Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case
Case
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J : p
"This Court cannot presume the existence of a sale of land, absent any direct
proof of it." 1
Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari are the August 16, 2005
Decision 2 and May 30, 2006 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 66071, which ordered petitioner Robern Development Corporation
(Robern) to reconvey the 2,000-square meter lot it bought from Al-Amanah
Islamic Development Bank of the Philippines (Al-Amanah) to respondent People's
Landless Association (PELA).
Factual Antecedents
Al-Amanah owned a 2000-square meter lot located in Magtu-od, Davao City and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 138914. 4 On December 12,
1992, Al-Amanah Davao Branch, thru its officer-in-charge Febe O. Dalig (OIC
Dalig), asked 5 some of the members of PELA 6 to desist from building their
houses on the lot and to vacate the same, unless they are interested to buy it.
The informal settlers thus expressed their interest to buy the lot at P100.00 per
square meter, which Al-Amanah turned down for being far below its asking price.
7 Consequently, Al-Amanah reiterated its demand to the informal settlers to
vacate the lot. 8
In a letter 9 dated March 18, 1993, the informal settlers together with other
members comprising PELA offered to purchase the lot for P300,000.00, half of
which shall be paid as down payment and the remaining half to be paid within
one year. In the lower portion of the said letter, Al-Amanah made the following
annotation:
Note:
Please be inform[ed] that your offer to purchase the lot covered by TCT
No. T-138914, containing an area of 2,000 square meters, located at
Bakingan, Barangay Magtuod, Davao City for P300,000.00 has been
turned down by the top management, due to the reason that your
offered price is way below the selling price of the Bank which is P500.00
per square meter, or negotiate but on Cash basis only.
You had been told regarding this matter, but you failed to counter offer
since you have [conferred] with the Bank's local management. Despite . .
. the time given to you to counter offer or to vacate the lot presently and
illegally occupied by you and the members of the association, still you
refrain to hear our previous notices. You even deliberately construct more
residential structures without our permission. As such, you are finally
instructed to vacate the lot and remove all the house structures erected
on the said lot within 15 days upon receipt of this letter. Failure on your
part including that of the members, the Bank will be constrained to take
legal action against you.
The People's Landless Association, Inc., through Mr. Bonifacio Cuizon, Sr.
has requested us to assist them in communicating with you anent your
letter of 29 November 1993. According to Mr. Cuizon the present
occupants of the lot covered by T.C.T. No. T-138914 with an area of
2,000 square meters, had a definite agreement with the Islamic Bank
through its previous Manager or Officer[-]in[-]Charge to buy this
foreclosed property at P300,000.00. As a matter of fact their deposit of
P150,000.00 was on that basis. For this reason, the occupants, who are
members of the association, have already made lot allocations among
themselves and have improved their respective houses.
For the foregoing reasons we hope that the Islamic Bank, for legal, moral
and social grounds would reconsider.
While condition no. 6 in the sale of property to us states that the buyer
shall be responsible for ejecting the squatters of the property, the
occupants of the said lot could hardly be categorized as squatters
considering the supposed transaction previously entered by your bank
with them. We were greatly appalled that we should learn about this not
from the bank but from outside sources. DEacIT
In the meantime, please consider the 15-day period for us to pay the
amount of P320,000.00 imposed by your bank suspended until such time
that the legal problem with the lot occupants is settled.
On March 21, 1994 (almost one month before the April 15, 1994
deadline) we came to your bank to remit the balance and full payment
[for] the abovementioned lot. [Inasmuch] as you refuse[d] to accept the
payment, we have decided to deposit the amount consigned to your
bank.
We have not been remiss in doing our part of the transaction; please do
your share.
Thank you.
Three months later, as its members were already facing eviction and possible
demolition of their houses, and in order to protect their rights as vendees, PELA
filed a suit for Annulment and Cancellation of Void Deed of Sale 29 against Al-
Amanah, its Director Engr. Farouk Carpizo (Engr. Carpizo), OIC Dalig, Robern, and
Robern's President and General Manager, petitioner Rodolfo Bernardo (Bernardo)
before the RTC of Davao City. It insisted that as early as March 1993 it has a
perfected contract of sale with Al-Amanah. However, in an apparent act of bad
faith and in cahoots with Robern, Al-Amanah proceeded with the sale of the lot
despite the prior sale to PELA.
Incidentally, the trial court granted PELA's prayer for a temporary restraining
order. 30 Subsequently, it issued on August 12, 1994 an Order 31 finding merit in
the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, inter alia. The RTC's grant of
injunctive relief was affirmed by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 35238 32 when the
factual and legal bases for its issuance were questioned before the appellate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
court.
The respondents in the annulment case filed their respective Answers. 33 Al-
Amanah and Engr. Carpizo claimed that the bank has every right to sell its lot to
any interested buyer with the best offer and thus they chose Robern. They
clarified that the P150,000.00 PELA handed to them is not part of the payment
but merely a deposit in connection with its offer. They asserted that PELA was
properly apprised that its offer to buy was subject to the approval of Al-Amanah's
Head Office. They stressed that Al-Amanah never entered into a sale with PELA
for there was no perfected agreement as to the price since the Head Office
rejected PELA's offer. EAcCHI
For their part, Robern and Bernardo asserted the corporation's standing as a
purchaser in good faith and for value in the sale of the property, having relied on
the clean title of Al-Amanah. They also alleged that the purported sale to PELA is
violative of the Statute of Frauds 34 as there is no written agreement covering
the same.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its August 10, 1999 Decision, 35 the RTC dismissed PELA's Complaint. It opined
that the March 18, 1993 letter PELA has been relying upon as proof of a
perfected contract of sale was a mere offer which was already rejected.
Furthermore, the annotation appearing in the bottom part of the said letter could
not be construed as an acceptance because the same is a mere acknowledgment
of receipt of the letter (not the offer) which will still be subject to processing. The
RTC likewise ruled that being a corporation, only Al-Amanah's board of directors
can bind the bank with third persons involving the sale of its property. Thus, the
purported offer made by Al-Amanah's OIC, who was never conferred authority by
the board of directors to sell the lot, cannot bind the bank. In contrast, when the
Head Office accepted Robern's offered price, it was duly approved by the board of
directors, giving birth to a perfected contract of sale between Al-Amanah and
Robern.
Refusing to accept the Decision, PELA elevated its case to the CA. 36
SO ORDERED. 38
Anent the statement of the courts below that there was 'an apparent perfection
of contract (of sale) between Al-Amanah and PELA', we hold that the same is
strictly confined to the resolution of whether a writ of preliminary injunction
should issue since the PELA members were then about to be evicted. PELA should
not rely on such statement as the same is not decisive of the rights of the parties
and the merits of this case.
We shall now delve into the crucial issue of whether there was a perfected
contract of sale between PELA and Al-Amanah. DHSCEc
Neither can the note written by the bank that "[s]ubject offer has been
acknowledged/received but processing to take effect upon putting up of the
partial amount of P150,000.00 on or before April 15, 1993" be construed as
acceptance of PELA's offer to buy. Taken at face value, the annotation simply
means that the bank merely acknowledged receipt of PELA's letter-offer.
Furthermore, by 'processing,' Al-Amanah only meant that it will 'act on the offer',
i.e., it still has to evaluate whether PELA's offer is acceptable. Until and unless Al-
Amanah accepts, there is as yet no perfected contract of sale. Notably here, the
bank never signified its 'approval' or 'acceptance' of the offer. IaECcH
We cannot agree with the CA's ratiocination that receipt of the amount, coupled
with the phrase written on the four receipts as "deposit on sale of TCT No.
138914," signified a tacit acceptance by Al-Amanah of PELA's offer. For sure, the
money PELA gave was not in the concept of an earnest money. Besides, as
testified to by then OIC Dalig, it is the usual practice of Al-Amanah to require
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
submission of a bid deposit which is acknowledged by way of bank receipts
before it entertains offers. Thus:
Atty. Bolcan:
Now, as far as you can remember, these receipts state that these are
partial deposit[s], what do you mean by that?
WITNESS:
Atty. Taasan:
Do you confirm that based on the interest of the plaintiff to acquire the
property they made a deposit with said bank, as evidence[d] by the
receipts that were shown to you by your counsel, correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And according to you, the bank do[es] not entertain any offer to
buy the property without deposits?
A: Yes, sir.
Since it was . . . hard earned money you did not require the Amanah Bank
when you gave that P150,000.00 to reduce your agreement into
writing regarding the sale of this property?
Atty. Bolcan:
Now, on April 15, 1993 when the deposit was made, you were present?
A: Yes, sir.
A: I even said to the OIC or the manager that ma'am, now that you
have received our money, where is our paper that we were the
ones to buy that property, sir.
Q: And this OIC Febe Dalig informed you that the Offer on
your part to buy the property is subject for approval by
the head office in Manila, is that correct?
Q: And later on you were informed by the bank that you[r] offer was
not [accepted] by the head office in Manila, is that correct?
PELA Secretary Ramos' testimony thus corroborated OIC Dalig's consistent stand
that it is the Head Office which will decide whether Al-Amanah would accept
PELA's offer:
Atty. Bolcan:
And now, if there are interested persons making offer . . . what [would]
you do?
A: Well, we have to screen the offer before we [forward] the offer to
Manila for approval because . . .
Court:
What [would] you do before you [forward] that to Manila?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And it is the head office that will decide whether the offer will be
approved or not?
It is thus undisputed, and PELA even acknowledges, that OIC Dalig made it clear
that the acceptance of the offer, notwithstanding the deposit, is subject to the
approval of the Head Office. Recognizing the corporate nature of the bank and
that the power to sell its real properties is lodged in the higher authorities, 65 She
never falsely represented to the bidders that she has authority to sell the bank's
property. And regardless of PELA's insistence that she execute a written
agreement of the sale, she refused and told PELA to wait for the decision of the
Head Office, making it clear that she has no authority to execute any deed of
sale.
Contracts undergo three stages: "[a) n]egotiation [which] begins from the time
the prospective contracting parties indicate interest in the contract and ends at
the moment of their agreement[; b) p]erfection or birth[,] . . . which takes place
when the parties agree upon all the essential elements of the contract . . .; [and
c) c]onsummation[, which] occurs when the parties fulfill or perform the terms
agreed upon, culminating in the extinguishment thereof." 66
In the case at bench, the transaction between Al-Amanah and PELA remained in
the negotiation stage. The offer never materialized into a perfected sale, for no
oral or documentary evidence categorically proves that Al-Amanah expressed
amenability to the offered P300,000.00 purchase price. Before the lapse of the 1-
year period PELA had set to pay the remaining 'balance,' Al-Amanah expressly
rejected its offered purchase price, although it took the latter around seven
months to inform the former and this entitled PELA to award of damages. 67 Al-
Amanah's act of selling the lot to another buyer is the final nail in the coffin of
the negotiation with PELA. Clearly, there is no double sale, thus, we find no
reason to disturb the consummated sale between Al-Amanah and Robern. ADcHES
At this juncture, it is well to stress that Al-Amanah's Petition before this Court
docketed as G.R. No. 173437 was already denied with finality on December 4,
2006. Hence, we see no reason to disturb paragraph 6 of the CA's Decision
ordering Al-Amanah to pay damages to PELA.
Footnotes
2.C A rollo, pp. 137-173; penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and
concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Myrna Dimaranan-
Vidal.
3.Id. at 214.
4.Records, Vol. 2, p. 594.
5.Id. at 589.
6.Namely Alejandro Padilla Boy Bartiana, Leonardo Labora, Francisco Paig, and Asterio
Aki.
7.Records, Vol. 2, p. 636.
12.Id. at 657-675.
13.Id. at 638.
14.Id. at 637.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
15.Id. at 640 and 642.
16.Id. at 641.
17.Id. at 643.
18.Id. at 644.
19.Records, Vol. 1, pp. 191-192.
26.Id. at 592.
27.Id. at 593.
28.Id.
29.Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-6. The Complaint filed on July 14, 1994 and docketed as Civil
Case No. 23,037-94 was amended on July 18, 1994, pp. 19-25 to additionally
pray for a temporary restraining order and for injunction.
30.Id. at 36.
31.Id. at 76-83. The writ itself was issued on November 9, 1994, id. at 174-175.
32.Id. at 189-196; penned by Associate Justice Fidel F. Purisima and concurred in by
Associate Justices Jainal D. Rasul and Eubulo G. Verzola.
33.Id. at 55-60, 84-88, and 220-224.
34.CIVIL CODE, Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are
ratified:
36.Id. at 733.
40.Supra note 3.
41.CA rollo, p. 542. The said Petition was denied due to Al-Amanah's failure to take the
appeal within the reglementary period as well as to submit registry receipts as
proof of service.
42.Id. at 554.
52.Manila Metal Container Corporation v. Philippine National Bank , 540 Phil. 451, 471
(2006).
53.The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Asset Builders Corporation, 466 Phil.
751, 768 (2004).
57.Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 310 Phil. 623, 642 (1995).
58.See TSN-Florida Ramos, November 19, 1998, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 262-265.
59.Supra note 9.
60.TSN-Febe Dalig, March 11, 1999, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 441-442, 448.
61.Id. at 459-460.
62.TSN-Florida Ramos, August 2, 1994, Records, Vol. 7, pp. 27-28.
67.The CA's finding of bad faith entitled PELA to the award of damages, the judgment
of which became final and executory. See notes 42 and 43.
68.See notes 42 and 43.