TodayisTuesday,December06,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.196251July9,2014
OLIVAREZREALTYCORPORATIONandDR.PABLOR.OLIVAREZ,Petitioner,
vs.
BENJAMINCASTILLO,Respondent.
DECISION
LEONEN,J.:
Trialmaybedispensedwithandasummaryjudgmentrenderedifthecasecanberesolvedjudiciouslybyplain
resorttothepleadings,affidavits,depositions,andotherpapersfiledbytheparties.
Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari1 of the Court of Appeals' decision2 dated July 20, 2010 and resolution3
datedMarch18,2011inCAG.R.CVNo.91244.
Thefactsasestablishedfromthepleadingsofthepartiesareasfollows:
BenjaminCastillowastheregisteredownerofa346,918squaremeterparceloflandlocatedinLaurel,Batangas,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T19972.4 The Philippine Tourism Authority allegedly claimed
ownershipofthesameparceloflandbasedonTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T18493.5OnApril5,2000,Castillo
andOlivarezRealtyCorporation,representedbyDr.PabloR.Olivarez,enteredintoacontractofconditionalsale6
over the property. Under the deed of conditional sale, Castillo agreed to sell his property to Olivarez Realty
CorporationforP19,080,490.00.OlivarezRealtyCorporationagreedtoadownpaymentofP5,000,000.00,tobe
paidaccordingtothefollowingschedule:
DATE

AMOUNT

April8,2000

500,000.00

May8,2000

500,000.00

May16,2000

500,000.00

June8,2000

1,000,000.00

July8,2000

500,000.00

August8,2000

500,000.00

September8,2000

500,000.00

October8,2000

500,000.00

November8,2000

500,000.00

AstothebalanceofP14,080,490.00,OlivarezRealtyCorporationagreedtopayin30equalmonthlyinstallments
every eighth day of the month beginning in the month that the parties would receive a decision voiding the
PhilippineTourismAuthoritystitletotheproperty.8Underthedeedofconditionalsale,OlivarezRealtyCorporation
shallfiletheactionagainstthePhilippineTourismAuthority"withthefullassistanceof[Castillo]."9ParagraphCof
thedeedofconditionalsaleprovides:
C.[OlivarezRealtyCorporation]assumestheresponsibilityoftakingnecessarylegalactionthruCourttohavethe
claim/titleTCTT18493ofPhilippineTourismAuthorityovertheabovedescribedpropertybenullifiedandvoided

withthefullassistanceof[Castillo][.]10
ShouldtheactionagainstthePhilippineTourismAuthoritybedenied,Castilloagreedtoreimbursealltheamounts
paidbyOlivarezRealtyCorporation.ParagraphDofthedeedofconditionalsaleprovides:
D.IntheeventthattheCourtdenie[s]thepetitionagainstthePhilippineTourismAuthority,allsumsreceivedby
[Castillo]shallbereimbursedto[OlivarezRealtyCorporation]withoutinterest[.]11
As to the "legitimate tenants" occupying the property, Olivarez Realty Corporation undertook to pay them
"disturbancecompensation,"whileCastilloundertooktoclearthelandofthetenantswithinsixmonthsfromthe
signing of the deed of conditional sale. Should Castillo fail to clear the land within six months, Olivarez Realty
Corporationmaysuspenditsmonthlydownpaymentuntilthetenantsvacatetheproperty.ParagraphsEandFof
the deed of conditional sale provide: E. That [Olivarez Realty Corporation] shall pay the disturbance
compensation to legitimate agricultural tenants and fishermen occupants which in no case shall exceed ONE
MILLIONFIVEHUNDREDTHOUSAND(P1,500,000.00)PESOS.Saidamountshallnotformpartofthepurchase
price.Inexcessofthisamount,allclaimsshallbefortheaccountof[Castillo]
F.That[Castillo]shallclearthelandof[the]legitimatetenantswithinaperiodofsix(6)monthsuponsigningof
thisContract,andincase[Castillo]fails,[OlivarezRealtyCorporation]shallhavetherighttosuspendthemonthly
downpaymentuntilsuchtimethatthetenants[move]outoftheland[.]12
The parties agreed thatOlivarez Realty Corporation may immediately occupy the property upon signing of the
deed of conditional sale. Should the contract be cancelled, Olivarez RealtyCorporation agreed to return the
propertys possession to Castillo and forfeit all the improvements it may have introduced on the property.
ParagraphIofthedeedofconditionalsalestates:
I. Immediately upon signing thisContract, [Olivarez Realty Corporation] shall be entitled to occupy, possess and
develop the subject property. In case this Contract is canceled [sic], any improvement introduced by [the
corporation]onthepropertyshallbeforfeitedinfavorof[Castillo][.]13
OnSeptember2,2004,Castillofiledacomplaint14againstOlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.Olivarezwiththe
RegionalTrialCourtofTanauanCity,Batangas.
Castillo alleged that Dr. Olivarez convinced him into selling his property to Olivarez Realty Corporation on the
representationthatthecorporationshallberesponsibleinclearingthepropertyofthetenantsandinpayingthem
disturbancecompensation.HefurtherallegedthatDr.Olivarezsolelypreparedthedeedofconditionalsaleand
thathewasmadetosignthecontractwithitsterms"notadequatelyexplained[tohim]inTagalog."15
After the parties had signed the deed of conditional sale, Olivarez Realty Corporation immediately took
possession of the property. However, the corporation only paid 2,500,000.00 ofthe purchase price. Contrary to
theagreement,thecorporationdidnotfileanyactionagainstthePhilippineTourismAuthoritytovoidthelatters
title to the property. The corporation neither cleared the land of the tenants nor paid them disturbance
compensation.Despitedemand,OlivarezRealtyCorporationrefusedtofullypaythepurchaseprice.16
ArguingthatOlivarezRealtyCorporationcommittedsubstantialbreachofthecontractofconditionalsaleandthat
the deed of conditional sale was a contract of adhesion, Castillo prayed for rescission of contract under Article
1191oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines.HefurtherprayedthatOlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.Olivarezbe
madesolidarilyliableformoraldamages,exemplarydamages,attorneysfees,andcostsofsuit.17
In their answer,18 Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez admitted that the corporation only paid
P2,500,000.00ofthepurchaseprice.Intheirdefense,defendantsallegedthatCastillofailedto"fullyassist"19the
corporationinfilinganactionagainstthePhilippineTourismAuthority.NeitherdidCastilloclearthepropertyofthe
tenants within six months from the signing of the deed of conditional sale. Thus, according to defendants, the
corporationhad"allthelegalrighttowithholdthesubsequentpaymentsto[fullypay]thepurchaseprice."20
OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.OlivarezprayedthatCastilloscomplaintbedismissed.Bywayofcompulsory
counterclaim,theyprayedforP100,000.00litigationexpensesandP50,000.00attorneysfees.21
Castillo replied to the counterclaim,22 arguing that Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez had no right to
litigationexpensesandattorneysfees.AccordingtoCastillo,thedeedofconditionalsaleclearlystatesthatthe
corporation "assume[d] the responsibility of taking necessary legal action"23 against the Philippine Tourism
Authority, yet the corporation did not file any case. Also, the corporation did not pay the tenants disturbance
compensation. For the corporations failure to fully pay the purchase price, Castillo claimed that hehad "all the
righttoprayfortherescissionofthe[contract],"24andhe"shouldnotbeheldliable...foranyallegeddamages
bywayoflitigationexpensesandattorneysfees."25

On January 10, 2005, Castillo filed a request for admission,26 requesting Dr. Olivarez to admit under oath the
genuinenessofthedeedofconditionalsaleandTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T19972.Helikewiserequested
Dr.Olivareztoadmitthetruthofthefollowingfactualallegations:
1.ThatDr.OlivarezisthepresidentofOlivarezRealtyCorporation
2.ThatDr.OlivarezofferedtopurchasetheparceloflandfromCastilloandthatheundertooktoclearthe
property of the tenants and file the court action to void the Philippine Tourism Authoritys title to the
property
3.ThatDr.Olivarezcausedthepreparationofthedeedofconditionalsale
4.ThatDr.OlivarezsignedthedeedofconditionalsaleforandonbehalfofOlivarezRealtyCorporation
5.ThatDr.OlivarezandthecorporationdidnotfileanyactionagainstthePhilippineTourismAuthority
6. That Dr. Olivarez and the corporation did not pay the tenants disturbance compensation and failed to
clearthepropertyofthetenantsand
7.ThatDr.OlivarezandthecorporationonlypaidP2,500,000.00oftheagreedpurchaseprice.27
On January 25, 2005, Dr. Olivarez and Olivarez Realty Corporation filed their objections to the request for
admission,28statingthatthey"reiterate[d]theallegations[anddenials]intheir[answer]."29
ThetrialcourtconductedpretrialconferenceonDecember17,2005.
OnMarch8,2006,Castillofiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentand/orjudgmentonthepleadings.30Heargued
that Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez "substantially admitted the material allegations of [his]
complaint,"31specifically:
1.Thatthecorporationfailedtofullypaythepurchasepriceforhisproperty32
2.ThatthecorporationfailedtofileanactiontovoidthePhilippineTourismAuthoritystitletohisproperty33
and
3. That the corporation failed to clear the property of the tenants and pay them disturbance
compensation.34
Should judgment on the pleadings beimproper, Castillo argued that summary judgment may still be rendered
asthere is no genuine issue as to any material fact.35 He cited Philippine National Bank v. Noahs Ark Sugar
Refinery36asauthority.
Castillo attached to his motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings his affidavit37 and the
affidavitofaMarissaMagsino38attestingtothetruthofthematerialallegationsofhiscomplaint.
Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez opposed39 the motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that the motion was "devoid of merit."40 They reiterated their claim that the corporation
withheldfurtherpaymentsofthepurchasepricebecause"thereha[d]beennofavorabledecisionvoidingthetitle
ofthePhilippineTourismAuthority."41TheyaddedthatCastillosoldthepropertytoanotherpersonandthatthe
salewasallegedlylitigatedinQuezonCity.42
ConsideringthatatitleadversetothatofCastillosexisted,OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.Olivarezargued
thatthecaseshouldproceedtotrialandCastilloberequiredtoprovethathistitletothepropertyis"notspurious
orfakeandthathehadnotsoldhispropertytoanotherperson."43
In reply to the opposition to the motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings,44 Castillo
maintained that Olivarez Realty Corporation was responsible for the filing of an action against the Philippine
Tourism Authority. Thus, the corporation could not fault Castillo for not suing the PhilippineTourism Authority.45
Thecorporationillegallywithheldpaymentsofthepurchaseprice.
Astotheclaimthatthecaseshouldproceedtotrialbecauseatitleadversetohistitleexisted,Castilloarguedthat
thePhilippineTourismAuthoritystitlecoveredanotherlot,nothisproperty.46
DuringthehearingonAugust3,2006,OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.Olivarezprayedthattheybegiven30
days to file a supplemental memorandum on Castillos motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the
pleadings.47

Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotion.ItgaveCastillo20daystoreplytothememorandumandthecorporationand
Dr.Olivarez15daystorespondtoCastillosreply.48
In their supplemental memorandum,49 Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez argued that there was "an
obviousambiguity"50astowhichshouldoccurfirstthepaymentofdisturbancecompensationtothetenantsor
the clearing of the property of the tenants.51 This ambiguity, according to defendants, is a genuine issue and
"oughttobethreshedoutinafullblowntrial."52
OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.OlivarezaddedthatCastilloprayedforirreconcilablereliefsofreformationof
instrumentandrescissionofcontract.53Thus,Castilloscomplaintshouldbedismissed.
Castillo replied54 to the memorandum, arguing that there was no genuine issue requiring trial of the case.
AccordingtoCastillo,"commonsensedictates...thatthelegitimatetenantsofthe[property]shallnotvacatethe
premises without being paid any disturbance compensation . . ."55 Thus, the payment of disturbance
compensationshouldoccurfirstbeforeclearingthepropertyofthetenants.
With respect to the other issuesraised in the supplemental memorandum, specifically, that Castillo sold the
propertytoanotherperson,hearguedthattheseissuesshouldnotbeentertainedfornothavingbeenpresented
duringpretrial.56
In their comment on the reply memorandum,57 Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez reiterated their
argumentsthatcertainprovisionsofthedeedofconditionalsalewereambiguousandthatthecomplaintprayed
forirreconcilablereliefs.58
As to the additional issues raised in the supplemental memorandum, defendants argued that issues not raised
andevidencenotidentifiedandpremarkedduringpretrialmaystillberaisedandpresentedduringtrialforgood
causeshown.OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.OlivarezprayedthatCastilloscomplaintbedismissedforlack
ofmerit.59
Rulingofthetrialcourt
The trial court found that Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarezs answer "substantially [admitted the
materialallegationsofCastillos]complaintand[did]not...raiseanygenuineissue[astoanymaterialfact]."60
DefendantsadmittedthatCastilloownedtheparceloflandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T19972.
They likewise admitted the genuineness of the deed of conditional sale and that the corporation only paid
P2,500,000.00oftheagreedpurchaseprice.61
According to the trial court, the corporation was responsible for suing the Philippine Tourism Authority and for
paying the tenants disturbance compensation. Since defendant corporation neither filed any case nor paid the
tenants disturbance compensation, the trial court ruled that defendant corporation had no right to withhold
paymentsfromCastillo.62
AstotheallegedambiguityofparagraphsEandFofthedeedofconditionalsale,thetrialcourtruledthatCastillo
andhiswitness,MarissaMagsino,"clearlyestablished"63intheiraffidavitsthatthedeedofconditionalsalewasa
contractofadhesion.Thetrueagreementbetweenthepartieswasthatthecorporationwouldbothcleartheland
ofthetenantsandpaythemdisturbancecompensation.
With these findings, the trial court ruled that Olivarez Realty Corporation breached the contract ofconditional
sale. Initsdecision64datedApril23,2007,thetrialcourtorderedthedeedofconditionalsalerescindedandthe
P2,500,000.00forfeitedinfavorofCastillo"asdamagesunderArticle1191oftheCivilCode."65
1 w p h i1

ThetrialcourtdeclaredOlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.OlivarezsolidarilyliabletoCastillofor500,000.00as
moraldamages,P50,000.00asexemplarydamages,andP50,000.00ascostsofsuit.66
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.OlivarezappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.67
Initsdecision68datedJuly20,2010,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedintotothetrialcourtsdecision.Accordingto
the appellate court, the trial court "did not err in its finding that there is no genuine controversy as to the facts
involved[inthiscase]."69Thetrialcourt,therefore,correctlyrenderedsummaryjudgment.70
As to the trial courts award of damages, the appellatecourt ruled that a court may award damages through
summary judgment "if the parties contract categorically [stipulates] the respective obligations of the parties in
caseofdefault."71Asfoundbythetrialcourt,paragraphIofthedeedofconditionalsalecategoricallystatesthat
"incase[thedeedofconditionalsale]iscancelled,anyimprovementintroducedby[OlivarezRealtyCorporation]
on the property shall be forfeited infavor of [Castillo]."72 Considering that Olivarez Realty Corporation illegally

retainedpossessionoftheproperty,Castilloforewentrenttothepropertyand"lostbusinessopportunities."73The
P2,500,000.00downpayment,accordingtotheappellatecourt,shouldbeforfeitedinfavorofCastillo.Moraland
exemplarydamagesandcostsofsuitwereproperlyawarded.
OnAugust11,2010,OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.Olivarezfiledtheirmotionforreconsideration,74arguing
that the trial court exceeded its authority in forfeiting the P2,500,000.00 down payment and awarding
P500,000.00 in moral damages to Castillo. They argued that Castillo only prayed for a total of P500,000.00 as
actual and moral damages in his complaint.75 Appellants prayed that the Court of Appeals "take a second hard
look"76atthecaseandreconsideritsdecision.
Intheresolution77datedMarch18,2011,theCourtofAppealsdeniedthemotionforreconsideration.
Proceedingsbeforethiscourt
Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez filed their petition for review on certiorari78 with this court.
Petitionersargue that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages to Castillo. Under
Section 3, Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules ofCivil Procedure, summary judgment may be rendered except as to the
amountofdamages.Thus,theCourtofAppeals"violatedtheproceduralstepsinrenderingsummaryjudgment."79
Petitioners reiterate that there are genuine issues ofmaterial fact to be resolved in this case. Thus, a fullblown
trialisrequired,andthetrialcourtprematurelydecidedthecasethroughsummaryjudgment.TheyciteTorresv.
Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Pablo Olivarez,80 a case decided by the Ninth Division of the Court of
Appeals.
InTorres,RosarioTorreswastheregisteredownerofaparceloflandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.
T19971. Under a deed of conditional sale, she sold her property to OlivarezRealty Corporation for
P17,345,900.00. When the corporation failed to fully pay the purchase price, she sued for rescission of
contractwith damages. In their answer, the corporation and Dr. Olivarez argued thatthey discontinued payment
becauseRosarioTorresfailedtoclearthelandofthetenants.
SimilartoCastillo,Torresfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,whichthetrialcourtgranted.Onappeal,theCourt
of Appeals set aside the trial courts summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.81TheCourtofAppealsruledthatthematerialallegationsofthecomplaint"weredirectlydisputedby
[thecorporationandDr.Olivarez]intheiranswer"82 when they argued that they refused to pay because Torres
failedtoclearthelandofthetenants.
With the Court of Appeals decision in Torres,Olivarez Realty Corporation and Dr. Olivarez argue that this case
shouldlikewiseberemandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsundertheequipoiserule.
Petitioners maintain that Castillo availed himself of the irreconcilable reliefs of reformation of instrument and
rescissionofcontract.83Thus,thetrialcourtshouldhavedismissedthecaseoutright.
Petitioners likewise argue that the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide the case as Castillo failed topay the
correct docket fees.84 Petitioners argue that Castillo should have paid docket fees based on the propertys fair
marketvaluesinceCastilloscomplaintisarealaction.85
Inhiscomment,86Castillomaintainsthattherearenogenuineissuesastoanymaterialfactinthiscase.Thetrial
court,therefore,correctlyrenderedsummaryjudgment.
Astopetitionersclaimthatthetrialcourthadnojurisdictiontodecidethecase,Castilloarguesthatheprayedfor
rescission of contract in his complaint. This action is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and the Clerk of Court
properlycomputedthedocketfeesbasedonthisprayer.87OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.Olivarezreplied,88
reiteratingtheirargumentsinthepetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
Theissuesforourresolutionarethefollowing:
I.Whetherthetrialcourterredinrenderingsummaryjudgment
II.Whetherproperdocketfeeswerepaidinthiscase.
Thepetitionlacksmerit.
I
Thetrialcourtcorrectlyrendered
summaryjudgment,astherewereno
genuineissuesofmaterialfactinthiscase

Trial"isthejudicialexaminationanddeterminationoftheissuesbetweenthepartiestotheaction."89Duringtrial,
parties"presenttheirrespectiveevidenceoftheirclaimsanddefenses."90Partiestoanactionhavetheright"toa
plenary trial of the case"91 to ensure that they were given a right to fully present evidence on their respective
claims.
There are instances, however, whentrial may be dispensed with. Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a trial court may dispense with trial and proceed to decide a case if from the pleadings, affidavits,
depositions, and other papers on file, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. In such a case, the
judgmentissuediscalledasummaryjudgment.
Amotionforsummaryjudgmentisfiledeitherbytheclaimantorthedefendingparty.92Thetrialcourtthenhears
themotionforsummaryjudgment.Ifindeedtherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfact,thetrialcourtshallissue
summaryjudgment.Section3,Rule35ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureprovides:
SEC. 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days beforethe time
specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admission at least
three (3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith ifthe
pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, showthat, except as to the amount of
damages,thereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentas
amatteroflaw.
An issue of material fact exists if the answer or responsive pleading filed specifically denies the material
allegationsoffactsetforthinthecomplaintorpleading.Iftheissueoffact"requiresthepresentationofevidence,
it is a genuine issue of fact."93 However, if the issue "could be resolved judiciously by plain resort"94 to the
pleadings,affidavits,depositions,andotherpapersonfile,theissueoffactraisedissham,andthetrialcourtmay
resolvetheactionthroughsummaryjudgment.
Asummaryjudgmentisusuallydistinguishedfromajudgmentonthepleadings.UnderRule34ofthe1997Rules
ofCivilProcedure,trialmaylikewisebedispensedwithandacasedecidedthroughjudgmentonthepleadingsif
theanswerfiledfailstotenderanissueorotherwiseadmitsthematerialallegationsoftheclaimantspleading.95
Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the answer filed fails to tender any issue, or otherwise admitsthe
material allegations in the complaint.96 On the other hand, in a summary judgment, the answer filed tenders
issues as specific denials and affirmative defenses are pleaded, but the issues raised are sham, fictitious, or
otherwisenotgenuine.97
Inthiscase,OlivarezRealtyCorporationadmittedthatitdidnotfullypaythepurchasepriceasagreeduponinthe
deedofconditionalsale.AstowhyitwithheldpaymentsfromCastillo,itsetupthefollowingaffirmativedefenses:
First,CastillodidnotfileacasetovoidthePhilippineTourismAuthoritystitletothepropertysecond,Castillodid
notclearthelandofthetenantsthird,Castilloallegedlysoldthepropertytoathirdperson,andthesubsequent
saleiscurrentlybeinglitigatedbeforeaQuezonCitycourt.
Considering that Olivarez RealtyCorporation and Dr. Olivarezs answer tendered an issue, Castillo properly
availedhimselfofamotionforsummaryjudgment.
However,theissuestenderedbyOlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.Olivarezsanswerarenotgenuineissuesof
material fact. These are issues that can be resolved judiciously by plain resort to the pleadings, affidavits,
depositions,andotherpapersonfileotherwise,theseissuesaresham,fictitious,orpatentlyunsubstantial.
Petitioner corporation refused to fully pay the purchase price because no court case was filed to void the
PhilippineTourismAuthoritystitleontheproperty.However,paragraphCofthedeedofconditionalsaleisclear
thatpetitionerOlivarezRealtyCorporationisresponsibleforinitiatingcourtactionagainstthePhilippineTourism
Authority:
C.[OlivarezRealtyCorporation]assumestheresponsibilityoftakingnecessarylegalactionthruCourttohavethe
claim/titleTCTT18493ofPhilippineTourismAuthorityovertheabovedescribedpropertybenullifiedandvoided
withthefullassistanceof[Castillo].98
Castillosallegedfailureto"fullyassist"99thecorporationinfilingthecaseisnotadefense.Asthetrialcourtsaid,
"howcan[Castillo]assist[thecorporation]when[thelatter]didnotfiletheaction[inthefirstplace?]"100
NeithercanOlivarezRealtyCorporationarguethatitrefusedtofullypaythepurchasepriceduetothePhilippine
Tourism Authoritys adverse claim on the property. The corporation knew of this adverse claim when it entered
intoacontractofconditionalsale.ItevenobligateditselfunderparagraphCofthedeedofconditionalsaletosue
thePhilippineTourismAuthority.Thisdefense,therefore,issham.

Contrarytopetitionersclaim,thereisno"obviousambiguity"101astowhichshouldoccurfirstthepaymentof
the disturbance compensation or the clearing of the land within six months from the signing of the deed of
conditional sale. The obligations must be performed simultaneously. In this case, the parties should have
coordinated to ensure that tenants on the property were paid disturbance compensation and were made to
vacatethepropertysixmonthsafterthesigningofthedeedofconditionalsale.
Ononehand,pureobligations,orobligationswhoseperformancedonotdependuponafutureoruncertainevent,
oruponapasteventunknowntotheparties,aredemandableatonce.102Ontheotherhand,obligationswitha
resolutoryperiodalsotakeeffectatoncebutterminateuponarrivalofthedaycertain.103
OlivarezRealtyCorporationsobligationtopaydisturbancecompensationisapureobligation.Theperformance
of the obligation to pay disturbance compensation did not depend on any condition. Moreover, the deed of
conditional sale did not give the corporation a period to perform the obligation. As such, the obligation to pay
disturbance compensation was demandable at once. Olivarez RealtyCorporation should have paid the tenants
disturbancecompensationuponexecutionofthedeedofconditionalsale.
With respect to Castillos obligation to clear the land of the tenants within six months from the signing of the
contract,hisobligationwasanobligationwitharesolutoryperiod.Theobligationtoclearthelandofthetenants
tookeffectatonce,specifically,uponthepartiessigningofthedeedofconditionalsale.CastillohaduntilOctober
2,2000,sixmonthsfromApril5,2000whenthepartiessignedthedeedofconditionalsale,toclearthelandof
thetenants.
OlivarezRealtyCorporation,therefore,hadnorighttowithholdpaymentsofthepurchaseprice.Asthetrialcourt
ruled, Olivarez Realty Corporation "can only claim noncompliance [of the obligation to clear the land of the
tenantsin]October2000."104Itsaid:
. . . it is clear that defendant [Olivarez Realty Corporation] should have paid the installments on the P5 million
downpaymentuptoOctober8,2000,oratotalofP4,500,000.00.Thatistheagreementbecausetheonlytime
that defendant [corporation] can claim noncompliance of the condition is after October, 2000 and so it has the
clear obligation topay up to the October 2000 the agreed installments. Since it paid only 2,500,000.00, then a
violationofthecontracthasalreadybeencommitted....105
TheclaimthatCastillosoldthepropertytoanotherisfictitiousandwasmadeinbadfaithtopreventthetrialcourt
from rendering summary judgment. Petitioners did not elaborate on this defense and insisted on revealing the
identityofthebuyeronlyduringtrial.106Evenintheirpetitionforreviewoncertiorari,petitionersneverdisclosed
thenameofthisallegedbuyer.Thus,asthetrialcourtruled,thisdefensedidnottenderagenuineissueoffact,
withthedefense"bereftofdetails."107
Castillosallegedprayerfortheirreconcilablereliefsofrescissionofcontractandreformationofinstrumentisnot
a ground to dismiss his complaint. A plaintiff may allege two or more claims in the complaint alternatively or
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or in separate causes of action per Section 2, Rule 8 of the 1997
RulesofCivilProcedure.108Itisthefilingoftwoseparatecasesforeachofthecausesofactionthatisprohibited
since the subsequently filed case may be dismissed under Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure109onsplittingcausesofaction.
Asdemonstrated,therearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactinthiscase.Theseareissuesthatcanberesolved
judiciously by plain resort to the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other papers on file. As the trial court
found,OlivarezRealtyCorporationillegallywithheldpaymentsofthepurchaseprice.Thetrialcourtdidnoterrin
renderingsummaryjudgment.
II
Castilloisentitledtocancelthecontract
ofconditionalsale
SinceOlivarezRealtyCorporationillegallywithheldpaymentsofthepurchaseprice,Castilloisentitledtocancel
his contract with petitioner corporation. However, we properly characterize the parties contract as a contract to
sell,notacontractofconditionalsale.
In both contracts to sell and contracts of conditional sale, title to the property remains with the seller until the
buyer fully pays the purchase price.110 Both contracts are subject to the positive suspensive condition of the
buyersfullpaymentofthepurchaseprice.111
In a contract of conditional sale, the buyer automatically acquires title to the property upon full payment of the
purchaseprice.112Thistransferoftitleis"byoperationoflawwithoutanyfurtheracthavingtobeperformedby
theseller."113 In a contract to sell, transfer of title to the prospective buyer is not automatic.114 "The prospective
seller[must]conveytitletotheproperty[through]adeedofconditionalsale."115

Thedistinctionisimportanttodeterminetheapplicablelawsandremediesincaseapartydoesnotfulfillhisor
herobligationsunderthecontract.Incontractsofconditionalsale,ourlawsonsalesundertheCivilCodeofthe
Philippines apply. On the other hand, contracts to sell are not governed by our law on sales116 but by the Civil
Codeprovisionsonconditionalobligations.
Specifically,Article1191oftheCivilCodeontherighttorescindreciprocalobligationsdoesnotapplytocontracts
tosell.117AsthiscourtexplainedinOngv.CourtofAppeals,118failuretofullypaythepurchasepriceincontracts
to sell is not the breach of contract under Article 1191.119 Failure to fully pay the purchase price is "merely an
event which prevents the [sellers] obligation to convey title from acquiring binding force."120 This is because
"there can be no rescission of an obligation that is still nonexistent, the suspensive condition not having
[happened]."121
In this case, Castillo reserved his title to the property and undertook to execute a deed of absolute sale upon
OlivarezRealtyCorporationsfullpaymentofthepurchaseprice.122 Since Castillo still has to execute a deed of
absolute sale to Olivarez RealtyCorporation upon full payment of the purchase price, the transfer of title is
notautomatic.Thecontractinthiscaseisacontracttosell.
As this case involves a contract tosell, Article 1191 of the Civil Code of the Philippines does not apply. The
contracttosellisinsteadcancelled,andthepartiesshallstandasiftheobligationtosellneverexisted.123
OlivarezRealtyCorporationshallreturnthepossessionofthepropertytoCastillo.AnyimprovementthatOlivarez
RealtyCorporationmayhaveintroducedonthepropertyshallbeforfeitedinfavorofCastilloperparagraphIof
thedeedofconditionalsale:
I. Immediately upon signing thisContract, [Olivarez Realty Corporation] shall be entitled to occupy, possess and
developthesubjectproperty.IncasethisContractiscancelled,anyimprovementintroducedby[OlivarezRealty
Corporation]onthepropertyshallbeforfeitedinfavorof[Castillo.]124
As for prospective sellers, thiscourt generally orders the reimbursement of the installments paidfor the property
whensettingasidecontractstosell.125Thisistrueespeciallyifthepropertyspossessionhasnotbeendeliveredto
theprospectivebuyerpriortothetransferoftitle.
Inthiscase,however,CastillodeliveredthepossessionofthepropertytoOlivarezRealtyCorporationpriortothe
transferoftitle.Wecannotorderthereimbursementoftheinstallmentspaid.
InGomezv.CourtofAppeals,126theCityofManilaandLuisaGomezenteredintoacontracttoselloveraparcel
ofland.ThecitydeliveredthepropertyspossessiontoGomez.Shefullypaidthepurchasepricefortheproperty
butviolatedthetermsofthecontracttosellbyrentingoutthepropertytootherpersons.Thiscourtsetasidethe
contract to sell for her violation of the terms of the contract to sell. It ordered the installments paid forfeited in
favoroftheCityofManila"asreasonablecompensationfor[Gomezs]useofthe[property]"127foreightyears.
In this case, Olivarez Realty Corporation failed to fully pay the purchase price for the property. It only paid
P2,500,000.00 out of the P19,080,490.00 agreed purchase price. Worse, petitioner corporation has been in
possessionofCastillospropertyfor14yearssinceMay5,2000andhasnotpaidforitsuseoftheproperty.
Similar to the ruling in Gomez, we order the P2,500,000.00 forfeited in favor of Castillo as reasonable
compensationforOlivarezRealtyCorporationsuseoftheproperty.
III
OlivarezRealtyCorporationisliablefor
moralandexemplarydamagesand
attorneysfees
Wenotethatthetrialcourterredinrenderingsummaryjudgmentontheamountofdamages.UnderSection3,
Rule35ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,summaryjudgmentmayberendered,exceptastotheamountof
damages.
Inthiscase,thetrialcourterredinforfeitingtheP2,500,000.00infavorofCastilloasdamagesunderArticle1191
oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines.Asdiscussed,thereisnobreachofcontractunderArticle1191inthiscase.
The trial court likewise erred inrendering summary judgment on the amount of moral and exemplary damages
andattorneysfees.
Nonetheless,weholdthatCastilloisentitledtomoraldamages,exemplarydamages,andattorneysfees.
Moral damages may be awarded in case the claimant experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
seriousanxiety,besmirchedreputation,woundedfeelings,moralshock,socialhumiliation,andsimilarinjury.128

Asforexemplarydamages,theyareawardedinadditiontomoraldamagesbywayofexampleorcorrectionfor
the public good.129 Specifically in contracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted in a
wanton,fraudulent,reckless,oppressive,ormalevolentmanner.130
Underthedeedofconditionalsale,OlivarezRealtyCorporationmayonlysuspendthemonthlydownpaymentin
caseCastillofailstoclearthelandofthetenantssixmonthsfromthesigningoftheinstrument.Yet,evenbefore
the sixth month arrived, Olivarez Realty Corporation withheld payments for Castillos property. It evenused as a
defense the fact that no case was filed against the PhilippineTourism Authority when, under the deed of
conditional sale, Olivarez Realty Corporation was clearly responsible for initiating action against the Philippine
TourismAuthority.Theseareoppressiveandmalevolentacts,andwefindCastilloentitledtoP500,000.00moral
damagesandP50,000.00exemplarydamages:
PlaintiffCastilloisentitledtomoraldamagesbecauseoftheevidentbadfaithexhibitedbydefendantsindealing
withhimregardingthesaleofhislottodefendant[OlivarezRealtyCorporation].Hesufferedmuchprejudicedue
tothefailureofdefendantstopayhimthebalanceofpurchasepricewhichheexpectedtouseforhisneedswhich
caused him wounded feelings, sorrow, mental anxiety and sleepless nights for which defendants should pay
P500,000.00asmoraldamagesmorethansix(6)yearshadelapsedanddefendantsillegallyandunfairlyfailed
and refused to pay their legal obligations to plaintiff, unjustly taking advantage of a poor uneducated man like
plaintiff causing much sorrow and financial difficulties. Moral damages in favor of plaintiff is clearly justified . . .
[Castillo] is also entitled to P50,000.00 as exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent to other parties to a
contracttoreligiouslycomplywiththeirprestationsunderthecontract.131
WelikewiseagreethatCastilloisentitledtoattorneysfeesinadditiontotheexemplarydamages.132Considering
thatOlivarezRealtyCorporationrefusedtosatisfyCastillosplainlyvalid,just,anddemandableclaim,133theaward
ofP50,000.00asattorneysfeesisinorder.However,wefindthatDr.PabloR.Olivarezisnotsolidarilyliablewith
OlivarezRealtyCorporationfortheamountofdamages.
UnderArticle1207oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,thereissolidaryliabilityonlywhentheobligationstatesitor
whenthelaworthenatureoftheobligationrequiressolidarity.134Incaseofcorporations,theyaresolelyliablefor
theirobligations.135 The directors or trustees and officers are not liable with the corporation even if it is through
theiractsthatthecorporationincurredtheobligation.Thisisbecauseacorporationisseparateanddistinctfrom
thepersonscomprisingit.136
As an exception to the rule, directors or trustees and corporate officers may be solidarily liable with the
corporationforcorporateobligationsiftheyacted"inbadfaithorwithgrossnegligenceindirectingthecorporate
affairs."137
Inthiscase,wefindthatCastillofailedtoprovewithpreponderantevidencethatitwasthroughDr.Olivarezsbad
faithorgrossnegligencethatOlivarezRealtyCorporationfailedtofullypaythepurchasepricefortheproperty.
Dr.OlivarezsallegedactofmakingCastillosignthedeedofconditionalsalewithoutexplainingtothelatterthe
deeds terms in Tagalog is not reason to hold Dr. Olivarez solidarily liable with the corporation. Castillo had a
choicenottosignthedeedofconditionalsale.Hecouldhaveaskedthatthedeedofconditionalsalebewrittenin
Tagalog. Thus, Olivarez Realty Corporation issolely liable for the moral and exemplary damages and attorneys
feestoCastillo.
IV
Thetrialcourtacquiredjurisdictionover
Castillosactionashepaidthecorrect
docketfees
OlivarezRealtyCorporationandDr.Olivarezclaimedthatthetrialcourthadnojurisdictiontotakecognizanceof
thecase.Inthereply/motiontodismissthecomplaint138 they filed with the Court of Appeals, petitioners argued
that Castillo failed to pay the correct amount of docket fees. Stating that this action is a real action, petitioners
arguedthatthedocketfeeCastillopaidshouldhavebeenbasedonthefairmarketvalueoftheproperty.Inthis
case, Castillo only paid 4,297.00, which is insufficient "if the real nature of the action was admitted and the fair
market value of the property was disclosed and made the basis of the amount of docket fees to be paid to the
court."139Thus,accordingtopetitioners,thecaseshouldbedismissedforlackofjurisdiction.
Castillocounteredthathisactionforrescissionisanactionincapableofpecuniaryestimation.Thus,theClerkof
CourtoftheRegionalTrialCourtofTanauanCitydidnoterrinassessingthedocketfeesbasedonhisprayer.
WeruleforCastillo.InDeLeonv.CourtofAppeals,140thiscourtheldthatanactionforrescissionofcontractof
sale of real property is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. In De Leon, the action involved a real
property.Nevertheless,thiscourtheldthat"itisthenatureoftheactionasoneforrescissionofcontractwhichis
controlling."141 Consequently, the docket fees to be paid shall be for actions incapableof pecuniary estimation,
regardlessiftheclaimantmayeventuallyrecovertherealproperty.Thiscourtsaid:

...theCourtinBautistav.Lim,heldthatanactionforrescissionofcontractisonewhichcannotbeestimatedand
thereforethedocketfeeforitsfilingshouldbetheflatamountofP200.00asthenfixedintheformerRule141,
141,5(10).SaidthisCourt:
We hold that Judge Dalisay did not err in considering Civil Case No. V144 as basically one for rescission or
annulment of contract which is not susceptible of pecuniary estimation (1 Moran's Comments on the Rules of
Court,1970Ed,p.55Lapitanvs.Scandia,Inc.,L24668,July31,1968,24SCRA479,781483).
Consequently,thefeefordocketingitisP200,anamountalreadypaidbyplaintiff,nowrespondentMatildaLim.
(She should pay also the two pesos legal research fund fee, if she has not paid it, as required in Section 4 of
RepublicActNo.3870,thecharteroftheU.P.LawCenter).
1 w p h i1

Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of land, it is the nature of the action as one for
rescissionofcontractwhichiscontrolling.TheCourtofAppealscorrectlyappliedthesecasestothepresentone.
Asitsaid:
We would like to add the observations that since the action of petitioners [private respondents] against private
respondents[petitioners]issolelyforannulmentorrescissionwhichisnotsusceptibleofpecuniaryestimation,the
actionshouldnotbeconfusedandequatedwiththe"valueoftheproperty"subjectofthetransactionthatbythe
very nature of the case, the allegations, and specific prayer in the complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of
moneyand/orvalueofthetransaction,orforactualorcompensatorydamages,theassessmentandcollectionof
thelegalfeesshouldnotbeintertwinedwiththemeritsofthecaseand/orwhatmaybeitsendresultandthatto
sustain private respondents' [petitioners'] position on what the respondent court may decide after all, then the
assessment should be deferred and finally assessed only after the court had finally decided the case, which
cannotbedonebecausetherulesrequirethatfilingfeesshouldbebasedonwhatisallegedandprayedforinthe
faceofthecomplaintandpaiduponthefilingofthecomplaint.142
Althoughwediscussedthatthereisnorescissionofcontracttospeakofincontractsofconditionalsale,wehold
that an action to cancel a contract to sell, similar to an action for rescission of contract of sale, is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Like any action incapable of pecuniary estimation, an action to cancel a
contracttosell"demandsaninquiryintootherfactors"143asidefromtheamountofmoneytobeawardedtothe
claimant.Specificallyinthiscase,thetrialcourtprincipallydeterminedwhetherOlivarezRealtyCorporationfailed
to pay installments of the propertys purchase price as the parties agreed upon in the deed of conditional sale.
TheprincipalnatureofCastillosaction,therefore,isincapableofpecuniaryestimation.
All told, there is no issue that the parties in this case entered into a contract to sell a parcel of land and that
Olivarez Realty Corporation failed to fully pay the installments agreed upon.Consequently, Castillo is entitled to
cancelthecontracttosell.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewoncertiorariisDENIED.TheCourtofAppealsdecisiondatedJuly20,2010
andinCAG.R.CVNo.91244isAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION.
ThedeedofconditionalsaledatedApril5,2000isdeclaredCANCELLED.PetitionerOlivarezRealtyCorporation
shallRETURNtorespondentBenjaminCastillothepossessionofthepropertycoveredbyTransferCertificateof
TitleNo.T19972togetherwithalltheimprovementsthatpetitionercorporationintroducedontheproperty.The
amountofP2,500,000.00 is FORFEITED in favor of respondent Benjamin Castillo as reasonable compensation
fortheuseofpetitionerOlivarezRealtyCorporationoftheproperty.
Petitioner Olivarez Realty Corporation shall PAY respondent Benjamin Castillo P500,000.00 as moral damages,
P50,000.00asexemplarydamages,andP50,000.00asattorney'sfeeswithinterestat6%perannumfromthe
timethisdecisionbecomesfinalandexecutoryuntilpetitioner
corporationfullypaystheamountofdamages.144
SOORDERED.
MARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.*
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*

Villarama,Jr.,J.,designatedasActingMerriberperSpecialOrderNo.1691datedMay22,2014inviewof
thevacancyintheThirdDivision.
1

Rollo,pp.979.

Id. at 8093. This decision was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizzaro, with Associate
JusticesAmelitaG.TolentinoandRubenC.Aysonconcurring.
3

Id.at9498.

Id.at158160.

Id.at161.

Id.at140141.

Id.at140.

Id.at140.

Id.at140.

10

Id.at140.

11

Id.at140.

12

Id.at141.

13

Id.

14

Id.at110115.

15

Id.at111.

16

Id.at113.

17

Id.at115.

18

Id.at188194.

19

Id.at190.

20

Id.at190.

21

Id.at191.

22

Id.at193194.

23

Id.at193.

24

Id.at194.

25

Id.at194.

26

Id.at195197.

27

Id.at196.

28

Id.at198199.

29

Id.at199.

30

Id.at200206.

31

Id.at200.

32

Id.at201.

33

Id.at202.

34

Id.at202.

35

Id.at204.

36

G.R.No.107243,September1,1993,226SCRA36[PerC.J.Narvasa,SecondDivision].

37

Rollo,pp.207209.

38

Id.at210211.

39

Id.at213214.

40

Id.at213.

41

Id.at213.

42

Id.at214.

43

Id.at214.

44

Id.at215216.

45

Id.at215.

46

Id.at216.

47

Id.at224.

48

Id.at224.

49

Id.at225246.

50

Id.at227.

51

Id.at227.

52

Id.at229.

53

Id.at238.

54

Id.at247251.

55

Id.at248.

56

Id.at249.

57

Id.at252267.

58

Id.at255.

59

Id.at259.

60

Id.at268.

61

Id.at268269.

62

Id.at282.

63

Id.at282.

64

Id.at268285.

65

Id.at285.

66

Id.at285.

67

Id.at329371.

68

Id.at8193.

69

Id.at87.

70

Id.at92.

71

Id.at90,citingCIVILCODE,art.1315,whichstates:
Art.1315.Contractsareperfectedbymereconsent,andfromthatmomentthepartiesareboundnot
onlytothefulfillmentofwhathasbeenexpresslystipulatedbutalsotoalltheconsequenceswhich,
accordingtotheirnature,maybeinkeepingwithgoodfaith,usageandlaw.

72

Id.at141.

73

Id.at91.

74

Id.at117129.

75

Id.at126.

76

Id.at126.

77

Id.at9598.

78

Id.at979.

79

Id.at24.

80

Id.at442463.

81

Id.at442446.

82

Id.at451.

83

Id.at42.

84

Id.at73.

85

Id.at101104.

86

Id.at467488.

87

Id.at485.

88

Id.at490579.

89

W.B.RIANO,ICIVILPROCEDURE(THEBARLECTURESERIES)509(2011).

90

Id.

91

Calubaquibv.RepublicofthePhilippines,G.R.No.170658,June22,2011,652SCRA523,531532[Per
J.DelCastillo,FirstDivision],citingViajarv.Estenzo,178Phil.561(1979)[PerJ.Guerrero,FirstDivision].
92

RULESOFCOURT,Rule35,secs.1and2.

93

Wood Technology Corporation v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 492 Phil. 106, 116 (2005) [Per J.
Quisumbing,FirstDivision].
94

Id.at116.

95

Rule34,sec.1.Judgmentonthepleadings.Whereananswerfailstotenderanissue,orotherwise
admitsthematerialallegationsoftheadverseparty'spleading,thecourtmayonmotionofthatparty,direct
judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legalseparation,thematerialfactsallegedinthecomplaintshallalwaysbeproved.
96

RULESOFCOURT,Rule34.

97

RULESOFCOURT,Rule35.SeeNarraIntegratedCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,398Phil.733,740
(2000)[PerJ.GonzagaReyes,ThirdDivision].
98

Rollo,p.112.

99

Id.at190.

100

Id.at271.

101

Id.at227.

102

CIVILCODE,art.1179.

103

CIVILCODE,art.1193.

104

Rollo,p.283.

105

Id.at283.

106

Id.at218.

107

Id.at272.

108

RULESOFCOURT,Rule8,sec.2states:
Sec.2.Alternativecausesofactionordefenses.
A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically,
eitherinonecauseofactionordefenseorinseparatecausesofactionordefenses.Whentwoor
more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be
sufficient,thepleadingisnotmadeinsufficientbytheinsufficiencyofoneormoreofthealternative
statements.

109

RULESOFCOURT,Rule2,sec.4states:
Sec.4.Splittingasinglecauseofactioneffectof.
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis ofthe same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgmentuponthemeritsinanyoneisavailableasagroundforthedismissaloftheothers.

110

Nabus v. Pacson, G.R. No. 161318, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 334, 349 [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division],citingRamosv.Heruela,509Phil.658(2005)[PerJ.Carpio,FirstDivision].
111

Nabus v. Pacson, G.R. No. 161318, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 334, 349 [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division],citingRamosv.Heruela,509Phil.658(2005)[PerJ.Carpio,FirstDivision].
112

Nabusv.Pacson,G.R.No.161318,November25,2009,605SCRA334,349351[PerJ.Peralta,Third
Division],citingCoronelv.CourtofAppeals,331Phil.294(1996)[PerJ.Melo,ThirdDivision].

113

Id.at351.

114

Id.at351.

115

Id.at351.

116

Gomez v. Court of Appeals, 395 Phil. 115 (2000) [Per J. Buena, Second Division] Padilla v. Spouses
Paredes,385Phil.128,140142(2000)[Per.J.Quisumbing,SecondDivision].
117

Padillav.SpousesParedes,385Phil.128,140(2000)[Per.J.Quisumbing,SecondDivision].

118

369Phil.243(1999)[PerJ.YnaresSantiago,FirstDivision].

119

Id.at254.

120

Id.at254.

121

Nabusv.Pacson,G.R.No.161318,November25,2009,605SCRA334,353354[PerJ.Peralta,Third
Division].
122

Rollo,p.141,deedofconditionalsale,par.Jprovides:

J. That [Castillo] shall execute and deliver to [Olivarez Realty Corporation] by way of a Deed of Absolute
Saleuponfullpaymentbythelatterofthefullandcompletepurchasepricehereinabovestipulated[.]
123

Heirs of Atienza v. Espidol, G.R. No. 180665, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 256, 263 [Per J. Abad,
SecondDivision].
124

Rollo,p.141.

125

Heirs of Atienza v. Espidol, G.R. No. 180665, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 256, 265 [Per J. Abad,
Second Division] Nabus v. Pacson, G.R. No. 161318, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 334, 357 [Per J.
Peralta,ThirdDivision].
126

395Phil.115(2000)[PerJ.Buena,SecondDivision].

127

Id.at130.

128

CIVILCODE,art.2217.

129

CIVILCODE,art.2229.

130

CIVILCODE,art.2232.

131

Rollo,p.284.

132

CIVILCODE,art.2208.

133

CIVILCODE,art.2208.

134

CIVILCODE,art.1207states:
Art.1207.Theconcurrenceoftwoormorecreditorsoroftwoormoredebtorsinoneandthesame
obligationdoesnotimplythateachoneoftheformerhasarighttodemand,orthateachoneofthe
latterisboundtorender,entirecompliancewiththeprestation.Thereisasolidaryliabilityonlywhen
theobligationexpresslysostates,orwhenthelaworthenatureoftheobligationrequiressolidarity.

135

Arateav.Suico,547Phil.407,415(2007)[PerJ.Garcia,FirstDivision],citingMAMRealtyDevelopment
Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114787, June 2, 1995, 244 SCRA 797, 802803 [Per J. Vitug, Third
Division].
136

Id.at415.

137

Id.at415.

138

Rollo,pp.99109.

139

Id.at103.

140

350Phil.535(1998)[PerJ.Mendoza,SecondDivision].

141

Id.at542543.

142

Id.at542543.

143

Id.at541,citingLapitanv.Scandia,Inc.,133Phil.526[PerJ.J.B.L.Reyes,EnBanc].

144

Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 458 [Per J. Peralta, En
Banc].
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation