Title
Viewmaster Construction Corp. vs. Roxas
Case
G.R. No. 133576
Decision Date
Jul 13, 2000
Viewmaster Construction Corp.'s attempt to compel Allen Roxas to sell his shareholdings and enter a joint venture fails due to the agreement's unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds and lack of implied trust.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 133576)

Facts:

  • The case involves Viewmaster Construction Corporation (petitioner) and several respondents, including Allen C. Roxas, State Investment Trust, Inc., Northeast Land Development, Inc., and State Properties Corporation.
  • On September 8, 1995, Viewmaster filed a complaint for specific performance, enforcement of implied trust, and damages against the respondents in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 166, under Civil Case No. 65277.
  • The complaint alleged that Allen Roxas, a stockholder of State Investment Trust, Inc., applied for a loan from First Metro Investments, Inc. (FMIC) to secure funds for a bid to gain control of State Investment.
  • FMIC agreed to provide a clean loan of ₱36,500,000.00 to Roxas, contingent upon him securing a guarantor.
  • Viewmaster agreed to act as the guarantor under specific conditions, including the sale of 50% of Roxas's shares in State Investment to Viewmaster and a joint venture for developing properties in Quezon City and Las Piñas.
  • Roxas failed to fulfill his obligations despite Viewmaster's guarantee, prompting Viewmaster to file the complaint.
  • The respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and did not state a cause of action.
  • The trial court initially dismissed the complaint but later reinstated it after a motion for reconsideration.
  • The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents, leading Viewmaster to file a petition for review.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
  • The Court ruled that the complaint did not state a cause of action.
  • The agreement was deemed unenforceable under the Sta...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court reasoned that the complaint failed to establish a cause of action as it did not meet necessary legal requirements.
  • A cause of action consists of a right in favor of the plaintiff, an obligation on the part of the defendant, and an act or omission by the defendant that violates the plaintiff's right.
  • The agreement between Viewmaster and Roxas was not in writing, vio...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.