Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4616)
Antecedents of the Case
In March 1975, the petitioner and her brother executed a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land to secure a loan from DBP. After failing to fulfill their loan obligations, DBP foreclosed the property, and the parcels were sold to DBP as the highest bidder. The redemption period for the property lapsed in 1981. The petitioner later claimed that DBP had granted her a preferential right to repurchase one of the properties.
Petitioner's Version of Events
The petitioner states that in August 1982, she attempted to negotiate a buy-back of the property but was informed she needed to pay the full purchase price upfront. Under the impression that if she paid two amortizations on the other property, she would be able to reclaim the property covered by TCT No. 164117, she signed a deed of conditional sale for both properties. After fulfilling her payment obligations amounting to P40,000, her request for the release of the property was denied, leading to DBP’s rescission of the deed on August 7, 1985.
Respondents' Version of Events
In contrast, DBP argues that the petitioner intended to repurchase both properties on an installment basis, as indicated by her written communications to DBP. DBP asserts that the petitioner had ample opportunity to adhere to the terms of the deed but failed to do so, thus justifying their rescission of the contract.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s complaint, reasoning that the evidence and her own written communications indicated she intended to reacquire both properties. The Court emphasized that the terms of the deed clearly expressed this intention and that the petitioner’s subsequent actions affirmed her compliance with its stipulations.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the petitioner maintained that she had paid a substantial amount towards the purchase price and that her original understanding had been misled. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling, stating that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims of being misled or to invalidate the rescission by DBP based on her missed amortization payments.
Issues Raised on Appeal
In her appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding her testimonial evidence, that she had not given full consent due to misunderstanding the terms of the contract, and that DBP’s rescission was unwarranted given her payments.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s appeal
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-4616)
Case Overview
- The case involves Lina Calilap-Asmeron (petitioner) challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling against her.
- The RTC had dismissed her complaint against the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) regarding the rescission of a deed of conditional sale for foreclosed properties and subsequent sales to other parties.
Background Information
- On March 17, 1975, the petitioner and her brother executed a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land to secure a loan from DBP.
- The mortgage was foreclosed due to non-payment, and the properties were sold to DBP, with a redemption period that expired on September 1, 1981.
- The details of the petitioner’s interactions with DBP concerning the repurchase of the properties became the crux of the case.
Petitioner's Version of Events
- The petitioner claims she was given a preferential right to repurchase the property under TCT No. 164117.
- She attempted to negotiate a buyback in August 1982, offering a downpayment of PHP 15,000, which was rejected.
- She signed a deed of conditional sale for both properties for PHP 157,000 based on the belief that she would receive the land under TCT No. 164117 after paying two amortizations for the other lot.
- Despite paying a total of PHP 40,000 in amortizations, her requests for the release of TCT No. 164117 wer