Art 448 Carrascoso JR Vs CA - 123672 - December 14, 2005 - J

6/21/2015
CarrascosoJrvsCA:123672:December14,2005:J.CarpioMorales:ThirdDivision:Decision
THIRDDIVISION
FERNANDOCARRASCOSO,JR.,
Petitioner,
versus
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, LAURO LEVISTE, as Director and

MinorityStockholderandOnBehalfofOtherStockholdersofElDoradoPlantation,
Inc. and EL DORADO PLANTATION, INC., represented by one of its minority
stockholders,LauroP.Leviste,
Respondents.
xx
PHILIPPINELONGDISTANCETELEPHONECOMPANY,
Petitioner,
versus
LAUROLEVISTE,asDirectorandMinorityStockholderandOnBehalfofOther
Stockholders of El Dorado Plantation, Inc., EL DORADO PLANTATION, INC.,
represented by Minority Stockholder, Lauro P. Leviste, and FERNANDO
CARRASCOSO,JR.
Respondents.
G.R.No.123672
Present:
PANGANIBAN,J.,Chairman,
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,andGARCIA,JJ.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/123672.htm
1/23
6/21/2015
G.R.No.164489
Promulgated:
December14,2005
xx
DECISION
CARPIOMORALES,J.:
El Dorado Plantation, Inc. (El Dorado) was the registered owner of a parcel of land
(theproperty)withanareaofapproximately1,825hectarescoveredbyTransferCertificate
[1]
situatedinSablayan,OccidentalMindoro.
ofTitle(TCT)No.T93
On February 15, 1972, at a special meeting of El Dorados Board of Directors, a

[2]
Resolution was passed authorizing Feliciano Leviste, then President of El Dorado, to
negotiatethesaleofthepropertyandsignalldocumentsandcontractsbearingthereon.
2/23
6/21/2015
[3]
On March 23, 1972, by a Deed of Sale of Real Property, El Dorado, through
FelicianoLeviste,soldthepropertytoFernandoO.Carrascoso,Jr.(Carrascoso).
ThepertinentprovisionsoftheDeedofSaleread:
NOW,THEREFORE,forandinconsiderationofthesumofONEMILLIONEIGHT
HUNDRED THOUSAND (1,800,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, the Vendor hereby
sells,cedes,andtransfer(sic)untothehereinVENDEE,hisheirs,successorsandassigns,the
abovedescribedpropertysubjecttothefollowingtermsandconsitions(sic):
1.OfthesaidsumofP1,800,000.00whichconstitutesthefullconsiderationofthis
sale,P290,000.00shallbepaid,asitisherebypaid,tothePhilippines(sic)NationalBank,
therebyeffectingthereleaseandcancellationfo(sic)thepresentmortgageovertheabove
describedproperty.
2.ThatthesumofP210,000.00shallbepaid,asitisherebypaidbytheVENDEEto
theVENDOR,receiptofwhichamountisherebyacknowledgedbytheVENDOR.
3.The remaining balance of P1,300,000.00 plus interest thereon at the rate of 10%
perannumshallbepaidbytheVENDEEtotheVENDORwithinaperiodofthree(3)years,
asfollows:
(a)One(1)yearfromthedateofthesigning of this agreement, the VENDEE shall

pay to the VENDOR the sum of FIVE HUNDRED NINETEEN THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDREDTHIRTYTHREE&33/100(P519,833.33)PESOS.
(b)Two(2)yearsfromthedateofsigningofthisagreement,theVENDEEshallpay
to the VENDOR the sum of FIVE HUNDRED NINETTEN (sic) THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDREDANDTHIRTYTHREE&33/100(P519,833.33)PESOS.
(c)Three(3)yearsfromthedateofsigningofthisagreement,theVENDEEshallpay
totheVENDORthesumofFIVEHundredNINETEENTHOUSANDEIGHTHUNDRED
ANDTHIRTYTHREE&33/100(P519,833.33)PESOS.
4.Thetitleoftheproperty,subjectofthisagreement,shallpassandbetransferredto
theVENDEEwhoshallhavefullauthoritytoregisterthesameandobtainthecorresponding
transfercertificateoftitleinhisname.
xxx
6. THE VENDOR certifies and warrants that the property abovedescribed is not
being cultivated by any tenant and is therefore not covered by the provisions of the Land
ReformCode.If,therefore,theVENDEEbecomesliableunderthesaidlaw,theVENDOR
[4]
shall reimburse the VENDEE for all expenses and damages he may incur thereon.
(Underscoringsupplied)
FromtheabovequotedprovisionsoftheDeedofSale,Carrascosowastopaythefull
3/23
6/21/2015
amountofthepurchasepriceonMarch23,1975.
Onevendate,theBoardofDirectorsofElDoradopassedaResolutionreading:
RESOLVEDthatbyreasonofthesaleofthatparceloflandcoveredbyTCTNo.T
93toDr.FERNANDOO.CARRASCOSO,JR.,thecorporationinterposesnoobjection
to the property being mortgage (sic) by Dr. FERNANDO O. CARRASCOSO, JR. to
anybankofhischoiceaslongasthebalanceontheDeedofSaleshallberecognizedby
Dr.FERNANDOO.CARRASCOSO,JR.
RESOLVED,FURTHER,thatthecorporationauthorizestheprefered(sic)claimon
thepropertytobesubordinatedtoanymortgagethatmaybeconstitutedbyDr.FERNANDO
O.CARRASCOSO,JR.
RESOLVED, FINALLY, that in case of any mortgage on the property, the

[5]
corporation waives the preference of any vendors lien on the property. (Emphasis and
underscoringsupplied)
FelicianoLevistealsoexecutedthefollowingaffidavitonthesameday:
1.ThatbyreasonofthesaleofthatparceloflandcoveredbyTransferCertificateof
Title T93 as evidenced by the Deed of Sale attached hereto as Annex A and made an
integralparthereof,theElDoradoPlantation,Inc.hasnoobjectiontotheaforementioned
property being mortgaged by Dr. Fernando O. Carrascoso, Jr. to any bank of his
choice,aslongasthepaymentofthebalanceduetheElDoradoPlantation,Inc.under
the Deed of Sale, Annex A hereof, shall be recognized by the vendee therein, Dr.
FernandoO.Carrascoso,Jr.thoughsubordinatedtothepreferredclaimofthemortgagee
bank.
2. That in case of any mortgage on the property, the vendor hereby waives the
preferenceofanyvendorslienontheproperty,subjectmatterofthedeedofsale.
3.ThatthisaffidavitisbeingexecutedtoavoidanyquestionontheauthorityofDr.
FernandoO.Carrascoso,Jr.tomortgagethepropertysubjectoftheDeedofSale,AnnexA
hereof,wherethepurchasepriceprovidedthereinhasnotbeenfullypaid.
4.ThatthisaffidavithasbeenexecutedpursuanttoaboardresolutionofElDorado
[6]
Plantation,Inc. (Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
Onthefollowingday,March24,1972,CarrascosoandhiswifeMarleneexecuteda
RealEstateMortgage
[7]
overthepropertyinfavorofHomeSavingsBank(HSB)tosecure
aloanintheamountofP1,000,000.00.Ofthisamount,P290,000.00waspaidtoPhilippine
NationalBanktoreleasethemortgagepriorlyconstitutedonthepropertyandP210,000.00
waspaidtoElDoradopursuanttoabovequotedparagraphNos.1and2ofthetermsand
4/23
6/21/2015
[8]
conditionsoftheDeedofSale.
TheMarch23,1972DeedofSaleofRealPropertywasregisteredandannotatedon
ElDoradosTCTNo.T93asEntryNo.15240
[9]
onApril5,1972.Onevendate,TCTNo.
[10]
T93coveringthepropertywascancelledandTCTNo.T6055
wasinitssteadissued
by the Registry of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro in the name of Carrascoso on which the
realestatemortgageinfavorofHSBwasannotatedasEntryNo.15242.
[11]
OnMay18,1972,therealestatemortgageinfavorofHSBwasamendedtoinclude
[12]
The
anadditionalthreeyearloanofP70,000.00asrequestedbythespousesCarrascoso.
AmendmentofRealEstateMortgagewasalsoannotatedonTCTNo.T6055asEntryNo.
[13]
15486onMay24,1972.
The 3year period for Carrascoso to fully pay for the property on March 23, 1975
passedwithouthimhavingcompliedtherewith.
In the meantime, on July 11, 1975, Carrascoso and the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company (PLDT), through its President Ramon Cojuangco, executed an
Agreement to Buy and Sell
[14]
whereby the former agreed to sell 1,000 hectares of the
propertytothelatterataconsiderationofP3,000.00perhectareoratotalofP3,000,000.00.
The July 11, 1975 Agreement to Buy and Sell was not registered and annotated on
CarrascososTCTNo.T6055.
Lauro Leviste (Lauro), a stockholder and member of the Board of Directors of El

Dorado, through his counsel, Atty. Benjamin Aquino, by letter
[15]
dated December 27,
1976, called the attention of the Board to Carrascosos failure to pay the balance of the
purchasepriceofthepropertyamountingtoP1,300,000.00.AndLauroslawyermanifested
that:
5/23
6/21/2015
Because of the default for a long time of Mr. Carrascoso to pay the balance of the
consideration of the sale, Don Lauro Leviste, in his behalf and in behalf of the other
shareholderssimilarlysituatedlikehim,wantarescissionofthesalemadebytheElDorado
Plantation, Inc. to Mr. Carrascoso. He desires that the Board of Directors take the
[16]
correspondingactionforrescission.
Laurosdesiretorescindthesalewasreiteratedintwootherletters
[17]
addressedto
theBoarddatedJanuary20,1977andMarch3,1977.
[18]
JoseP.Leviste,asPresidentofElDorado,latersentaletterofFebruary21,1977
toCarrascosoinforminghimthatinviewofhisfailuretopaythebalanceofthepurchase
priceoftheproperty,ElDoradowasseekingtherescissionoftheMarch23,1972Deedof
SaleofRealProperty.
Thepertinentportionsoftheletterread:
xxx
I regret to inform you that the balance of P1,300,000.00 and the interest thereon have long
been due and payable, although you have mortgaged said property with the Home Savings
Bank for P1,000,000.00 on March 24, 1972, which was subsequently increased to
P1,070,000.00onMay18,1972.
YouverywellknowthattheElDoradoPlantation,Inc.,isaclosefamilycorporation,owned
exclusivelybythemembersoftheLevistefamilyandIamoneofthecoownersoftheland.
Asnothingappearstohavebeendoneonyourpartafterournumerousrequestsforpaymentof
thesaidamountofP1,300,000.00andtheinterestof10%perannumduethereon,pleasebe
[19]
advised that we would like to rescind the contract of sale of the land.
(Underscoring
supplied)
[20]
Jose Leviste, by letter
dated March 10, 1977, informed Lauros counsel Atty.
Aquinoofhis(Joses)February21,1977lettertoCarrascoso,helamentingthatCarrascoso
hasnotdeemeditfittogive[his]letterthecourtesyofareplyandadvis[ing]thatsomeof
theDirectorsof[ElDorado]couldnotseetheirwayclearincomplyingwiththedemandsof
yourclient[Lauro]andhavefailedtoreachaconsensustobringthecorrespondingactionfor
6/23
6/21/2015
[21]
rescissionofthecontractagainst...Carrascoso.
LauroandElDoradofinallyfiledonMarch15,1977acomplaint
[22]
forrescissionof
theMarch23,1972DeedofSaleofRealPropertybetweenElDoradoandCarrascosowith
damagesbeforetheCourtofFirstInstance(CFI)ofOccidentalMindoro,docketedasCivil
CaseNo.R226.
LauroandElDoradoalsosoughtthecancellationofTCTNo.T6055inthenameof
CarrascosoandtherevivalofTCTNo.T93inthenameofElDorado,freefromanyliens
andencumbrances.Furthermore,thetwoprayedfortheissuanceofanorderforCarrascoso
to:(1)reconveythepropertytoElDoradouponreturntohimofP500,000.00,(2)securea
dischargeoftherealestatemortgageconstitutedonthepropertyfromHSB,(3)submitan
accountingofthefruitsofthepropertyfromMarch23,1972uptothereturnofpossession
ofthelandtoElDorado,(4)turnoversaidfruitsortheequivalentvaluethereoftoElDorado
and(5)paytheamountofP100,000.00forattorneysfeesandotherdamages.
[23]
AlsoonMarch15,1977,LauroandElDoradocausedtobeannotatedonTCTNo.T
[24]
6055aNoticeofLisPendens,inscribedasEntryNo.39737.
Inthemeantime,Carrascoso,asvendorandPLDT,asvendeeforgedonApril6,1977
aDeedofAbsoluteSale
[25]
overthe1,000hectareportionofthepropertysubjectoftheir
July11,1975AgreementtoBuyandSell.ThepertinentportionsoftheDeedareasfollows:
WHEREAS,theVENDORandtheVENDEEenteredintoanagreementToBuyand
SellonJuly11,1975,whichismadeaparthereofbyreference
WHEREAS,theVENDORandtheVENDEEarenowdecidedtoexecutetheDeedof
AbsoluteSalereferredtointheaforementionedagreementtoBuyandSell
WHEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and the terms
hereunderstated,theVENDORandtheVENDEEhaveagreedasfollows:
1.ForandinconsiderationofthesumofTHREEMILLIONPESOS(P3,000,000.00),
Philippine currency, of which ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
7/23
6/21/2015
P120,000.00 have (sic) already been received by the VENDOR, the VENDOR hereby sells,
transfersandconveysuntotheVENDEEonethousandhectares(1,000has.)ofhisparcelof
land covered by T.C.T. No. T6055 of the Registry of Deeds of Mindoro, delineated as Lot
No.3B1inthesubdivisionsurveyplanxxx
2. The VENDEE shall pay to the VENDOR upon the signing of this agreement, the
sum of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P2,500,000.00) in the
followingmanner:
a) The sum of TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS

(P2,300,000.00) to Home Savings Bank in full payment of the VENDORs mortgaged
obligationtherewith
b)ThesumofTWOHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(P200,000.00)toVENDOR
The remaining balance of the purchase price in the sum of THREE HUNDRED
EIGHTYTHOUSANDPESOS(P380,000.00),lesssuchexpenseswhichmaybeadvancedby
the VENDEE but which are for the account of the VENDOR under Paragraph 6 of the
AgreementtoBuyandSell,shallbepaidbytheVENDEEtotheVENDORuponissuanceof
[26]
titletotheVENDEE.
In turn, PLDT, by Deed of Absolute Sale
[27]
dated May 30, 1977, conveyed the
aforesaid 1,000 hectare portion of the property to its subsidiary, PLDT Agricultural
Corporation(PLDTAC),foraconsiderationofP3,000,000.00,theamountofP2,620,000.00
ofwhichwaspayabletoPLDTuponsigningofsaidDeed,andP380,000.00toCarrascoso
uponissuanceoftitletoPLDTAC.
Inthemeantime,onOctober19,1977,theElDoradoBoardofDirectors,byaspecial
[28]
adoptedandapprovedaResolutionratifyingandconferringtheprosecutionof
meeting,
CivilCaseNo.R226oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofOccidentalMindoro,entitledLauroP.
Levistevs.FernandoCarascoso(sic),etc.initiatedbystockholderMr.LauroP.Leviste.
[29]
[30]
Carrascosoallegedthat:(1)hehad
InhisAnswerwithCompulsoryCounterclaim,
notpaidhisremainingP1,300,000.00obligationundertheMarch23,1972DeedofSaleof
Real Property in view of the extensions of time to comply therewith granted him by El
Dorado(2)thecomplaintsufferedfromfataldefects,therebeingnoshowingofcompliance
withtheconditionprecedentofexhaustionofintracorporateremediesandtherequirement
8/23
6/21/2015
thataderivativesuitinstitutedbyacomplainingstockholderbeverifiedunderoath(3)El
Dorado committed a gross misrepresentation when it warranted that the property was not
beingcultivatedbyanytenanttotakeitoutofthecoverageoftheLandReformCodeand
(4)hesuffereddamagesduetotheprematurefilingofthecomplaintforwhichLauroandEl
Doradomustbeheldliable.
OnFebruary21,1978,theApril6,1977andMay30,1977DeedsofAbsoluteSale
andtherespectiveArticlesofIncorporationofPLDTandPLDTACwereannotatedonTCT
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
42774,
42769
and24772,
respectively.On
No.T6055asEntryNos.24770,
evendate,CarrascososTCTNo.T6055wascancelledandTCTNo.T12480
[35]
covering
the1,000hectareportionofthepropertywasissuedinthenameofPLDTAC.TheMarch15,
1977NoticeofLisPendenswascarriedovertoTCTNo.T12480.
[36]
On July 31, 1978, PLDT and PLDTAC filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention
whichwasgrantedbythetrialcourtbyOrder
[37]
ofSeptember7,1978.
PLDT and PLDTAC thereupon filed their Answer In Intervention with Compulsory
CounterclaimandCrossclaim
[38]
againstCarrascosoonNovember13,1978,allegingthat:
(1)whenCarrascosoexecutedtheApril6,1977DeedofAbsoluteSaleinfavorofPLDT,
PLDTwasnotawareofanylitigationinvolvingthe1,000hectareportionofthepropertyor
ofanyflawinhistitle,(2)PLDTisapurchaseringoodfaithandforvalue(3)whenPLDT
executed the May 30, 1977 Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of PLDTAC, they had no
knowledge of any pending litigation over the property and neither were they aware that a
noticeoflispendenshadbeenannotatedonCarrascosostitleand(4)LauroandElDorado
knewofthesalebyCarrascosotoPLDTandPLDTsactualpossessionofthe1,000hectare
portion of the property since June 30, 1975 and of its exercise of exclusive rights of
[39]
ownershipthereonthroughagriculturaldevelopment.
[40]
ofJanuary28,1991,Branch45oftheSanJoseOccidentalMindoro
ByDecision
Regional Trial Court to which the CFI has been renamed, dismissed the complaint on the
9/23
6/21/2015
groundofprematurity,disposingasfollows,quotedverbatim:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby

rendered:
1. Dismissing the plaintiffs complaint against the defendant on the ground of

prematurity
2.OrderingtheplaintiffstopaytothedefendantthesumofP2,980,000.00asactual
and compensatory damages, as well as the sum of P100,000.00 as and for attorneys fees
provided, however, that the aforesaid amounts must first be set off from the latters unpaid
balancetotheformer
3.Dismissingthedefendantsintervenorscounterclaimandcrossclaimand
4.Orderingtheplaintiffstopayto(sic)thecostsofsuit.
[41]
SOORDERED.
Carrascoso, PLDT and PLDTAC filed their respective appeals to the Court of
Appeals.
ByDecision
[42]
ofJanuary31,1996,theappellatecourtreversedthedecisionofthe
trialcourt,disposingasfollows,quotedverbatim:
WHEREFORE, not being meritorious, PLDTs/PLDTACs appeal is hereby

DISMISSEDandfindingElDoradosappealtobeimpressedwithmerit,WeREVERSEthe
appealedDecisionandrenderthefollowingjudgment:
1.TheDeedofSaleofRealProperty(ExhibitC)isherebyrescindedandTCTNo.T
12480(ExhibitQ)iscancelledwhileTCTNo.T93(ExhibitA),isreactivated.
2.FernandoCarrascoso,Jr.iscommandedto:
2.1.returnthepossessionofthe825[hectare]remainingportionoftheland
to El Dorado Plantation, Inc. without prejudice to the landholdings of
legitimatetenantsthereon
2.2.returnthenetfruitsofthelandtoElDoradoPlantation,Inc.fromMarch
23,1972toJuly11,1975,andofthe825hectareremainingportionminusthe
tenants landholdings, from July 11, 1975 up to its delivery to El Dorado
Plantation,Inc.includingwhateverhemayhavereceivedfromthetenantsif
anybywayofcompensationundertheOperationLandTransferorunderany
otherpertinentagrarianlaw
2.3 Pay El Dorado Plantation, Inc. an attorneys fee of P20,000.00 and

10/23
6/21/2015
litigationexpensesofP30,000.00
2.4 Return to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company/PLDT

AgriculturalCorporationP3,000,000.00pluslegalinterestfromApril6,1977
untilfullypaid
3.PLDTAgriculturalCorporationisorderedtosurrenderthepossessionofthe1000
hectareFarmtoElDoradoPlantation,Inc.
4. El Dorado Plantation, Inc. is directed to return the P500,000.00 to Fernando

Carrascoso,Jr.pluslegalinterestfromMarch23,1972untilfullypaid.Theperformanceof
this obligation will however await the full compliance by Fernando Carrascoso, Jr. of his
obligationtoaccountforanddeliverthenetfruitsofthelandmentionedabovetoElDorado
Plantation,Inc.
5.Tocomplywithparagraph2.2herein,Carrascosoisdirectedtosubmitin(sic)the
courtaquoafullaccountingofthefruitsofthelandduringtheperiodmentionedabovefor
thelattersapproval,afterwhichthenetfruitsshallbedeliveredtoElDorado,Plantation,Inc.
6.ElDoradoPlantation,Inc.shouldinformPhilippineLongDistanceTelephoneCo.
and PLDT Agricultural Corporation in writing within ten (10) days after finality of this
decisionregardingtheexerciseofitsoptionunderArt.448oftheCivilCode.
[43]
SOORDERED.
PLDTandPLDTACfiledonFebruary22,1996,aMotionforReconsideration
[44]
of
theJanuary31,1996CADecision,whileCarrascosowentupthisCourtbyfilingonMarch
25,1996apetitionforreview,
[45]
docketed as G.R. No. 123672, assailing the January 31,
1996CADecisionandseekingthereinstatementoftheJanuary28,1991Decisionofthetrial
court except with respect to its finding that the acquisition of PLDT and PLDTAC of the
1,000hectareportionofthepropertywassubjecttothenoticeoflispendens.
Lauro,inthemeantime,died,hence,onApril16,1996,aMotionforSubstitutionof
[46]
wasfiledprayingthathisheirs,representedbyConradC.Leviste,besubstitutedas
Party
respondents.TheMotionwasgrantedbyResolution
[47]
ofJuly10,1996.
PLDTandPLDTACfiledtheirComment
[48]
toCarrascosospetitionandprayedthat
judgment be rendered finding them to be purchasers in good faith to thus entitle them to
possessionandownershipofthe1,000hectareportionoftheproperty,togetherwithallthe
11/23
6/21/2015
improvementstheybuiltthereon.Reiteratingthattheywerenotpurchaserspendentelite,they
averredthatElDoradoandLaurohadactualknowledgeoftheirinterestsinthesaidportion
of the property prior to the annotation of the notice of lis pendens to thereby render said
noticeineffective.
El Dorado and the heirs of Lauro, both represented by Conrad C. Leviste, also filed
[49]
theirComment
toCarrascosospetition,prayingthatitbedismissedforlackofmeritand
thatparagraph6ofthedispositiveportionoftheJanuary31,1996CADecisionbemodified
toreadasfollows:
6.ElDoradoPlantation,Inc.shouldinformPhilippineLongDistanceTelephoneCo.
and PLDT Agricultural Corporation in writing within ten (10) days after finality of this
decision regarding the exercise of its option under Arts. 449 and 450 of the Civil Code,
without right to indemnity on the part of the latter should the former decide to keep the
[50]
improvementsunderArticle449.
[51]
totheCommentofElDorado
CarrascosofiledonNovember13,1996hisReply
andtheheirsofLauro.
Inthemeantime,astheFebruary22,1996MotionforReconsiderationfiledbyPLDT
andPLDTACoftheCAdecisionhadremainedunresolved,thisCourt,byResolution
[52]
of
June30,2003,directedtheappellatecourttoresolvethesame.
[53]
of July 8, 2004, the CA denied PLDT and PLDTACs Motion for
By Resolution
Reconsiderationforlackofmerit.
[54]
[55]
PLDT
thereuponfiledonSeptember2,2004apetitionforreview
beforethis
Court,docketedasG.R.No.164489,seekingtoreverseandsetasidetheJanuary31,1996
DecisionandtheJuly8,2004Resolutionoftheappellatecourt.Itprayedthatjudgmentbe
renderedupholdingitsright,interestandtitletothe1,000hectareportionofthepropertyand
thatitanditssuccessorsininterestbedeclaredownersandlegalpossessorsthereof,together
12/23
6/21/2015
withallimprovementsbuilt,sownandplantedthereon.
[56]
ofAugust25,2004,G.R.No.164489wasconsolidatedwithG.R.
ByResolution
No.123672.
Inhispetition,CarrascosofaultstheCAasfollows:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND

COMMITTEDAMISTAKEOFLAWINNOTDECLARINGTHATTHEACTIONFOR
RESCISSIONWASPREMATURELYFILED.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND

COMMITTED A MISTAKE OF LAW IN DISREGARDING THE CRUCIAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WARRANTY OF NONTENANCY EXPRESSLY
STIPULATEDINTHECONTRACTOFSALE.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN

[57]
REVERSINGTHEDECISIONOFTHETRIALCOURT.
PLDT,ontheotherhand,faultstheCAasfollows:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING

THATPETITIONERANDPLTAC(sic)TOOKTHEIRRIGHT,INTERESTANDTITLE
TO THE FARM SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS, THE SAME IN
DISREGARD OF THE PROTECTION ACCORDED THEM UNDER ARTICLES 1181
AND1187OFTHENEWCIVILCODE.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING

THATPETITIONERANDPLDTACTOOKTHEIRRIGHT,INTERESTANDTITLETO
THE FARM SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS, THE SAME IN
DISREGARD OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT RESPONDENTS EL DORADO ET
AL.s PRIOR, ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF PETITIONER PLDTS AGREEMENT TO
BUY AND SELL WITH RESPONDENT CARRASCOSO RESULTING IN THE
DELIVERYTO,ANDPOSSESSION,OCCUPATIONANDDEVELOPMENTBY,SAID
13/23
6/21/2015
PETITIONER OF THE FARM, IS EQUIVALENT TO REGISTRATION OF SUCH

RIGHT,INTERESTANDTITLEAND,THEREFORE,APRIORREGISTRATIONNOT
[58]
AFFECTEDBYTHELATERNOTICEOFLISPENDENS.
CarrascosopositsthatintheElDoradoBoardResolutionandtheAffidavitofFeliciano
Leviste, both dated March 23, 1972, no objection was interposed to his mortgaging of the
propertytoanybankprovidedthatthebalanceofthepurchasepriceofthepropertyunderthe
March23,1972DeedofSaleofRealPropertyisrecognized,hence,ElDoradocouldcollect
theunpaidbalanceofP1,300,000.00onlyafterthemortgageinfavorofHSBispaidinfull
andthefilingofthecomplaintforrescissionwithdamagesonMarch15,1977waspremature
ashefullypaidhisobligationtoHSBonlyonApril5,1977asevidencedbytheCancellation
ofMortgage
[59]
signedbyHSBPresidentGregorioB.Licaros.
CarrascosofurtherpositsthatextensionsoftheperiodtopayElDoradowereverbally
accordedhimbyElDoradosdirectorsandofficers,particularlyJoseandAngelLeviste.
Article1191oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Art.1191.Thepowertorescindobligationsisimpliedinreciprocalones,incaseone
oftheobligorsshouldnotcomplywithwhatisincumbentuponhim.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the
obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even
afterhehaschosenfulfillment,ifthelattershouldbecomeimpossible.
Thecourtshalldecreetherescissionclaimed,unlesstherebejustcauseauthorizing
thefixingofaperiod.
This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have
acquiredthething,inaccordancewithArticles1385and1388andtheMortgageLaw.
Reciprocalobligationsarethosewhicharisefromthesamecause,andinwhicheach
party is a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is dependent
[60]
Theyaretobeperformedsimultaneouslysuchthatthe
upontheobligationoftheother.
performanceofoneisconditioneduponthesimultaneousfulfillmentoftheother.
[61]
14/23
6/21/2015
TherightofrescissionofapartytoanobligationunderArticle1191ispredicatedon
abreachoffaithbytheotherpartywhoviolatesthereciprocitybetweenthem.
[62]
Acontractofsaleisareciprocalobligation.Thesellerobligatesitselftotransferthe
ownershipofanddeliveradeterminatething,andthebuyerobligatesitselftopaytherefora
[63]
pricecertaininmoneyoritsequivalent.
Thenonpaymentofthepricebythebuyerisa
resolutory condition which extinguishes the transaction that for a time existed, and
[64]
Such failure to pay the price in the
discharges the obligations created thereunder.
mannerprescribedbythecontractofsaleentitlestheunpaidsellertosueforcollectionorto
[65]
rescindthecontract.
Inthecaseatbar,ElDoradoalreadyperformeditsobligationthroughtheexecutionof
theMarch23,1972DeedofSaleofRealPropertywhicheffectivelytransferredownership
ofthepropertytoCarrascoso.Thelatter,ontheotherhand,failedtoperformhiscorrelative
obligation of paying in full the contract price in the manner and within the period agreed
upon.
ThetermsoftheDeedareclearandunequivocal:Carrascosowastopaythebalance
ofthepurchasepriceofthepropertyamountingtoP1,300,000.00plusinterestthereonatthe
rateof10%perannumwithinaperiodofthree(3)yearsfromthesigningofthecontracton
March23,1972.WhenJoseLevisteinformedhimthatElDoradowasseekingrescissionof
the contract by letter of February 21, 1977, the period given to him within which to fully
satisfyhisobligationhadlonglapsed.
The El Dorado Board Resolution and the Affidavit of Jose Leviste interposing no
objectiontoCarrascososmortgagingofthepropertytoanybankdidnothavetheeffectof
suspendingtheperiodtofullypaythepurchaseprice,asexpresslystipulatedintheDeed,
pendingfullpaymentofanymortgageobligationofCarrascoso.
AstheCAcorrectlyfound:
15/23
6/21/2015
The adverted resolution (Exhibit 2) does not say that the obligation of Carrascoso to
paythebalancewasextended.NeithercanWeseeinitanythingthatcanlogicallyinfersaid
accommodation.
A partially unpaid seller can agree to the buyers mortgaging the subject of the sale
without changing the time fixed for the payment of the balance of the price. The two
agreementsarenotincompatiblewitheachothersuchthatwhenoneistobeimplemented,the
otherhastobesuspended. In the case at bench, there was no impediment for Carrascoso to
paythebalanceofthepriceaftermortgagingtheland.
Also,ElDoradossubordinatingitspreferredclaimorwaivingitssuperiorvendorslien
overthelandinfavorofthemortgageeofsaidpropertyonlymeansthatinasituationwhere
theunpaidpriceoftheLandandloansecuredbythemortgageovertheLandbothbecomedue
and demandable, the mortgagee shall have precedence in going after the Land for the
satisfaction of the loan. Such accommodations do not necessarily imply the modification of
theperiodfixedinthecontractofsaleforthepaymentbyCarrascosoofthebalance.
The palpable purpose of El Dorado in not raising any objection to Carrascosos

mortgaging the land was to eliminate any legal impediment to such a contract. That was so
succinctly expressed in the Affidavit (Exhibit 2A) of President Feleciano (sic) Leviste. El
Doradosyieldingitssuperiorlienoverthelandinfavorofthemortgageewasplainlyintended
toovercomethenaturalreluctanceoflendinginstitutionstoacceptalandwhosepricehasnot
[66]
yetbeenfullypaidascollateralofaloan.
RespectingCarrascososinsistencethathewasgrantedverbalextensionswithinwhich
topaythebalanceofthepurchasepriceofthepropertybyElDoradosdirectorsandofficers
Jose and Angel Leviste, this Court finds the same unsubstantiated by the evidence on
record.
ItbearsrecallingthatJoseLevistewroteCarrascoso,byletterofFebruary21,1977,
callinghisattentiontohisfailuretocomply,despitenumerousrequests,withhisobligation
topaytheamountofP1,300,000.00and10%annualinterestthereon,andadvisinghimthat
we would like to rescind the contract of sale. This letter reiterated the term of payment
agreed upon in the March 23, 1972 Deed of Sale of Real Property and Carrascososs non
compliancetherewith.
Carrascoso,harpingonJoseLevistesMarch10,1977lettertoLauroscounselwherein
he(JoseLeviste)statedthatsomeoftheDirectorsofthecorporationcouldnotseetheirway
clear in complying with the demands of [Lauro] and have failed to reach a consensus to
16/23
6/21/2015
bring the corresponding action for rescission of the contract against Dr. Fernando
Carrascoso, argues that the extensions priorly given to him no doubt lead to the logical
[67]
conclusiononsomeofthedirectorsinabilitytofilesuitagainsthim.
Theargumentisspecious.AstheCAfound,evenifsomeofficersofElDoradowere
initially reluctant to file suit against him, the same should not be interpreted to mean that
thiswasbroughtaboutbyapriorextensionoftheperiodtopaythebalanceofthepurchase
priceofthepropertyassuchreluctancecouldhavebeenduetoamyriadofreasonstotally
unrelatedtotheperiodofpaymentofthebalance.
The bottomline however is, if El Dorado really intended to extend the period of
paymentofthebalancetherewasabsolutelynoreasonwhyitdidnotdoitinwritinginclear
and unmistakable terms. That there is no such writing negates all the speculations of the
courtaquoandpretensionsofCarrascoso.
xxx
TheunalterablefacthereremainsthatonMarch23,1973,withorwithoutdemand,
theobligationofCarrascosotopayP519,933.33becamedue.ThesamewastrueonMarch
23,1974andonMarch23,1975forequalamounts.Sincehedidnotperformhisobligation
under the contract of sale, he, therefore, breached it. Having breached the contract, El
[68]
Doradoscauseofactionforrescissionofthatcontractarose.
Carrascosogoesontoarguethattheappellatecourterredinignoringtheimportofthe
warrantyofnontenancyexpresslystipulatedintheMarch23,1972DeedofSaleofReal
Property.HeallegesthatonMarch8,1972ortwoweekspriortotheexecutionoftheDeed
ofSale,hediscovered,whileinspectingthepropertyonboardahelicopter,thattherewere
peopleandcattleintheareawhenheconfrontedElDoradoaboutit,hewastoldthatthe
occupants were caretakers of cattle who would soon leave
[69]
four months after the
execution of the Deed of Sale, upon inquiry with the Bureau of Lands and the Bureau of
Soils,hewasinformedthattherewerepeopleclaimingtobetenantsincertainportionsof
the property
[70]
and he thus brought the matter again to El Dorado which informed him
[71]
thattheoccupantswerenottenantsbutsquatters.
17/23
6/21/2015
Carrascoso now alleges that as a result of what he concludes to be a breach of the

warranty of nontenancy committed by El Dorado, he incurred expenses in the amount of
P2,890,000.00 for which he should be reimbursed, his unpaid obligation to El Dorado
amountingtoP1,300,000.00tobedeductedtherefrom.
[72]
The breach of an express warranty makes the seller liable for damages.
[73]
The
following requisites must be established in order that there be an express warranty in a

contractofsale:(1)theexpresswarrantymustbeanaffirmationoffactoranypromiseby
the seller relating to the subject matter of the sale (2) the natural tendency of such
affirmation or promise is to induce the buyer to purchase the thing and (3) the buyer
purchasesthethingrelyingonsuchaffirmationorpromisethereon.
[74]
UndertheMarch23,1972DeedofSaleofRealProperty,ElDorado warranted that

thepropertywasnotbeingcultivatedbyanytenantandwas,andtherefore,notcoveredby
theprovisionsoftheLandReformCode.IfCarrascosowouldbecomeliableunderthesaid
law,hewouldbereimbursedforallexpensesanddamagesincurredthereon.
Carrascoso claims to have incurred expenses in relocating persons found on the

propertyfourmonthsaftertheexecutionoftheDeedofSale.Apartfromsuchbareclaim,
therecordsarebereftofanyproofthatthosepersonswereindeedtenants.
[75]
Thefactof
[76]
[77]
tenancy
nothavingbeenpriorlyestablished,
ElDoradomaynotbeheldliablefor
actualdamages.
Carrascosofurtherarguesthatboththetrialandappellatecourtserredinholdingthat
thesaleofthe1,000hectareportionofthepropertytoPLDT,aswellasitssubsequentsale
toPLDTAC,issubjecttotheMarch15,1977NoticeofLisPendens.
PLDTadditionallyarguesthattheCAincorrectlyignoredtheAgreementtoBuyand
SellwhichitenteredintowithCarrascosoonJuly11,1975,positingthattheefficacyofits
purchasefromCarrascoso,uponhisfulfillmentoftheconditionitimposedresultinginits
decision to formalize their transaction and execute the April 6, 1977 Deed of Sale,
18/23
6/21/2015
[78]
retroactedtoJuly11,1975orbeforetheannotationoftheNoticeofLisPendens.
The pertinent portions of the July 11, 1975 Agreement to Buy and Sell between
PLDTandCarrascosoread:
2. That the VENDOR hereby agrees to sell to the VENDEE and the latter hereby
agreestopurchasefromtheformer,1,000hectaresoftheabovedescribedparceloflandas
shown in the map hereto attached as Annex A and made an integral part hereof and as
hereaftertobemoreparticularlydeterminedbythesurveytobeconductedbyCerteza&Co.,
atthepurchasepriceofP3,000.00perhectareorforatotalconsiderationofThreeMillion
Pesos(P3,000,000.00)payableincash.
3. That this contract shall be considered rescinded and cancelled and of no further
forceandeffect,uponfailureoftheVENDORtocleartheaforementioned1,000hectaresof
land of all the occupants therein located, within a period of one (1) year from the date of
executionofthisAgreement.However,theVENDEEshallhavetheoptiontoextendthelife
ofthisAgreementbyanothersixmonths,duringwhichperiodtheVENDEEshalldefinitely
informtheVENDORofitsdecisiononwhetherornottofinalizethedeedofabsolutesale
fortheaforementioned1,000hectaresofland.
The VENDOR agrees that the amount of P500.00 per family within the
aforementioned1,000hectaresoflandshallbespentbyhimforrelocationpurposes,which
amount however shall be advanced by the VENDEE and which shall not exceed the total
amount of P120,000.00, the same to be thereafter deducted by the VENDEE from the
aforementionedpurchasepriceofP3,000,000.00.
TheaforementionedadvanceofP120,000.00shallberemittedbytheVENDEEtothe
VENDORuponthesigningofthisAgreement.
xxx
ItislikewisefurtheragreedthattheVENDEEshallhavetherighttoenterintoany
partoftheaforementioned1,000hectaresatanytimewithintheperiodofthisAgreementfor
purposesofcommencingthedevelopmentofthesame.
xxx
5.Titletotheaforementionedlandshallalsobeclearedofallliensorencumbrances
andifthereareanyunpaidtaxes,existingmortgages,liensandencumbrancesontheland,
thepaymentstobemadebytheVENDEEtotheVENDORofthepurchasepriceshallfirst
beappliedtoliquidatesaidmortgages,liensand/orencumbrances,suchthatsaidpayments
shallbemadedirectlytothecorrespondingcreditors.Thus,thebalanceofthepurchaseprice
will be paid to the VENDOR after the title to the land is cleared of all such liens and
encumbrances.
xxx
7.TheVENDORagreesthat,duringtheexistenceofthisAgreementandwithoutthe
previouswrittenpermissionfromtheVENDEE,heshallnotsell,cede,assignand/ortransfer
19/23
6/21/2015
[79]
theparceloflandsubjectofthisAgreement.
A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real
propertyisinlitigation,andservesasawarningthatonewhoacquiresaninterestoversaid
propertydoessoathisownrisk,orthathegamblesontheresultofthelitigationoversaid
[80]
property.
Onceanoticeoflispendenshasbeendulyregistered,anycancellationorissuanceof
titleoverthelandinvolvedaswellasanysubsequenttransactionaffectingthesamewould
havetobesubjecttotheoutcomeofthesuit.Inotherwords,apurchaserwhobuysregistered
land with full notice of the fact that it is in litigation between the vendor and a third party
stands in the shoes of his vendor and his title is subject to the incidents and result of the
pendinglitigation.
[81]
xxxNoticeoflispendenshasbeenconceivedand,moreoftenthannot,availedof,to
protect the real rights of the registrant while the case involving such rights is pending
resolution or decision. With the notice of lis pendens duly recorded, and while it remains
uncancelled,theregistrantcouldrestsecurethathewouldnotlosethepropertyoranypartof
itduringthelitigation.
Thefilingofanoticeoflispendensineffect(1)keepsthesubjectmatteroflitigation
withinthepowerofthecourtuntiltheentryofthefinaljudgmentsoastopreventthedefeatof
the latter by successive alienations and (2) binds a purchaser of the land subject of the
litigationtothejudgmentordecreethatwillbepromulgatedthereonwhethersuchapurchaser
isabonafidepurchaserornotbut(3)doesnotcreateanonexistentrightorlien.
Thedoctrineoflispendensisfoundeduponreasonofpublicpolicyandnecessity,the
purposeofwhichistokeepthesubjectmatterofthelitigationwithinthepowerofthecourt
until the judgment or decree shall have been entered otherwise by successive alienations
pending the litigation, its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of
execution. The doctrine of lis pendens is based on considerations of public policy and
convenience, which forbid a litigant to give rights to others, pending the litigation, so as to
affect the proceedings of the court then progressing to enforce those rights, the rule being
necessary to the administration of justice in order that decisions in pending suits may be
bindingandmaybegivenfulleffect,bykeepingthesubjectmatterincontroversywithinthe
power of the court until final adjudication, that there may be an end to litigation, and to
preservethepropertythatthepurposeofthependingsuitmaynotbedefeatedbysuccessive
[82]
alienationsandtransfersoftitle.
(Italicsintheoriginal)
20/23
6/21/2015
InrulingagainstPLDTandPLDTAC,theappellatecourtheld:
PLDTandPLDTACarguethatinrealitytheFarmwasboughtbytheformeronJuly
11, 1975 when Carrascoso and it entered into the Agreement to Buy and Sell (Exhibit 15).
How can an agreement to buy and sell which is a preparatory contract be the same as a
contractofsalewhichisaprincipalcontract?IfPLDTscontentioniscorrectthatitboughtthe
Farm on July 11, 1975, why did it buy the same property again on April 6, 1977? There is
simplynowayPLDTandPLDTACcanextricatethemselvesfromtheeffectsofsaidNoticeof
LisPendens.ItisadmittedthatPLDTtookpossessionoftheFarmonJuly11,1975afterthe
executionoftheAgreementtoBuyandSellbutitdidsonotasownerbutasprospectivebuyer
oftheproperty.Asprospectivebuyerwhichhadactualon(sic)constructivenoticeofthelis
pendens,whydiditpursueandgothroughwiththesaleifithadnotbeenwillingtogamble
[83]
withtheresultofthiscase?
Further,initsJuly8,2004Resolution,theCAheld:
PLDTcannotshielditselffromthenoticeoflispendensbecauseallthatithadatthe
time of its inscription was an Agreement to Buy and Sell with CARRASCOSO, which in
effectisamerecontracttosellthatdidnotpasstoittheownershipoftheproperty.
xxx
Ownership was retained by CARRASCOSO which EL DORADO may very well recover
throughitsactionforrescission.
xxx
PLDTs possession at the time the notice of lis pendens was registered not being a legal
possessionbasedonownershipbutamerepossessioninfactandtheAgreementtoBuyand
Sellunderwhichitsupposedlytookpossessionnotbeingregistered,itisnotprotectedfrom
anadverse judgment that may be renderedinthecasesubject ofthe notice oflis pendens.
[84]
Inacontractofsale,thetitlepassestothevendeeuponthedeliveryofthethingsold
whereasinacontracttosell,ownershipisnottransferredupondeliveryofthepropertybut
uponfullpaymentofthepurchaseprice.
[85]
Intheformer,thevendorhaslostandcannot
recover ownership until and unless the contract is resolved or rescinded whereas in the
latter,titleisretainedbythevendoruntilthefullpaymentoftheprice,suchpaymentbeing
a positive suspensive condition and failure of which is not a breach but an event that
preventstheobligationofthevendortoconveytitlefrombecomingeffective.
[86]
21/23
6/21/2015
PLDT argues that the July 11, 1975 Agreement to Buy and Sell is a conditional
[87]
[88]
and 1187
of the
contract of sale, thus calling for the application of Articles 1181

[89]
CivilCodeasheldinCoronelv.CourtofAppeals.
TheCourtisnotpersuaded.
For in a conditional contract of sale, if the suspensive condition is fulfilled, the

contractofsaleistherebyperfected,suchthatiftherehadalreadybeenpreviousdeliveryof
thepropertysubjectofthesaletothebuyer,ownershiptheretoautomaticallytransferstothe
buyerbyoperationoflawwithoutanyfurtheracthavingtobeperformedbytheseller.
[90]
Whereasinacontracttosell,uponfulfillmentofthesuspensivecondition,ownershipwill
not automatically transfer to the buyer although the property may have been previously
deliveredtohim.Theprospectivesellerstillhastoconveytitletotheprospectivebuyerby
[91]
enteringintoacontractofabsolutesale.
[92]
Aperusalofthecontract
advertedtoinCoronelrevealsmarkeddifferencesfrom
theAgreementtoBuyandSellinthecaseatbar.IntheCoronelcontract,therewasaclear
intentonthepartofthethereinpetitionerssellerstotransfertitletothethereinrespondent
buyer.IntheJuly11,1975AgreementtoBuyandSell,PLDTstillhadtodefinitelyinform
Carrascoso of its decision on whether or not to finalize the deed of absolute sale for the
1,000hectareportionoftheproperty,suchthatintheApril6,1977DeedofAbsoluteSale
subsequentlyexecuted,thepartiesdeclaredthattheyarenowdecidedtoexecutesuchdeed,
indicating that the Agreement to Buy and Sell was, as the appellate court held, merely a
preparatory contract in the nature of a contract to sell. In fact, the parties even had to
stipulateinthesaidAgreementtoBuyandSellthatCarrascoso,duringtheexistenceofthe
Agreement, shall not sell, cede, assign and/or transfer the parcel of land, which provision
thisCourthasheldtobeatypicalcharacteristicofacontracttosell.
[93]
Beingacontracttosell,whatwasvestedbytheJuly11,1975AgreementtoBuyand
22/23
6/21/2015
SelltoPLDTwasmerelythebeneficialtitletothe1,000hectareportionoftheproperty.
The right of Daniel Jovellanos to the property under the contract [to sell] with
Philamlifewasmerelyaninchoateandexpectantrightwhichwouldripenintoavestedright
onlyupon his acquisition of ownership which, as aforestated, was contingent upon his full
payment of the rentals and compliance with all his contractual obligations thereunder. A
vested right is an immediate fixed right of present and future enjoyment. It is to be
distinguished from a right that is expectant or contingent. It is a right which is fixed,
unalterable,absolute,completeandunconditionaltotheexerciseofwhichnoobstacleexists,
and which is perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. Thus, for a property
righttobevested,theremustbeatransitionfromthepotentialorcontingenttotheactual,
and the proprietary interest must have attached to a thing it must have become fixed or
[94]
establishedandisnolongeropentodoubtorcontroversy.
Inthecaseatbar,theJuly11,1975AgreementtoBuyandSellwasnotregistered,
whichactofregistrationis
23/23

Art 448 Carrascoso JR Vs CA - 123672 - December 14, 2005 - J

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Art 448 Carrascoso JR Vs CA - 123672 - December 14, 2005 - J

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

6/21/2015

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, LAURO LEVISTE, as Director and

On February 15, 1972, at a special meeting of El Dorados Board of Directors, a

(a)One(1)yearfromthedateofthesigning of this agreement, the VENDEE shall

RESOLVED, FINALLY, that in case of any mortgage on the property, the

Lauro Leviste (Lauro), a stockholder and member of the Board of Directors of El

a) The sum of TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS

In turn, PLDT, by Deed of Absolute Sale

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby

1. Dismissing the plaintiffs complaint against the defendant on the ground of

WHEREFORE, not being meritorious, PLDTs/PLDTACs appeal is hereby

2.3 Pay El Dorado Plantation, Inc. an attorneys fee of P20,000.00 and

2.4 Return to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company/PLDT

4. El Dorado Plantation, Inc. is directed to return the P500,000.00 to Fernando

THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND

THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND

THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING

PETITIONER OF THE FARM, IS EQUIVALENT TO REGISTRATION OF SUCH

discharges the obligations created thereunder.

The palpable purpose of El Dorado in not raising any objection to Carrascosos

Carrascoso now alleges that as a result of what he concludes to be a breach of the

following requisites must be established in order that there be an express warranty in a

UndertheMarch23,1972DeedofSaleofRealProperty,ElDorado warranted that

Carrascoso claims to have incurred expenses in relocating persons found on the

contract of sale, thus calling for the application of Articles 1181

For in a conditional contract of sale, if the suspensive condition is fulfilled, the

Potrebbero piacerti anche