Title
Ellice Agro-Industrial Corp. vs. Young
Case
G.R. No. 174077
Decision Date
Nov 21, 2012
Buyers sued EAIC for failing to deliver land title after partial payment. RTC ruled for buyers, but SC nullified decision due to invalid summons service on unauthorized representative, remanding case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146595)

Applicable Law and Jurisdiction

The applicable law in this case is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as the decision date is in 2012. The proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, including Rules 38 and 47, which outline relief from judgment and annulment of judgments, respectively.

Factual Background

On July 24, 1995, respondents entered into a Contract to Sell with EAIC for the purchase of a specified land area, paying a partial amount of ₱545,000. However, EAIC failed to provide the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and the deed of sale as mandated by the agreement. This led respondents to file a civil suit, Civil Case No. 96-177, after annotating an Affidavit of Adverse Claim and a Notice of Lis Pendens on the title of the property.

Proceedings and Initial Rulings

EAIC's attempts for legal representation were hindered due to ineffective service of summons. The court proceedings allowed respondents to present their case ex parte after EAIC did not appear at the pre-trial. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) subsequently ruled in favor of the respondents in a decision dated November 11, 1999, ordering EAIC to comply with the Contract to Sell.

Petition for Relief from Judgment

Approximately seven months post-decision, EAIC, through Raul Gala, filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment claiming extrinsic fraud, specifically that Guia Domingo misrepresented her authority. However, this petition was denied by the RTC as it was filed out of time.

Annulment of Judgment

Following the rejection of the relief petition, EAIC initiated a Petition for Annulment of Judgment based on claims of lack of jurisdiction and fraud. The respondents countered that EAIC was already aware of the ongoing litigation due to the annotations on the title, which they argued constituted constructive notice.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's ruling, determining that EAIC had constructive notice of the pending litigation and thus could not claim ignorance. The appellate court maintained that the annotations provided sufficient notice and that EAIC's failure to act constituted a waiver of its right to participate in the proceedings.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding that the serv

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.