Title
Vidal vs. Escueta
Case
G.R. No. 156228
Decision Date
Dec 10, 2003
Heirs sold property with tenants; amicable settlement enforced via execution; SC upheld Ma. Teresa Escueta's interest, denied tenants' right of first refusal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 121157)

Property and Lease Context

Following the intestate death of Abelardo Escueta on December 3, 1994, his estate, including a property in Mandaluyong City, was to be shared among his widow and their six children. The property was initially leased to Rainier Llanera, who sublet it to 25 individuals. The heirs executed an extra-judicial settlement to manage the property, including granting Ma. Teresa Escueta the authority to sell it.

Execution of Settlements and Agreements

In 1999, the heirs entered a deed of conditional sale with Mary Liza Santos, establishing payment terms contingent on the vacating of the property by the lessees. Following the agreement, an "Amicable Settlement" was executed on May 5, 1999, where the sub-lessees agreed to vacate by December 1999 in exchange for the landlord ceasing rental collections.

Enforcement of the Amicable Settlement

Despite the amicable arrangement, several sub-lessees, including the petitioners, failed to vacate the property by the agreed date. In response to their continued presence, Escueta moved for an execution in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) to enforce the settlement, which was met with opposition from the sub-lessees claiming they had not violated any terms of their lease.

Trial Court's Rulings

Initially, the MTC denied Escueta's motion for execution, asserting she was not the real party-in-interest since ownership of the property had been transferred to new buyers. Aggrieved, Escueta appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ultimately ruled in her favor—reinforcing her standing as the real party-in-interest due to ongoing financial obligations tied to the conditional sale contingent upon the sub-lessees' departure.

Court of Appeals Decision

The petitioners filed a review with the Court of Appeals, challenging procedural grounds and the handling of ejectment rights. However, the appellate court dismissed their petition, agreeing with the RTC that Escueta maintained the right to enforce the amicable settlement.

Claims of Impropriety and Appeals

The petitioners alleged coercion in signing the settlement and asserted a right of first refusal under Presidential Decree No. 1517, which was linked to urban land reform. Nevertheless, the RTC found that the property was not under any designated urban land reform area, thus negating their claims.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, reinforcing the findings of the lower courts regarding the real party-in-interest and the lack of a valid claim to the right of first refusal under urban land reform laws. Th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.