delos reyes vs ca agency

8/10/2019 Delos Reyes vs CA AGENCY

1/8

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129103. September 3, 1999]

CLAUDIO DELOS REYES a! LYDIA DELOS REYES,petitioners, vs."#E

#ON. COUR" O$ A%%EALS a! DALUYONG GA&RIEL, '(b't)t(te!

b* +)' +e)r', ame*- ARIA LUISA G. ES"E&AN, ARIA RI"A G.

&AR"OLOE / RENA"O GA&RIEL, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

GONAGAREYES,J.-

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners seek to set aside the Decision[1]of the

Court of Appeals[2]in CA!"R" CV No" #$%&& reversin' the consolidated Decision[3]of the

Re'ional Trial Court, (ranch I, Ta'u), Davao del Norte in Civil Case Nos" *#*$ and *#*+"

This petition was ori'inall filed with the Court on -une .$, .%%+" In a Resolution /of the

Third Division0 dated Octo1er .#, .%%+,[4]the petition was denied for failure to show that the

respondent Court of Appeals co))itted an reversi1le error" However, the )otion for

reconsideration filed 1 petitioners on Nove)1er .2, .%%+ was 'ranted 1 the Court in itsResolution dated Dece)1er 3#, .%%+[5]and the petition was reinstated"

The antecedents are4

." 5rivate respondent Daluon' !a1riel, /who died on Septe)1er .2 .%%& and was su1stituted

herein 1 his children R6NATO !A(RI67, 8ARIA 79ISA (" 6ST6(AN and 8ARIA

RITA !" (ARTO7O860 was the re'istered owner under Transfer Certificate of Title No" T

.+%#* of the Re'istr of Deeds of Ta'u), Davao del Norte of a &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of

land situated in (arrio 8a'u'po, Ta'u), Davao del Norte, [6]havin' ac:uired the sa)e 1

hereditar succession so)eti)e in .%+2 as one of the children and heirs of the late 8a;i)o!a1riel"

*" (ecause Daluon' !a1riel to'ether with his fa)il was then residin' in 8andaluon',

8etro 8anila, his sister 8aria Rita !a1riel de Re acted as ad)inistratri; of the said parcel

of land and took char'e of collectin' the rentals for those portions which have1een76AS6D to certain tenants& renewa1le

upon a'ree)ent of the parties at the rental rate of Two Hundred /5*33"330 pesos, per )onth"[7]

#" So)eti)e in .%>& Daluon' !a1riel sent his son Renato !a1riel to Ta'u) reportedl with

instructions to take over fro) 8aria Rita !" de Re as ad)inistrator of the said parcel of

land" 9pon a'ree)ent of the parties, the -une *., .%>& Contract of 7ease coverin' the one
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn1


2/8

hundred seventsi; s:uare )eter portion of land was novated and replaced 1 a Contract of

7ease e;ecuted on Septe)1er *$, .%>& 1 and 1etween R6NATO !A(RI67 as7essor and 7dia de los Rees as 7essee" [8]The ter) of the lease was chan'ed to si;

/$0 ears fro) and after -une .&, .%>& or up to -une .&, .%%.? receipt of the pa)entin advance of the total rental a)ount of @ourteen Thousand @our Hundred

/5.2,233"330 5esos was acknowled'ed 1 7essor Renato !a1riel"2" So)eti)e in Nove)1er .%>+, durin' the effectivit of the lease contract, 7dia de los Rees

ver1all a'reed to 1u two hundred fift /*&30 s:uare )eters /includin' the .+$ s:uare

)eters leased 1 her0, and thereafter an additional fift /&30 s:uare )eters or a total of three

hundred /#330 s:uare )eters of Daluon' !a1riels re'istered propert, at three hundredpesos /5#33"330 per s:uare )eter or for a total a)ount of5%3,333"33" Receipt of the

pa)ent of the purchase price )ade in several install)ents 1 7dia de los Rees was

acknowled'ed 1 Renato !a1riel as evidenced 1 official receipts issued and si'ned 1 hi)

dated Nove)1er *&, .%>+, Nove)1er *$,.%>+, -anuar >, .%>>, @e1ruar .3, .%>>,

@e1ruar .&, .%>> and @e1ruar *%, .%>> all 1earin' the76TT6R H6AD B!a1riel

(uildin'" No deed of sale was e;ecuted coverin' the transaction" 5urchaser 7dia de los

Rees however proceeded with the construction of a twostore co))ercial 1uildin' on the

said #33 s:uare )eter lot after o1tainin' a 1uildin' per)it fro) the 6n'ineers Office inTa'u)"

&" Actin' on the infor)ation 'iven 1 his dau'hter 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an upon the

latters return fro) a trip to Ta'u) that spouses Claudio and 7dia de los Rees were

constructin' a twostore 1uildin' on a portion of his land, Daluon' !a1riel, throu'h his

lawer, sent a letter on Au'ust #3, .%>% to the De los Rees couple de)andin' that the

cease and desist fro) continuin' with their construction and to i))ediatel vacate the

pre)ises, assertin' that the construction was unauthoried and that their occupanc of the

su1Eect portion was not covered 1 an 76AS6 A!R6686NT "

$" On Septe)1er *3, .%>%, spouses Claudio and 7dia de los Rees throu'h counsel sent their

letter repl e;plainin' that the De los Reeses are the innocent part who entered into

the 76AS6 A!R6686NT and su1se:uent sale of su1Eect portion of land in 'ood faith andupon the assurance )ade 1 the for)er ad)inistratri;, 8aria Rita !" Re, her nephew Ton

Re, 8rs" @e S" !a1riel and 8r" Daluon' !a1riel hi)self that Renato !a1riel is the new

ad)inistrator authoried to enter into such a'ree)ents involvin' the su1Eect propert"

+" Dissatisfied with the e;planation, Daluon' !a1riel co))enced an action on Nove)1er .2,

.%>% a'ainst spouses Claudio and 7dia de los Rees for the recover of the su1Eect portion

of land 1efore the Re'ional Trial Court, (ranch ., Ta'u), Davao del Norte docketed as Civil

Case No" *#*$" In his co)plaint Daluon' )aintained that his son Renato was never 'iven

the authorit to 76AS6 nor to sell an portion of his land as his instruction to hi)

/Renato0 was )erel to collect rentals"

>" Spouses Claudio and 7dia delos Rees countered that the sale to the) of the su1Eect portion

of land 1 Renato !a1riel was with the consent and knowled'e of Daluon', his wife @e andtheir other children, and filed 1efore the sa)e trial court a co)plaint for specific

perfor)ance, docketed as Civil Case No" *#*% a'ainst Daluon' and his children, na)el

Renato !a1riel, 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !a1riel (artolo)e prain' that

the defendants therein 1e ordered to e;ecute the necessar deed of conveance and other

pertinent docu)ents for the transfer of the #33 s:uare )eter portion the previousl 1ou'ht

fro) Renato"
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm


3/8


4/8

In their Co))ent, private respondents restated their ar'u)ents to support the appellate

courts conclusion that the alle'ed sale )ade 1 Renato !a1riel to the petitioners in .%>+

without authorit fro) Daluon' !a1riel is not valid and therefore unenforcea1le"

5etitioners su1)itted their Repl to the Co))ent contendin' that the assailed decision of

the Court of Appeals is Bpatentl fallacious in that while petitioners pa)ent to Renato !a1riel

of the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 as purchase price of the three hundred /#330 s:uare )eter portion ofsu1Eect land was neither denied nor controverted, the appellate courts decision failed to order

private respondent Renato !a1riel to refund or rei)1urse petitioners the said a)ount to'ether

with the value of the i)prove)ents and the twostore co))ercial 1uildin' which petitioners

constructed thereon in violation of Articles *.2*, *.2# and *.&2 of the Civil Code and the ti)ehonored principle of su1stantial Eustice and e:uit"

5etitioners alle'e further that even if Renato !a1riel was not /et0 the owner of the su1Eect

portion of land when he sold the sa)e to petitioners, after the death of his parents Daluon' and@e !a1riel, he, as heir, inherited and succeeded to the ownership of said portion of land 1

operation of law there1 renderin' valid and effective the sale he e;ecuted in favor of

petitioners" 5etitioners also )aintain that on the 1asis of the facts proven and ad)itted durin'the trial, Daluon' !a1riel appears to have not onl authoried his son Renato !a1riel to sell the

su1Eect portion of land 1ut also ratified the transaction 1 his conte)poraneous conduct and

actuations shown durin' his lifeti)e"

In their respective )e)orandu) su1)itted 1 petitioners and private respondents,su1stantiall the sa)e ar'u)ents$+2 entered in the Re'istr of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn12


5/8

Deeds of Davao del Norte on -anuar .3, .%%." [13]In short, Renato !a1riel cannot conve that

which does not 1elon' to hi)"[14]

6ssentiall, the issue here is whether or not the ver1al a'ree)ent which petitioners enteredinto with private respondent Renato !a1riel in .%>+ involvin' the sale of the three hundred /#330

s:uare )eter portion of land re'istered in the na)e of Renatos late father Daluon' !a1riel is a

valid and enforcea1le contract of sale of real propert"

( law[15]a contract of sale is perfected at the )o)ent there is a )eetin' of )inds upon the

thin' which is the o1Eect of the contract and upon the price" It is a consensual contract which isperfected 1 )ere consent" [16]Once perfected, the contract is 'enerall 1indin' in whatever for)

/i"e" written or oral0 it )a have 1een entered into [17]provided the three /#0 essential re:uisites for

its validit prescri1ed under Article .#.>supra, are present" @ore)ost of these re:uisites is theconsent and the capacit to 'ive consent of the parties to the contract" The le'al capacit of the

parties is an essential ele)ent for the e;istence of the contract 1ecause it is an indispensa1le

condition for the e;istence of consent"[18]There is no effective consent in law without the capacit

to 'ive such consent" In other words, le'al consent presupposes capacit"[19]Thus, there is said to

1e no consent, and conse:uentl, no contract when the a'ree)ent is entered into 1 one in 1ehalfof another who has never 'iven hi) authoriation therefor[20]unless he has 1 law a ri'ht to

represent the latter"[21]It has also 1een held that if the vendor is not the owner of the propert at

the ti)e of the sale, the sale is null and void, [22]1ecause a person can sell onl what he owns or is

authoried to sell"[23]One e;ception is when a contract entered into in 1ehalf of another who has

not authoried it, su1se:uentl confir)ed or ratified the sa)e in which case, the transaction

1eco)es valid and 1indin' a'ainst hi) and he is estopped to :uestion its le'alit"[24]

The trial court held that the oral contract of sale was valid and enforcea1le statin' that while

it is true that at the ti)e of the sale, Renato !a1riel was not the owner and that it was Daluon'

!a1riel who was the re'istered owner of the su1Eect propert, Daluon' !a1riel knew a1out thetransaction and tacitl authoried his son Renato !a1riel /who) he earlier desi'nated as

ad)inistrator of his &,3.3 s:uare )eter re'istered propert0 to enter into it" The receipt 1Renato !a1riel of the 5%3,333"33 paid 1 petitioner spouses as purchase price of su1Eect portion

of land[25]and also of the a)ount of 5.2,233"33 paid 1 petitioners as advance rental fee for

the 76AS6 of one hundred sevent si; /.+$0 s:uare )eters thereof, in accordance with thethen still e;istin' Contract of 7ease /6;h" .30 entered into 1 Renato !a1riel as 7essor and

7dia delos Rees as lessee on Septe)1er *$ .%>& which was to e;pire onl on -une .&, .%%.

was also known not onl to Daluon' !a1riel 1ut also to his late wife @e Salaar !a1riel and histwo other children, 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !a1riel (artolo)e" And even

assu)in' that Daluon' !a1riel did not e;pressl authorie Renato !a1riel to enter into such

contract of sale with petitioners in .%>>, he /Daluon' !a1riel0 confir)ed& I" 7ope St", 8andaluon' Cit 1ut was deli1eratel

prevented /1 Daluon'0 fro) testifin' or sheddin' li'ht on the transactions involved in thetwo cases then at 1ar" Hence, the decision of the trial court ordered Daluon' !a1riel, Renato

!a1riel, 8aria 7uisa !" 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !" (artolo)e to e;ecute a Deed of Conveance

and other necessar docu)ents in favor of petitioners coverin' su1Eect area of #33 s:uare )eters
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn26


6/8

to 1e taken fro) the &,3.3 s:uare )eters covered 1 TCT No" T.+%#* under the na)e of

Daluon' !a1riel which portion is actuall occupied 1 petitioners Delos Rees couple"

The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, ruled that the contract of sale cannot 1e upheld,)ainl 1ecause Renato !a1riel, as vendor, did not have the le'al capacit to enter and to 'ive

consent to the a'ree)ent, he, 1ein' neither the authoried a'ent /of Daluon' !a1riel0 nor the

owner of the propert su1Eect of the sale" It was pointed out that three theories were advanced 1appellees to prove that the transaction the had with Renato concernin' the sale of the portion in

:uestion was re'ular, valid and enforcea1le" @irst theor is that Renato acted as the dul

authoried representative or a'ent of Daluon'" Second, that the portion in dispute was alread

'iven to Renato as his share, hence, he validl sold the sa)e to appellees" And third, that theportion 1ein' liti'ated was part of Renatos inheritance fro) the estate of her deceased )other

which he validl disposed of to appellees" These reasons, accordin' to the appellate court,

cannot 'o to'ether, or even co)ple)ent each other, to esta1lish the re'ularit, validit orenforcea1ilit of the sale )ade 1 Renato" It could not 1e possi1le for Renato to have acted in

three different capacities as a'ent, owner, and heir when he dealt with appellees, as the le'al

conse:uences for each situation would 1e different" Thus, it was incu)1ent upon appellees to

e;plain what actuall convinced the) to 1u the land fro) Renato, and 1ecause the failed to doso, no proper 1asis can 1e found to uphold the alle'ed sale )ade 1 Renato as it cannot 1e

deter)ined with certaint in what capacit Renato acted" And even assu)in' that he /Renato0alread succeeded to whatever hereditar ri'ht or participation he )a have over the estate of his

father, he is still considered a coowner with his two sisters of the su1Eect propert and that prior

to its partition, Renato cannot validl sell or alienate a specific or deter)inate part of the

propert owned in co))on" (esides, the entire lot covered 1 TCT No" T.+%#* wassu1se:uentl donated 1 Daluon' !a1riel to his dau'hter 8arie Rita !" (artolo)e on Octo1er

., .%%3 and is now covered 1 TCT No" T$>$+2 in her na)e" [27]Hence, the appellate courts

decision ordered appellees /petitioners0 spouses Claudio and 7dia delos Rees to i))ediatel

vacate the #33 s:uare )eter portion of that land covered 1 TCT No" T.+%#* which the are

occupin' and to turnover possession thereof to the appellants, private respondents herein"

As a 'eneral rule, the findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals are 1indin' upon this Court"[28]Fhen such findin's of fact are the sa)e and confir)ator of those of the trial court, the are

final and conclusive and )a not 1e reviewed on appeal, [29]In such cases, the authorit of the

Supre)e Court is confined to correctin' errors of law, if an, that )i'ht have 1een co))itted

1elow"[30]In the instant case, it is noted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals are not at

variance in their factual findin's that so)eti)e in .%>>, an oral contract of sale was entered into

1 Renato !a1riel, /as vendor0 with petitioners De los Rees couple /as vendees0 involvin' a

#33 s:uare )eter portion of a &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of land located in (arrio 8a'u'po,Ta'u), Davao del Norte owned and re'istered under Transfer Certificate of Title No" T.+%#* in

the na)e of Daluon' !a1riel, father of Renato" Thus, this Court is tasked to review anddeter)ine whether or not respondent Court of Appeals co))itted an error of law [31]in its le'al

conclusion that at the ti)e the parties entered into said oral a'ree)ent of sale, Renato !a1riel as

the purported vendor, did not have the le'al capacit to enter and


7/8

connection it )ust 1e pointed out that pursuant to Article .>+2 of the Civil Code, when the sale

of a piece of land or an interest therein is throu'h an a'ent, the authorit of the latter shall 1e in

writin'? otherwise the sale shall 1e void" In other words, for want of capacit /to 'ive consent0on the part of Renato !a1riel, the oral contract of sale lacks one of the essential re:uisites for its

validit prescri1ed under Article .#.>,supraand is therefore null and void ab initio"

5etitioners contention that althou'h at the ti)e of the alle'ed sale, Renato !a1riel was notet the owner of the su1Eect portion of land, after the death of Daluon' !a1riel, he /Renato0

1eca)e the owner and ac:uired title thereto 1 wa of hereditar succession which title passed

1 operation of law to petitioners pursuant to Article .2#2 of the Civil Code [32]is not

tena1le" Records show that on Octo1er ., .%%3 Daluon' !a1riel donated the entire lot covered

1 TCT No" T.+%#* to his dau'hter 8aria Rita !" (artolo)e and the propert is now covered1 TCT No" T$>$+2 in her na)e" This )eans that when Daluon' !a1riel died on Septe)1er

.2, .%%&, he was no lon'er the owner of the su1Eect propert" Accordin'l, Renato !a1riel never

ac:uired ownership or title over an portion of said propert as one of the heirs of Daluon'!a1riel"

However, respondent Court of Appeals failed to consider the undisputed fact pointed out 1the trial court that petitioners had alread perfor)ed their o1li'ation under su1Eect oral contract

of sale, i"e" co)pletin' their pa)ent of 5%3,333"33 representin' the purchase price of the #33s:uare )eter portion of land" As was held in BNool vs" Court of Appeals[33]if a void contract

has 1een perfor)ed, the restoration of what has 1een 'iven is in order" The relationship 1etween

parties in an contract even if su1se:uentl voided )ust alwas 1e characteried and punctuated

1 'ood faith and fair dealin'"[34]Hence, for the sake of Eustice and e:uit, and in consonance

with the salutar principle of nonenrich)ent at anothers e;pense,[35]private respondent Renato

!a1riel, should 1e ordered to refund to petitioners the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 which the have

paid to and receipt of which was dul acknowled'ed 1 hi)" It is the polic of the Court to

strive to settle the entire controvers in a sin'le proceedin' leavin' no root or 1ranch to 1ear the

seeds of future liti'ation especiall where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute 1asedon the records 1efore it and where the ends of Eustice would not likel 1e su1served 1 the

re)and thereof, to the lower Court" The Supre)e Court is clothed with a)ple authorit toreview )atters, even those not raised on appeal if it finds that their consideration is necessar in

arrivin' at a Eust disposition of the case"[36]

However, petitioners clai) for the refund to the) of 5.,333,333"33 representin' the alle'ed

value and cost of the twostore co))ercial 1uildin' the constructed on su1Eect portion of land

cannot 1e favora1l considered as no sufficient evidence was adduced to prove and esta1lish thesa)e"

#ERE$ORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April #3, .%%+ in CA!"R" CV

No" #$%&& is here1 A@@IR86D in so far as it declared the oral contract of sale entered into 1Renato !a1riel of portion of the &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of land re'istered in the na)e ofDaluon' !a1riel in favor of petitioners, null and void" Renato !a1riel is here1 ordered to

refund to petitioners the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 which was 'iven in pa)ent for su1Eect land" No

pronounce)ent as to costs"

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, andPurisima, JJ., concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103.htm#_edn36


8/8

Vitug, J.,please see concurrin' opinion.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103_vitug.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/129103_vitug.htm

delos reyes vs ca agency

Documents