Title
Supreme Court
Valdes vs. La Colina Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 208140
Decision Date
Jul 12, 2021
Valdeses transferred BARECO shares to LCDC for ₱20M, later contested agreements with Philcomsat and MRDC. SC ruled sale, not joint venture; novation valid, no rescission.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 7922)

1992 Restructuring and Consent

Philcomsat’s entry was conditioned on corporate approvals (two-thirds stockholder vote) and the Valdeses’ written conformity to a new Montemar concept (golf course and sports complex). Gabriel A. S. Valdes, as attorney-in-fact, signed an August 27, 1992 letter-conformity and participated in MBCI board meetings where the new project and Philcomsat’s investment were discussed, thereby manifesting informed consent.

RTC’s Ruling and Grounds for Annulment

The Regional Trial Court (2009) found (1) a fiduciary joint venture existed; (2) respondents acted in bad faith and without petitioners’ consent; and (3) declared the September 3, 1992 MOA and August 31, 1992 Deed of Sale null and void, ordering reconveyance and denying damages.

Court of Appeals’ Reversal

The Court of Appeals (2012) held that (1) no joint venture existed—only a sale; (2) petitioners’ letter-conformity and corporate approvals effected an express novation extinguishing LCDC’s original obligation; (3) the 1992 MOA and Deed of Sale complied with corporate requirements and were entered into in good faith; and (4) petitioners were not innocent third parties but had binding knowledge and participation.

Issues on Review

  1. Whether a joint venture existed in 1975 or the transaction was purely a sale.
  2. Whether LCDC could validly encumber and later sell the properties without Valdeses’ consent.
  3. Whether the 1992 MOA and Deed of Sale novated and extinguished the 1975 obligation.
  4. Whether Philcomsat and MRDC were purchasers in good faith for value.
  5. Whether the remedy of rescission was properly available to petitioners.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA:
• Contract Interpretation: Under Article 1370, the 1975 documents unambiguously establish a sale. No common fund or shared losses existed to constitute a joint venture.
• Novation: The 1992 agreements’ terms were incompatible with the original obligation. Per Article 1292, novation occurred by express consent (letter-conformity) and by changing principal conditions. LCDC’s duty to remit 40% of lot-sale proceeds was equally extinguished.
• Good Faith and Absence of Fraud: Philcomsat required written corporate

...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.