Title
De Santos vs. City of Manila
Case
G.R. No. L-21677
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1972
City of Manila exchanged land with Arellano University; plaintiff sought preemption/redemption over Lot No. 1, contract annulment; Supreme Court ruled no rights, no detriment, awarded attorney fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21677)

Factual Background

The case arises from a contract of exchange executed on October 1, 1958, between the City of Manila and Arellano University, Inc., based on Resolution No. 442 of the Municipal Board of Manila. This contract involved the exchange of five parcels of land owned by the City of Manila for three parcels belonging to Arellano University, needed for the extension of Azcarraga Street.

Contentions of the Parties

Antonio G. de Santos initiated a legal action to declare the contract of exchange void concerning Lot No. 1 of Psu-167195, asserting his rights of redemption and pre-emption. The defendants, City of Manila and Arellano University, denied any preferential rights claimed by the petitioner. Arellano University counterclaimed for attorney's fees due to the allegedly unfounded complaint.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial court sided with the respondents, holding that Santos had no rights of pre-emption or redemption regarding Lot No. 1, ruling that he was not an interested party to challenge the validity of the contract. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and Santos was ordered to pay Arellano University attorney's fees.

Appellate Court's Affirmance

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the assertions made by Santos regarding his preferential rights were unsubstantiated by evidence or law, particularly under Article 1622 of the new Civil Code, which delineates the conditions necessary for establishing such rights.

Analysis of Pre-emption and Redemption Rights

Article 1622 provides conditions for the right of pre-emption to an adjoining landowner. The Court determined that Santos failed to demonstrate that Lot No. 1 was so small and located in a manner that it could not be used practically, nor did he show that it had been acquired solely for speculative purposes. The findings were further supported by the fact that the lot in question was larger than the average residential lot and adjacent to Arellano University, which had legitimate educational needs for the property.

Findings on Contract Validity

The Court maintained that Santos could not claim nullification of the deed of exchange since he was neither a principal nor an interested party under the contract. His alleged detriment from the agreement was found inadequate to establish a legal bas

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.