Title
Harold vs. Aliba
Case
G.R. No. 130864
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2007
A geodetic engineer deceived a client by selling her property without consent, leading to a barangay settlement. Courts upheld the settlement, ruling it valid despite partial payment refusal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 130864)

Relevant Facts

In January 1993, Harold paid Aliba PHP 4,050 for his services. However, Aliba failed to return the property titles for over a year despite multiple demands. In January 1994, Aliba persuaded Harold and her husband to sign a document, claiming it was necessary for the consolidation-subdivision. Subsequently, they discovered that he had sold the property to a third party and offered Harold various amounts as a purchase price without her consent.

Barangay Conciliation Proceedings

The dispute was referred to the local barangay officials for mediation, where on June 8, 1994, both parties agreed to an additional payment of PHP 75,000 on top of PHP 500,000 already proposed by Aliba. Harold accepted PHP 70,000 during the proceedings, documented by an acknowledgment receipt signed by the parties and witnessed by barangay officials. The following day, Aliba attempted to tender the remaining PHP 5,000, which Harold refused, insisting the amount was insufficient.

Court Proceedings and Dismissal

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed Harold's complaint on September 4, 1995, based on findings of a valid amicable settlement having occurred during the barangay proceedings. It indicated that Harold had effectively waived her claims against Aliba by accepting the PHP 70,000. Harold then appealed to higher courts, but both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals affirmed the MTC's dismissal, citing substantial compliance with legal requirements for amicable settlements.

Legal Considerations and Findings

The central legal issue revolved around whether there was a valid amicable settlement between the parties, and if Harold’s refusal to accept the remaining payment constituted a repudiation of that settlement. The courts held that significant evidence pointed to a consensual agreement during the hearings, fulfilling the amicable settlement criteria under the Local Government Code.

Doctrine of Estoppel

The ruling articulated the principle of estoppel, asserting that Harold’s previous acceptance of pa

...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.