Case Summary (G.R. No. 171832)
Contractual Agreements and Obligations
On February 14, 1991, Antipolo Properties, Inc. entered into a preliminary agreement with MUMI, whereby the association’s members were to vacate their occupied lands in exchange for a designated resettlement area developed by the petitioner. Subsequently, on June 7, 1991, Nuyda, a member of MUMI, signed a separate agreement with Antipolo Properties, stipulating the identification of a specific lot in the resettlement area, and the payment of disturbance compensation to him in return for vacating the land he was occupying. However, in 1998, Antipolo Properties failed to fulfill its obligations under the June 7 Kasunduan, precipitating a complaint by Nuyda for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Trial Court Findings
The RTC, in its May 20, 2001 decision, found both the February 14 and June 7 agreements to be valid and enforceable. The court mandated Antipolo Properties to transfer ownership and possession of the identified 2,880 square meters of land, pay disturbance compensation as agreed, and reimburse damages incurred by Nuyda due to the loss of property and plantings. The decision was appealed by the petitioner.
Court of Appeals Rulings
In its August 31, 2005 decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's ruling in full, stating that the arguments presented by Antipolo Properties lacked sufficient evidence and were inconsistent with the documented agreements. The appellate court also clarified that the inclusion of the company president's rubber-stamped signature did not invalidate the agreements, as the terms were clear, legal, and acceptable under prevailing laws.
Petitioner’s Arguments and Court’s Response
In the petition for review, Antipolo Properties contended that Nuyda was only a caretaker and not a legitimate occupant entitled to benefits under the agreement. The Supreme Court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that the terms of the June 7 Kasunduan explicitly recognized Nuyda's status and his rights to the resettlement provisions. The principle of estoppel was invoked, preventing Antipolo Properties from asserting the opposite claim after having previously acknowledged Nuyda’s rights.
Contractual Principles Upheld
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that contracts serve as the governing law between the parties involved. It underscor
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171832)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Antipolo Properties, Inc. against Cesar Nuyda.
- The petition challenges the August 31, 2005 Decision and the March 6, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72194.
- The dispute originated from a contractual agreement related to the resettlement of members from the Melitona estate in Binangonan, Rizal.
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Antipolo Properties, Inc. (now Prime East Properties, Inc.), a realty development company.
- Respondent: Cesar Nuyda, a member of Magtanim Upang Mabuhay, Inc. (MUMI), an association of alleged illegal settlers.
Background Facts
- On February 14, 1991, Antipolo Properties, Inc. and MUMI entered into a contract (Kasunduan) for the relocation of settlers from the Melitona estate to a designated resettlement area.
- The agreement stipulated that the company would develop a resettlement area, award subdivided lots to the association members, and pay disturbance compensation.
- On June 7, 1991, a separate agreement was made between Antipolo Properties and respondent Nuyda, affirming his membership in MUMI and granting him rights to a 2,880 square meter lot and disturbance compensation in exchange for vacating his occupied land.
- Antipolo Properties failed to honor its obligations under the agreement after demolishing the properties in the estate, prompting Nuyda to file a complaint for specific performance and damages.
Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court
- The case was filed in the Re