Title
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. vs. Perlas
Case
G.R. No. 236126
Decision Date
Sep 7, 2020
Eternal Gardens, heirs of Zenaida Boiser, and spouses Bonifacio dispute burial lot ownership; SC affirms CA ruling, holding Eternal Gardens, Magpantay, Kathryn liable for restitution, damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 236126)

Factual Background

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation specializes in developing memorial parks and related services. The Boiser siblings, Katherine and Kathryn, are part of the heirs of Zenaida F. Boiser, who purchased 24 burial lots from Eternal Gardens, reflected in Certificate of Ownership No. 5595 issued in 1985. After Zenaida's death in 1999, it was discovered that her burial lots were sold by Michael Magpantay, Kathryn's former partner, to the Spouses Bonifacio. The Boiser siblings filed a complaint for nullification of the sales, asserting that Zenaida was deceased at the time of the transaction and alleging conspiracy between Eternal Gardens and Magpantay.

Legal Proceedings

Eternal Gardens contended that the Boiser siblings lacked a cause of action against them, as Kathryn had allegedly participated in the sale process by signing an Affidavit of Loss and confirming a Deed of Assignment in favor of Magpantay. Despite these transactions, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Eternal Gardens liable for not verifying the validity of the sale and that the transfer documents were invalid due to Zenaida’s death.

RTC Ruling

The RTC's ruling indicated that Eternal Gardens ratified the actions of its employees involved in the transactions. It declared the Deed of Assignment to Magpantay null and void and ordered the return of Php 2,200,000.00 to the Spouses Bonifacio, deducting the value of the burial lot used for their deceased grandchild. Eternal Gardens appealed to the Court of Appeals.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's decision regarding the nullity of the Deed of Assignment and imposed solidarity liability on Eternal Gardens, Magpantay, and Kathryn for the return of the purchase price. The Court ruled that the Spouses Bonifacio acted in good faith, as the certificate of ownership did not exhibit any apparent defects demanding further inquiry.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling, dismissing Eternal Gardens’ arguments about the ultra vires nature of its employees' actions. The Court emphasized the principle of apparent authority, noting that by issuing a certificate of ownership based on the employees' actions, Eternal Gardens acknowledged their authority to transact on its behalf. The Court highlighted that the company could not distance itself from the liabilities incurred during the fraudulent transactions facilitated by its employees.

Liability for Damages

While the Court ruled that Eternal Gardens could not escape liability for moral and exemplary damages due to the act

...continue reading

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