Title
Supreme Court
Heirs of Salas, Jr. vs. Laperal Realty Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 135362
Decision Date
Dec 13, 1999
Heirs of Salas, Jr. sued Laperal Realty and buyers over land sales; arbitration clause binds heirs and Laperal but not third-party buyers.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135362)

Petitioners

Heirs of Augusto L. Salas, Jr., seeking rescission of sales, reconveyance of subdivided lots, cancellation of contract, accounting, and damages.

Respondents

Primary: Laperal Realty Corporation.
Co-respondents: the ten lot buyers listed above.
Also named: Register of Deeds for Lipa City.

Key Dates

• May 15, 1987 – Owner-Contractor Agreement executed.
• September 23, 1988 – Special Power of Attorney granted to Laperal Realty.
• June 10, 1989 – Salas, Jr. disappears.
• August 6, 1996 – Petition for presumptive death filed; granted December 12, 1996.
• February 22, 1990 – Subdivided portions sold to Rockway and South Ridge.
• June 27, 1991 – Sale to spouses Abrajano and Lava, Oscar Dacillo.
• June 4, 1996 – Sale to Vacuna, de la Cruz, and Capellan.
• February 3, 1998 – Complaint filed in R.T.C. Lipa (Civil Case No. 98-0047).
• April 24, 1998 – Laperal Realty’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to arbitrate.
• August 9, 1998 – R.T.C. Lipa dismisses complaint.
• December 13, 1999 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
• Civil Code, Article 1311 (contracts binding on parties, heirs, and assigns).
• Republic Act No. 876 (Arbitration Law).
• Jurisprudence enforcing written arbitration agreements as valid and binding.

Background of the Dispute

Salas, Jr. engaged Laperal Realty to provide horizontal construction services and to manage and sell his land. After his disappearance and presumption of death, Laperal Realty subdivided and sold large tracts of the property to various corporate and individual buyers. The heirs challenged these transactions as void for lesion beyond one-fourth, seeking nullity of sale and reconveyance.

Lower Court Proceedings

The heirs’ complaint named both Laperal Realty and the lot buyers. Laperal Realty and some buyers moved to dismiss, invoking the Agreement’s Article VI arbitration clause, which required disputes between “owner’s representative” and contractor to be referred to a three-member committee. The R.T.C. Lipa granted the motion and dismissed the suit for non-compliance with the arbitration requirement.

Petitioners’ Arguments

  1. Their causes of action do not arise from the Owner-Contractor Agreement.
  2. Claims for cancellation and accounting fall within arbitration-contract exceptions.
  3. Failure to arbitrate cannot justify dismissal.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Arbitration Agreements

The Court reaffirmed that written arbitration agreements are valid, binding, and enforceable under the Arbitration Law and Civil Code. Upon a proper arbitration clause, courts must suspend proceedings and compel arbitration. Arbitration promotes efficient dispute resolution and is favored by public policy.

Binding Nature of the Clause and Scope of Application

The arbitration stipulation binds the original parties to the Agreement (Salas, Jr. and Laperal Realty) and their heirs or assigns. However, assignment of rights under a contract differs from a sale of property developed under that contract. A purchaser of land is not an “assignee” of contractual rights to compel arbitration.

Non-Assignment to Lot Buyers

The lot buyers acquired title to subdivided land but did not step into Lape

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.