Case Digest (G.R. No. 133576)
Facts:
Viewmaster Construction Corporation v. Allen C. Roxas, G.R. No. 133576, July 13, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Buena, J., writing for the Court.On September 8, 1995, Viewmaster Construction Corporation (petitioner) filed Civil Case No. 65277 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 166, seeking specific performance, enforcement of an implied trust, and damages against Allen C. Roxas, State Investment Trust, Inc., Northeast Land Development, Inc., and State Properties Corporation (respondents). Viewmaster alleged that Roxas, a stockholder of State Investment, obtained loans from First Metro Investments, Inc. (FMIC) to acquire control of State Investment, and that Viewmaster acted as guarantor of those loans under an oral agreement whereby Roxas would sell 50% of his eventual State Investment shares to Viewmaster (at the successful bid price plus 10%) and would enter into a joint venture with Viewmaster to develop two parcels of land in Quezon City and Las Piñas.
On July 2, 1992, Viewmaster had executed a Continuing Guaranty with FMIC; FMIC delivered P36,500,000 to Roxas pursuant to the loan arrangement. When Roxas allegedly failed to convey the agreed shares and to enter into the joint venture, Viewmaster sued.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on October 25, 1995, arguing the claim was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action; Viewmaster opposed. The RTC initially dismissed the complaint and denied Viewmaster's application for interlocutory relief on May 15, 1996, but on reconsideration (July 10, 1996) reinstated the complaint and granted a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned on a P1,000,000 injunction bond. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on January 30, 1997, and their motion for the presiding judge’s inhibition was denied on April 11, 1997.
Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 44000 for certiorari and prohibition. On November 28, 1997 the Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the RTC orders of July 10, 1996 and January 30, 1997 (and the April 11, 1997 order denyi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the complaint in Civil Case No. 65277 state a cause of action?
- Was the alleged agreement enforceable, or was it barred by the Statute of Frauds (Article 1403, New Civil Code) and/or susceptible to enforcement by asserting an implied/resulting trust (Article 1448, New Civil Code)?
- Should the presiding RTC judge have inhibited himself from ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)