HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. SALAS, JR. vs.

LAPERAL
REALTY
CORPORATIONG.R.
No.
135362December 13, 1999(320 SCRA 610)
FACTS:
Petitioner Salas Jr. and Respondent Laperal
Realty Corporation entered into anagreement
for the latter to develop and provide complete
construction services on formersland. Petitioner
executed a special power of attorney in favor of
Respondent Corporation toexercise general
control, supervision and management of the
sale of his land. On June 10,1989 Petitioner left
his home for a business trip in Nueva Ecija but
never returned again.
Petitioners wife filed a petition for presumptive
death of her husba
nd after seven years of absence. The trial court
granted her petition.On the otherhand,
Respondent Corporation already subdivided the
property owned by SalasJr. to different lot
buyers. The heirs of Salas Jr. filed in the RTC of
Lipa City a Complaint for nullity of sale,
reconveyance, cancellation of contract and
damages against Laperal RealtyCorporation and
lot buyers. Laperal Realty Corporation filed a
motion to dismiss on theground that the heirs
of Salas Jr. failed to submit their grievance to
arbitration as stated inthe agreement executed
by Salas Jr. and Laperal Realty Corporation. The
lot buyers alsofiled a motion to dismiss based
on the same ground.

HELD:
(1) A submission to arbitration is a contract. As
such, the Agreement, containing thestipulation
on arbitration, binds the parties thereto, as well
as their assigns and heirs. Butonly they.
Petitioners, as heirs of Salas Jr., and respondent
Laperal Realty Corporation arecertainly bound
by the agreement.(2) The arbitration agreement
is valid, binding and enforceable and not
contrary to publicpolicy so much so when there
obtains a written provision for arbitration which
is not compliedwith, the trial court should
suspend the proceedings and order the parties
to proceed toarbitration in accordance with the
terms of their agreement. However it would be
in theinterest of justice if the trial court hears
the complaint against all herein respondents
andadjudicates petitioners rights as against
theirs in a singles and complete proceeding.The
petition is granted the trial court must proceed
with the hearing of the case
BF CORPORATION V. CA, 288 SCRA 267 (1998)
Facts:
Petitioner
and
respondent
Shangri-la
Properties,
Inc.
entered
into
an
agreementwhereby the latter engaged the
former to construct the main structure of the
"EDSA PlazaProject," a shopping mall complex
in Mandaluyong. Petitioner incurred delay in
the constructionwork that SPI considered as
"serious and substantial."

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the arbitration clause in the
agreement between Salas Jr. andLaperal Realty
binds the heirs of the former.(2) Whether or not
the trial court must dismiss the case or must
hear the casesimultaneously.

On the other hand, according topetitioner, the

construction works "progressed in faithful
compliance with the First Agreementuntil a fire
broke out damaging Phase I" of the Project.

Hence, SPI proposed the re-negotiationof the

agreement between them.Petitioner and SPI
entered into a written agreement denominated
as "Agreement for theExecution of Builder's
Work for the EDSA Plaza Project." Said
agreement would cover theconstruction work
on said project as of May 1, 1991 until its
eventual
completion.
According
toSPI,
petitioner "failed to complete the construction
works and abandoned the project."

required that "Notice of the demand for

arbitration of a dispute shall be filed in writing
with the other party . . . . in nocase . . . . later
than the time of final payment . . . "which
apparently, had elapsed becausedefendants
have failed to file any written notice of any
demand for arbitration during the saidlong
period of one year and eight months. The CA
annulled the orders of the RTC.
Issue:
WON a petition for certiorari is proper

Thisresulted in disagreements between the

parties as regards their respective liabilities
under thecontract.Petitioner filed with the RTC
of Pasig a complaint for collection of the
balance due under the construction agreement.
SPI and its co-defendants filed a motion to
suspend proceedingsinstead of filing an answer.
The motion was anchored on defendants'
allegation that the formaltrade contract for the
construction of the project provided for a clause
requiring prior resort toarbitration before
judicial intervention could be invoked in any
dispute arising from the contract.Petitioner
opposed said motion claiming that there was no
formal contract between the partiesalthough
they entered into an agreement defining their
rights and obligations in undertaking
theproject.Thereafter, upon a finding that an
arbitration clause indeed exists, the lower court
deniedthe motion to suspend proceedings as
the Conditions of Contract was not duly
executed or signed by the parties, and the
failure of the defendants to submit any signed
copy of the saiddocument,.The lower court then
ruled that, assuming that the arbitration clause
was valid andbinding, still, it was "too late in the
day for defendants to invoke arbitration.
Considering the factthat under the supposed
Arbitration Clause invoked by defendants, it is

Held:
Yes. The rule that the special civil action of
certiorari may not be invoked as a substitute
for the remedy of appeal. The Court has
likewise ruled that " certiorari will not be issued
to cure errors in proceedings or correct
erroneous conclusions of law or fact. As long as
a court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged
errors committed in the exercise of its
jurisdiction will amount to nothing more than
errors of judgment which are reviewable by
timely appeal and not by a special civil action of
certiorari .