GESTIÓN DE SATISFACCIÓN DE GRUPOS DE INTERÉS

ANTHONY ORDUŇA, DENNIS ORDUŇA, and ANTONITA ORDUŇA v. EDUARDO J. FUENTEBELLA, MARCOS S. CID, BENJAMIN F. CID, BERNARD G. BANTA, and ARMANDO GABRIEL, JR.

G.R. No. 176841, June 29, 2010, Velasco, Jr., J.

The Statute of Frauds expressed in Article 1403, par. 2 of the Civil Code applies only to executory contracts. The legal consequence of non-compliance with the Statute does not come into play where the contract in question is completed, executed or partially consummated.

Facts:

Gabriel, Sr. sold the subject lot to petitioner Antonita Orduňa, payable in installment, but no formal deed was executed to document the sale. The installments were paid to Gabriel, Sr. and later to Gabriel, Jr. after the former’s death. Improvements were thereafter made by petitioner. Without the knowledge of petitioners, Gabriel, Jr. sold the property to Banta, who then sold the same to the Cids and ultimately it was ceded to respondent Fuentebella. Petitioner, after being demanded by Fuentebella to vacate the disputed land, then filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Title, Reconveyance with damages with a prayer to acquire ownership over the subject lot upon payment of their remaining balance. The RTC dismissed the petition because the verbal sale was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The CA affirmed this ruling.

31 | P a g e

Issue:

Whether or not the sale of the subject lot by Gabriel, Jr. to Antonita is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Ruling:

No. The Statute of Frauds expressed in Article 1403, par. 2 of the Civil Code applies only to executory contracts, i.e. those where no performance has yet been made. Stated a bit differently, the legal consequence of non-compliance with the Statute does not come into play where the contract in question is completed, executed or partially consummated. The Statute of Frauds, in context, provides that a contract for the sale of real property or of an interest therein shall be unenforceable unless the sale or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party or his agent. However, where the verbal contract of sale has been partially executed through the partial payments made by one party duly received by the vendor, as in the present case, the contract is taken out of the scope of the Statute.

A contract that infringes the Statute of Frauds is ratified by the acceptance of benefits under the contract. Evidently, Gabriel, Jr., as his father earlier, had benefited from the partial payments made by the petitioners. Thus, neither Gabriel Jr. nor the other respondents’ successive purchasers of subject lot could plausibly set up the Statute of Frauds to thwart petitioners’ efforts towards establishing their lawful right over the subject lot and removing any cloud in their title. As it were, petitioners need only to pay the outstanding balance of the purchase price and that would complete the execution of the oral sale.

TIRSO MONTEROSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. G.R. No. 105608, April 30, 2008, J. Velasco, Jr.

SOFIA PENDEJITO VDA. DE MONTEROSO, et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TIRSO MONTEROSO G.R. No. 113199, April 30, 2008, J. Velasco, Jr.

The fact that only one of the subject lots was used as collateral for a P 600 loan, which the Cagampang spouses took out, does not weaken the conclusion on the simulated character of the contracts, as logically drawn from the twin circumstances adverted to.

Facts:

Don Fabian Monteroso, Sr. married twice and sired eight (8) children, four (4) from each union. In his first marriage with Soledad Doldol, Soledad, Reygula, Benjamin and Tirso were born. After Doldol died, his second marriage with Sofia Pendejito bore Florenda, Reynato, Alberto, and Fabian, Jr. During the early part of his second marriage, Don Fabian filed before the CFI of Agusan an intestate proceeding for the estate of his deceased first wife to obviate any dispute over the inheritance. The project for partition was approved and the intestate estate of Doldol was partitioned and distributed to her four (4) children in equal shares.

In the meantime, the children of Don Fabian from his first marriage married accordingly, Soledad to Atty. Perfecto Cagampang, Sr., Reygula to Jose Bayan, Benjamin to Mauricia Nakila; and Tirso to Melecia Tana. Benjamin died, leaving behind four (4) children and his wife. A year and a half later, Don Fabian also passed away. This brings us to the objects of the squabble: the conjugal patrimonies of Don Fabian from his two (2) successive marriages. The children of Benjamin filed with the RTC a complaint for recovery of property with damages against their uncle, Tirso.

32 | P a g e As the heirs of Benjamin alleged in their complaint, Tirso was entrusted with ¼ of the parcel of land part of the share from the estate of Doldol. However, their uncle refused to surrender and deliver the same when demanded upon the reaching of their majority age. Tirso, in response, alleged that the said portion was never entrusted to him. It was in the possession of his sister, Soledad, who was not entitled to any share in the said parcel, having previously opted to exchange hers for another parcel of land. On the other hand, filed a complaint for partition and damages with receivership against his stepmother Pendejito and all his step-siblings, which involves 12 parcels of land.

In the latter civil case, Tirso alleged the following: 1) the aforementioned 12 parcels of land belong to the conjugal partnerships of the first and second marriages contracted by Don Fabian; (2) SP No. 309, which purportedly judicially settled the intestate estate of his mother, is null and void for the reason that the project of partition failed to comprehend the entire estate of the decedent as some parcels were excluded, thereby depriving Tirso of his 1/4 share or legitime; and (3) the parcels acquired during the second marriage of Don Fabian are not paraphernal properties of Sofia Pendejito Vda. de Monteroso. The said civil cases were consolidated and the RTC, after fifteen (15) years, decided in Tirso’s favor. However, the subsequent ruling of the RTC ordered Tirso and Soledad to deliver the specific properties to the respective heirs of Benjamin. On appeal, the CA declared the partition valid and dismissed the opposition of the Cagampang spouses and Reygulo Monteroso- Bayan, who all claimed ownership over some of the parcels of land on the strength of the deeds of conveyance executed in their favor. On the alleged donation to Reygula, the CA likewise agreed with the RTC’s ruling on the nullity thereof.

Issue:

Whether or not the deeds of sale are sham, fictitious and simulated.

Ruling:

Yes. The antecedent facts, as borne by the records, strongly indicate the simulated character of the sale covered by the deeds of absolute sale. As found below, Don Fabian never relinquished possession of the covered properties during his lifetime. The first deed was executed on May 1, 1939; the second on May 10, 1939; and the third on September 24, 1939. Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang, however, only took possession of the subject properties after Don Fabian’s death in 1948 or nine (9) years after contract execution. The gap, unexplained as it were, makes for a strong case that the parties to the sale never intended to be bound thereby.

The more telling circumstance, however, is the fact that Perfecto had judicially sought the amendment of the corresponding TCTs so that only the name of his wife, Soledad, shall be inscribed as real party-in-interest on the Memorandum of Encumbrances at the back portion of the titles. If only to stress the point, when the deeds were executed in 1939, Soledad and Perfecto Cagampang, the notarizing officer, were already married. A property acquired during the existence of a marriage is presumed conjugal. This postulate notwithstanding, Perfecto Cagampang went out of his way to make it appear that the subject parcels of land were effectively his wife’s paraphernal properties. No explanation was given for this unusual move.

Hence, the Court agrees that the unexplained situations described above sufficiently show that the purported conveyances were simulated. We also accord credence to Tirso’s allegation that the Cagampang spouses tricked Don Fabian into believing that his creditors were after the properties which have to be "hidden" by means of simulated conveyances to Soledad Monteroso-Cagampang. The fact that only one of the subject lots was used as collateral for a P 600 loan which the Cagampang spouses took out does not weaken the conclusion on the simulated character of the contracts, as logically drawn from the twin circumstances adverted to.

33 | P a g e

ESTOPPEL

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v ALFREDO ONG G.R. No. 190755, November 24, 2010, Velasco Jr. J.

The elements of estoppel are: First, the actor who usually must have knowledge, notice or suspicion of the true facts, communicates something to another in a misleading way, either by words, conduct or silence; second, the other in fact relies, and relies reasonably or justifiably, upon that communication; third, the other would be harmed materially if the actor is later permitted to assert any claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct; and fourth, the actor knows, expects or foresees that the other would act upon the information given or that a reasonable person in the actors position would expect or foresee such action.

Facts:

Sps. Sy secured a loan from Land Bank Legazpi City (Land Bank) herein petitioner, in the amount of P16,000,000. The aforementioned loan was secured by 3 parcels of land. Subsequently however, the Sps Sy found that they could no longer pay their loan. As a result, they sold the aforementioned 3 parcels of land to one Angelina Gloria Ong married to Alfredo Ong. Thereafter Alfredo Ong (Ong), herein respondent, went to Land Bank to inform it about the aforementioned sale and their assumption of mortgage. Land Bank told Ong to pay part of the principal which was pegged at P750,000 so that their application for assumption of mortgage would be approved by Land Bank. Thus Ong, paid the aforementioned amount. However, Land Bank denied his application for assumption of mortgage. Subsequently, Ong learned of the foreclosure of the aforementioned mortgaged properties. This prompted Ong to demand the return of the P750,000 he paid to Land Bank on the ground that his application for assumption of mortgage was denied. Land Bank refused to return the aforementioned amount. This prompted Ong to file a case for sum of money against Land Bank for the return of the P750,000 paid by the former to the latter.

The RTC ruled in favor of Ong and ordered Land Bank to return the amount of P750,000 paid. On appeal with the CA, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Now, Land Bank comes before the Supreme Court assailing decision of the RTC and CA. Land Bank argues that it should not be ordered to return the P750,000 to Ong because the aforementioned payment was tendered prior to the application for assumption of mortgage and that in truth and in fact it was tendered to be applied for the debt contract by the Sps. Sy. Furthermore, it alleged that it enjoyed a presumption of regularity and was in good faith when it accepted the P750,000.

Issue:

Whether Land Bank should return the amount paid by Ong.

Ruling:

Yes. We rule that Land Bank is still liable for the return of the P750,000 based on the principle of unjust enrichment. Land Bank is correct in arguing that it has no obligation as creditor to recognize Alfredo as a person with interest in the fulfillment of the obligation. But while Land Bank is not bound to accept the substitution of debtors in the subject real estate mortgage, it is estopped by its action of accepting Alfredos payment from arguing that it does not have to recognize Alfredo as the new debtor. By accepting Alfredos payment and keeping silent on the status of Alfredos application, Land Bank misled Alfredo to believe that he had for all intents and purposes stepped into the shoes of the Spouses Sy.

34 | P a g e

ESTATE OF THE LATE JESUS S. YUJUICO, represented by ADMINISTRATORS BENEDICTO V. YUJUICO and EDILBERTO V. YUJUICO; and AUGUSTO Y. CARPIO v REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES and the COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 168661, October 26, 2007, Velasco Jr. J.

Equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities when as in this case, the lot was already alienated to innocent buyers for value and the government did not undertake any act to contest the title for an unreasonable length of time.

Facts:

Sometime in 1973, one Fermina Castro (Castro) filed an application for registration and confirmation of her title over a parcel of land somewhere in Paranaque City with the RTC having jurisdiction over the same. The Republic through the OSG filed its respective opposition. On 1974, the RTC rendered its decision, declaring Castro as the true and absolute owner of the parcel of land. Thereafter, Castro sold the aforementioned lot to Jesus Yujuico (Yujuico) and transferred the ownership of the land. Subsequently, Yujuico died. On 2001, the Republic through the OSG filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of title and reversion against the Heirs of Jesus Yujuico (Heirs), herein petitioners, over the aforementioned land sold by Castro to Yujuico. The complaint was filed with the RTC in Paranaque.

The RTC dismissed the complaint of the OSG. On appeal, the CA reversed, it held that the parcel of land was of public domain and therefore inalienable. Now, the Heirs come before the Supreme Court assailing the decision of the CA. They contend that the remedy of reversion invoked by the OSG is not the proper remedy. Hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the Republic through the OSG can validly revert the land in favor of the State.

Ruling:

No. The lapse of almost three decades in filing the instant case, the inexplicable lack of action of the Republic and the injury this would cause constrain us to rule for petitioners.

Equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities when as in this case, the lot was already alienated to innocent buyers for value and the government did not undertake any act to contest the title for an unreasonable length of time.