Case Digest (G.R. No. 220785)
Facts:
Ma. Lorena Ticong v. Manuel A. Malim, Minda Abangan and May Macal; Patrocinio S. Ticong and Wilma T. Lao v. Manuel A. Malim, Minda Abangan and May Macal, G.R. Nos. 220785 and 222887, March 01, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.The consolidated cases arose from a complaint for collection of sum of money, damages and attorney’s fees filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Davao City by Manuel A. Malim, Minda Abangan and May Macal (collectively, the respondents or Malim, et al.) against members of the Ticong family (the registered owners). The respondents alleged they were authorized brokers under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated February 11, 2000 to “look, negotiate, and sell” several titled lots in Digos, Davao del Sur (totaling 5,000 sq.m.), that the MOA authorized them to charge an “overprice” above a P900.00/sq.m. net asking price and that they procured a sale to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Buyer) at P1,460.00/sq.m., entitling them to P2,800,000.00 as overprice commission; they alleged only P50,000.00 (and, per the Ticongs’ claim, ultimately P225,000.00) was paid and demanded the balance.
The Ticongs contested entitlement. They claimed the MOA was drafted by the respondents and signed without full comprehension, that the respondents were not licensed realty brokers, that the Ticongs themselves effectuated the sale (including initiating a specific-performance action against the Buyer), and that at most the respondents were entitled to a 5% broker’s finders fee under the MOA. The respondents relied on documentary evidence (a February 5, 2000 letter of intent signed by Malim with Lorenzo Ticong’s conformity; a letter of April 15, 2000 recognizing respondents as sole agents; an acknowledgment receipt of P50,000.00) and testimony that they brought the Buyer and Ticongs together and followed up negotiation.
The RTC (Dec. 3, 2007) found the MOA valid, rejected the Ticongs’ fraud claim for lack of proof, held the respondents were the procuring cause of the sale, and ordered defendants to pay P2,750,000.00 plus interest and P100,000.00 attorney’s fees (moral and exemplary damages denied). The Ticongs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals (May 27, 2015) affirmed the RTC’s factual findings that the respondents were the procuring cause and were entitled to the overprice (P560.00/sq.m. × 5,000 sq.m. = P2,800,000.00), but deleted the award of attorney’s fees as lacking basis. Motions for reconsideration were denied (Sept. 23, 2015 and Jan. 12, 2016). Separate petitions for review on ce...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- In a Rule 45 petition, may this Court review the lower courts’ factual findings that the respondents were the procuring cause of the sale?
- Was the petition in G.R. No. 222887 timely filed and properly verified, complying with the jurisdictional requirements of the Rules?
- Were the respondents the procuring cause of the sale and thus entitled to the overprice commission stipulated in the MOA?
- Was the RTC’s award of attorne...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)