8/11/2019 14. Banez v. CA (1974)

1/6

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-30351 September 11, 1974

AUREA A!E" #$% RAMON A!E" S&b't(t&te% b) t*e(r +e#+ *e(r, OSCAR

RATA A!E", petitioners,vs.COURT O/ APPEALS #$% PO ARCLLA, respondents.

Domingo A. Songalia for petitioners.

Arsenio R. Reyes for respondent.

"ALAR, J.:p

petition for revie! of the decision of the Court of ppeals in C.. ".R. No. #$%%&'R(Pio rcilla, plaintiff'appellant, versus urea )a*e+, Raon )a*e+ and People-soesite and ousin/ Corporation, defendants'appellees0.

1he pertinent facts or the case are as follo!s2 In 345$ respondent Pio rcilla occupieda parcel of land, later 6no!n as 7ot 5, )loc6 E'3#8 East venue Subdivision, Dilian,9ue+on Cit:, o!ned b: the People-s oesite and ousin/ Corporation (hereinafterreferred to as PC0. e fenced the lot !ith !ire, and erected a house and adesoe plantin/s thereon. is oves to appl: for the ac;uisition of the lot fro thePC !hen the sae becae available for disposition cae to nau/ht because theeplo:ees of the PC !hose help he sou/ht erel: re/aled hi !ith proises thatthe atter !ould be attended to. Nevertheless, his occupanc: !as ade a atter ofrecord !ith the PC in connection !ith a census of occupants and s;uatters ta6ensoe tie later.

Not!ithstandin/ respondent rcilla-s occupanc:, the lot !as a!arded, on Ma: %8,34$8, to Cristeta 7. 7a;uihon pursuant to a conditional contract to sell e

8/11/2019 14. Banez v. CA (1974)

2/6

Respondent rcilla appealed to the Court of ppeals, !hich rendered the decisionsou/ht to be revie!ed, the dispositive portion of !hich decision reads thus2

AEREBORE, the =ud/ent appealed fro is hereb: reversed and,in lieu thereof, another is hereb: rendered declarin/ null and void thetransfer of ri/hts over and a!ard of lot 5, )loc6 )'3#8, East venueSubdivision of appellee PC, in favor of appellee urea )a*e+ andorderin/ appellee People-s oesite and ousin/ Corporation toafford appellant Pio rcilla the opportunit:, !ithin thirt: (#80 da:sfro the finalit: of this decision, to perfect his preferential ri/ht topurchase said lot and thereafter to e Pio rcilia !as, therefore, a trespasser, ora s;uatter, he bein/ a person !ho settled or located on land, in closed or uninclosed!ith >no bona fide clai or color of title and !ithout consent of the o!ner.>3e be/anhis aterial possession of the lot in bad faith, 6no!in/ that he did not have a ri/htthereto, and it is presued that his possession continued to be en=o:ed in the saecharacter in !hich it !as ac;uired, i.e. in bad faith until the contrar: is proved.4nd!hat ri/ht can a s;uatter have to the land into !hich he has intruded a/ainst the o!nerof the land 1he ans!er is not hard to find, s;uatter can have no possessor: ri/hts!hatsoever, and his occupanc: of the land is onl: at the o!ner-s sufferance, his actsare erel: tolerated and cannot affect the o!ner-s possession.51he s;uatter isnecessaril: bound to an iplied proise, that he !ill vacate upon deand.

1his Court, in $ernardo et al. vs. $ernardo and Court of ppeals2, laid do!n thedoctrine that2

In carr:in/ out its social re'ad=ustent policies, the /overnentcould not sipl: la: aside oral standards, and ai to favorusurpers, s;uatters, and intruders, unindful of the la!ful or

2

8/11/2019 14. Banez v. CA (1974)

3/6

unla!ful ori/in and character of their occupanc:. Such a polic:!ould perpetuate conflicts instead of attainin/ their =ust solution.

Respondent Pio rcilla, havin/ no possessor: ri/hts !hatsoever, !hat detrient couldbe have suffered fro the aforesaid contracts

1he Court of ppeals, ho!ever, held that respondent Pio rcilia had a ri/ht topurchase the lot occupied b: hi. 1he discussion of this alle/ed ri/ht brin/s us to thesecond assi/nent of error.

%. Ae find erit in petitioners- second assi/nent of error. Rel:in/ on the decision ofthe Court of ppeals, respondent rcilia anchored his alle/ed preferential ri/ht topurchase 7ot 5, )loc6 E'3#8 on Resolution No. 5$% of PC-s )oard of Directors,dated ?une %&, 34$#, !hich reads as follo!s2

(30 No preference, advanta/e or benefit shall be /iven to s;uatters inthe allocation of PC residential lots b: reason alone of their prioroccupanc: thereof, but the: shall be treated on the sae footin/ asother ;ualified applicants. S;uatters !ho are found ;ualified anddeservin/ shall be /iven preferential a!ards onl: in PCresettleent pro=ects, if the: voluntaril: copl: !ith PC rules andpolicies !ithout !aitin/ to be evicted thru court proceedin/s.

and on Resolution No. 55, dated pril 3$, 34$%, !hich approved therecoendations of its ctin/ 7e/al Officer. 1he recoendations included theproposed >Appli%ation &orms No. $'D and No. $'B> for non'occupants and occupantsor s;uatters, respectivel:, and provided, aon/ others, that2

($0 1he Sales and Mana/eent Departent should have a read:and up'to' date census of all lots occupied b: s;uatters !ithin PCsubdivisions open for sale or a!ard, in order that lots occupied b:s;uatters !ho are not ;ualified to bu: the sae, or !ho do not eritan a!ard shall not be a!arded to an:bod: until the PC hasobtained a final court decision for the eviction of such s;uatter.(ENoadinistrative case shall be entertained on the basis alone of a s;uatter-s clai ofprior or actual occupanc: of PC lot>

Ae hold that the clai, of respondent Pio rcilla to the alle/ed preferential ri/ht topurchase 7ot 5, )loc6 E'3#8, had not been substantiated.

#. Respondent rcilla ar/ues that the a!ardee of the lot, Cristeta 7. 7a;uihon, did notcopl: !ith the resolutor: condition of buildin/ a house so, she ac;uired no ri/hts thatcould be transitted to her father.

1his Court cannot sustain respondent-s stand.

1his Court of ppeals stated in its decision that the contract to sell, dated Ma: %8,34$8, e

8/11/2019 14. Banez v. CA (1974)

4/6

the non'copliance !ith !hich results in the contract bein/ -deeedannulled and cancelled (Eshe failed tocopl: !ith a condition of the a!ard, the non'copliance !ith !hich has a resolutor:effect upon the a!ard,> such that !hen Cristeta 7. 7a;uihon died, she ac;uired novested ri/ht in the land, and she transitted nothin/ to her father, )asilio 7a;uihon,!ho, on his part, could not have transferred an: ri/ht to petitioners )a*e+.

It is /ranted that b: virtue of the resolutor: condition, the resolution of the contract too6place b: force of la! and that there !as no need of =udicial declaration to resolve thecontract. Civilists, ho!ever, are not a/reed on !hether the in=ured part: retains theoption of deandin/ fulfillent or rescission of the obli/ation as provided in rticle3343 or not. 1hus Collin : Capitant, Curson Eleental de Derecho Civil, Vol. III, p. &58sa:s2

En la hipotesis de una clausula del contrato ;ue pronuncie unaresolucion eventual, ha: ;ue proclaar la valide+ de tal clausula enel Derecho espanol siepre ;ue no apare+ca por suscircustancias coo contraria a la le: o a las buenas costubres.

El efecto de tal clausula sera ;ue la resolucion se produ+ca de plenoderecho, sin intervencion =udicial pero entendeos ;ue, a pesar deella el acreedor conservara el derecho de opcion ;ue le concede elart. 33%@ Grt. 3343 of the Civil Code of the PhilippinesH a no ser ;uela clausula isa resulte otra cosa.

Manresa, in Coentaries al Codi/o Civil Espanol, 34$&, Vol. VIII, p. @3$, ho!ever,sa:s that the stipulated resolution of the contract in case one of the parties does notcopl: !ith his underta6in/ is produced b: force of la!, but the option of the in=uredpart: disappears.

If the creditor could still deand, in spite of the resolution ipso ure of the contract, thenthe resolution !ould not be andator: on the creditor and the resolution !ouldproduce its effect !hen the creditor notified the debtor of his decision. (1olentino, CivilCode of the Philippines, Vol. IV, p. 3&5.0

It is certain, therefore, that the said contract to sell in the instant case !as b: virtue ofthe stipulated resolutor: conditions resolved b: operation of la!. )ut the Court ofppeals overloo6ed in the instant case the e

8/11/2019 14. Banez v. CA (1974)

5/6

@. In support of their fourth assi/nent of error, that the Court ofppeals erred in holdin/ that the approval of the transfer of the ri/htsto the lot to petitioners !as due to the intercession of the thenSenator Estanislao Bernande+, petitioners ar/ued that the issue of!hether the letter of Senator Bernande+ influenced the approval ofthe transfer !as not assi/ned as error in respondent rcilla-s brief inthe Court of ppeals, and neither !as such influence alle/ed in thecoplaint, hence the Court of ppeals could not decide said issueand that the )oard of Directors, uninfluenced b: politicians, used itsdiscretion in approvin/ the transfer.

Section & of Rule 53 of the Rules of Court provides that in order that a ;uestion a:be considered b: the Court of ppeals, said ;uestion ust be stated in the assi/nentof errors and it ust be properl: ar/ued in the brief. (1raders Insurance and Suret: Co.vs. "olan/co, et al., 45 Phil. %@, #8 1an Si ic6 v. 1iacho, &4 Phil. $4$, $4.0 Aenote that there !ere onl: t!o errors assi/ned in appellant-s brief in the Court ofppeals, nael:2 that the trial court erred in holdin/ that (30 the clai of plaintiff thatdefendant !as dis;ualified to ac;uire lot 5 for she alread: o!ned lot in San ?uan !asnot substantiated, and (%0 there !as a valid perfected contract of sale bet!een thePC and the late Cristeta 7a;uihon, and bet!een the PC and urea )a*e+ andRaon )a*e+, and that the: are bound b: the ters and conditions thereof. ence thealle/ed intercession of the then Senator Estanislao Bernande+ in the transfer of ri/htb: )asilio 7a;uihon to petitioners, !hich !as not stated in the assi/nent of errors

and not ar/ued in the brief, should have not been considered b: the Court of ppeals.

Moreover, the evidence on !hich the findin/ of the Court of ppeals that the PCaccoodated petitioners because of the intercession of !hoever !rote >E 1he part: introducin/ it did not even as6 perission fro the Court that the saebe attached to the record so that the appellate court a: revie! the rulin/ of the trialcourt (J.S. vs. Cabaraban, #$ Phil. %53, %5#'%5@ Vele+ vs. Chaves, 58 Phil. $&$, $&'$&40. Evidence ruled out at the trial of the case cannot be ta6en into consideration inthe decision, for that !ould infrin/e the constitutional ri/ht of the adverse part: to dueprocess of la! (1insa: vs. Kusa: and Kusa:, @& Phil. $#4, $@#0. Docuents forin/ nopart of the proofs before the appellate court !ill not be considered in disposin/ of the

issues of an action (De Castro v. Court of ppeals, &5 Phil., %@, #5, citin/ Da:rit v."on+ale+, & Phil. 3% 5 Enc:c. of Evidence, @$40. lthou/h said letter !as !ritten onstationer: bearin/ the letterhead of the then Senator Bernande+, it does notconclusivel: follo! that it !as Senator Bernande+ hiself !ho !rote the letter. Eventhe si/nature of the letter !as >ille/ible>.

)ut assuin/ that the letter !as !ritten b: Senator Bernande+, it cannot be ipliedfro the facts of the case that the transfer of ri/hts fro )asilio 7a;uihon to petitionersherein !as approved solel: on the stren/th of such letter, for the approval of thetransfer !as recoended as >e b: the ead E0, and b: the oesite Sales Supervisor (Ehas a record of real propert: holdin/ of Raon andurea )a*e+> consistin/ of a lot located at M. ?. Paterno Street and assessed atP#3,348.88 under 1a< Declaration No. %#8@ of the land records of said unicipalit:,for a ta< declaration is not evidence of title of propert:, and respondent rcilla did notpresent an: other evidence to prove that petitioners are reall: o!ners of a lot in San?uan, Ri+al that even /rantin/ that the: are o!ners of a lot, still as aintained b: thePC, the: are not dis;ualified to ac;uire the lot in ;uestion as the: erel: steppedinto the shoes of the ori/inal purchaser Cristeta 7a;uihon that R. . No. @4, reliedupon b: respondent in his coplaint in assertin/ that the a!ard of the lot to petitionerurea )a*e+ !as null and void, is not applicable to the case and could not thereforehave been violated.

In the decision under revie!, the Court of ppeals said that to be an a!ardee ofPC-s lots, one ust not >alread: o!n or hold under a contract to bu: residential lotor lots in an: subdivision situated in ... San ?uan ... (E

8/11/2019 14. Banez v. CA (1974)

6/6

It has not been proven, therefore, that petitioners herein are o!ners of a lot in San?uan, and conse;uentl: dis;ualified to be transferees of the ;uestioned lot.

R.. No. @4, relied upon b: herein respondent in his coplaint, in assertin/ that thea!ard to petitioners !as null and void, is not applicable to the instant case. Said ctauthori+es cities, unicipalities and provinces to purchase andor e 1he PC not bein/ a cit:,unicipalit:, or province, it is apparent that ct is not applicable to the instant case.

IN VIEA OB 1E BORE"OIN", the decision of the Court of ppeals, dated ?anuar:4, 34$4, in C'". R. No. #$%%&'R, is set aside, and the decision of the Court of BirstInstance of 9ue+on Cit: in Civil Case No. 9'&$&4, is affired. Costs a/ainstrespondent Pio rcilla.

I1 IS SO ORDERED.

6