Title
Associated Realty Development Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-18056
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1965
Petitioner liable for damages due to failure to deliver estero lot and discrepancy in Lot No. 24 area; respondents awarded compensation for property value, house, and attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18056)

Property Acquisition and Mediation

The petitioner acquired a 4,562.79 square-meter parcel from the China Banking Corporation. Plans to subdivide the property were met with challenges due to the tenants' resistance, leading to the involvement of the Chinese Consul General in Manila and the formation of a mediation committee. This committee, which included Keater Huang, negotiated an amicable settlement allowing tenants the first option to purchase the land they occupied.

Subdivision and Sales Agreement

Following mediation, the property was subdivided into 43 lots, with plans drafted by surveyor Sixto Tenmatay. On April 22, 1947, the petitioner agreed to sell Tan Giok Tin a parcel of land known as Lot No. 24, which was stated to have an area of 52 square meters. In addition, the petitioner agreed to transfer a parcel of land adjacent to Lot No. 24 as a reward for Keater Huang's mediation efforts.

Construction and Discrepancies

Construction of a residence by the respondents began on Lot 24 in March 1948. However, subsequent surveys revealed that Lot 24 actually measured only 45 square meters. It became apparent that the property adjacent to Lot 24, described as part of the award, was government-owned and not available for sale. When the respondent sought to obtain the title for the lots, the petitioner refused, declaring it impossible to convey the estero lot.

Litigation and Claims

The respondents filed a complaint on September 20, 1954, presenting multiple causes of action including the claim for damages based on the property's market value and the costs incurred in erecting a fence and constructing a house. The petitioner countered these claims, asserting good faith ownership of the land and asserting that the estero lot constituted a non-binding promise.

First Instance Court Decision

On December 29, 1956, the Manila Court of First Instance awarded respondents inadequate compensation, which both sides appealed. The lower court's judgment provided a sum of P5,071.00 to the respondents, but failed to address broader claims related to property assessment discrepancies.

Court of Appeals Findings

The Court of Appeals ruled on November 9, 1960, identifying issues of bad faith and misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. They highlighted discrepancies in the documented area of Lot 24 and the unjust treatment of respondents throughout the mediation process. They concluded that the defendants were guilty of fraud against the respondents.

Revised Compensation and Legal Analysis

An amended decision on February 1, 1961, increased the compensation amount owed to the respondents significantly while denying the petitioner's request to revise the prior judgment. The petitioner further contested various aspects of the Court of Appeals' judgment, particularly concerning the valuation of properties and claims of fraud.

Supreme Court's Review

In its review of the case, the Supreme Court af

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.