000 downpayment. SJSSF’s petition for review to the Supreme Court followed.

Issues:

  • Whether a valid and enforceable contract of sale existed between SJSSF and Motorich despite lack of board authorization.
  • Whether the corporate veil of Motorich may be pierced because the Gruenbergs owned nearly all its shares.
  • Whether the alleged alteration in the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) regarding Gruenberg’s testimony is material.
  • Whether respondents are liable for damages and attorney’s fees.

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.