Title
Primelink Properties and Development Corp. vs. Lazatin-Magat
Case
G.R. No. 167379
Decision Date
Jun 27, 2006
Primelink and Lazatins entered a joint venture for land development; Primelink breached terms, leading to JVA rescission. Lazatins retained land and improvements; reimbursement claims deemed premature. Arbitration clause bypassed due to valid rescission grounds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167379)

Joint Venture Agreement Terms

The landowners contributed the real property; Primelink provided capital, labor, equipment, technical expertise, and marketing. Primelink would complete land development within three years (subject to force majeure) and secure all permits. Initial advances could total 20% of net revenue (60% to Primelink, 40% to landowners) for the first two years, thereafter 60/40 profit sharing. Disputes were to be referred to voluntary arbitration; title was held in escrow with China Banking Corporation.

Failure to Perform and Rescission Demand

Primelink delayed securing the City Development Permit until October 12, 1995. By April 10, 1997, the Lazatins demanded compliance. On October 22, 1997, they formally rescinded the JVA and sought cessation of development. On January 19, 1998, they filed a complaint for rescission, accounting, and damages (Civil Case No. TG-1776, RTC Tagaytay), alleging incomplete works, substandard construction, accounting irregularities, and failure to pay their profit shares (estimated at not less than ₱40 million).

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

Defendants repeatedly sought extensions to file an answer, were declared in default on June 24, 1998, and their motion to set aside default was denied. Ex parte evidence showed Primelink initially reported net income of ₱2.6 million (from which landowners’ 40% equaled ₱1.04 million) but later reported a loss. On April 17, 2000, the RTC rescinded the JVA as of the filing date, restored landowners to possession of land and improvements, ordered an accounting, awarded ₱1,041,524.26 plus attorney’s fees (₱104,152.40), and costs.

Court of Appeals Resolution

On appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 69200), the CA affirmed with modification. It treated the JVA as a partnership under Articles 1780–1867 of the Civil Code. It ordered release of TCT No. 10848 from escrow and cancellation of any annotation. Invoking Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corporation, the CA held that rescission entitled landowners to recover land and improvements as partnership assets.

Issues on Restitution of Improvements

Primelink challenged the unconditional return of improvements without reimbursement of its ₱40 million development expenses, arguing Articles 1384–1385 and 1191 of the Civil Code require mutual restitution or balancing equities when rescinding reciprocal obligations. It contended that landowners neither prayed for nor pro

...continue reading

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