Case Digest (G.R. No. 131491)
Facts:
In Spouses Elvira and Cesar Dumlao v. Marlon Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 131491, August 17, 2007, the Supreme Court First Division, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court, decided the case. The case arose from a Contract to Sell entered into on November 26, 1991 between spouses Elvira and Cesar Dumlao (vendees/petitioners) and Marlon Realty Corporation (vendor/respondent) for a 109-square-meter lot in Welcome Village, Parañaque City.Under the contract the total price was P218,000: P61,000 payable on signing (which petitioners paid) and the P157,000 balance to be paid with interest at 24% per annum within six months; the contract also provided that any installment not paid on time would bear a penalty of 2% per month and that "demand for payment by the vendor is not necessary to make the vendee incur delay (default)." Petitioners sought financing; Urban Bank approved a loan of P148,000 but conditioned release on registration of the bank's mortgage lien and on the vendor executing a deed of absolute sale.
On November 26, 1992 the parties executed a Compromise Agreement whereby petitioners agreed to pay accrued interest of P38,203.33 on the P157,000 balance on or before March 26, 1993; petitioners paid an additional P9,000 (buyer's equity). On December 1, 1992 respondent executed a Deed of Sale in favor of petitioners, and a Transfer Certificate of Title was subsequently issued in their names. Petitioners nonetheless refused to pay the agreed interest despite demands.
Respondent filed a complaint for a sum of money with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 78, Parañaque City on January 26, 1995. The MTC dismissed the complaint in a decision dated June 17, 1996, holding the action was one for specific performance cognizable by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On appeal the RTC, Branch 258, Parañaque City, in a decision dated November 19, 1996, affirmed dismissal but on the ground of lack of cause of action rather than lack of jurisdiction; its denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration was ordered on February 4, 1997.
Respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). In its August 25, 1997 Decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 43366 the CA held the complaint was for a sum of money, treating the Contract to Sell as a "unilateral acknowledgment of an existing debt," and it reversed the MTC and RTC, ordering the Dumlaos to pay accumulated interest amounting to P109,929.79 as of January 6, 1995, with interest at 2% per month from January 6, 1995. The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are petitioners liable to pay interest on the P157,000 balance of the purchase price under the Contract to Sell...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)