G.R. No. 136308 - ELAINE A. DEL ROSARIO, VS. MELINDA F. BONGA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is MODIFIED as follows: "a) The Deed of Conditional Sale (Exhibit A) is hereby rescinded; b) [Petitioner] is hereby ordered to immediately surrender to plaintiff the subject property covered by the Conditional Deed of Sale as well as the apartment unit actually occupied by the former; c) [Respondent] is directed to reimburse [petitioner in] the amount of P81,250.00 representing 50% of the total payment of P162,500.00 with legal interest from date hereof; d) [Petitioner] is commanded to pay [respondent] the amount of P1,500.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the use of the 3rd-door apartment unit, from February 1990 until the former fully vacates the premises; e) [Petitioner] is required to pay [respondent] the sum of P15,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees; f) The writ of preliminary injunction issued on September 13, 1991 is made permanent." [3] The Facts The facts, as summarized by the CA, are as follows: "In her Amended Complaint, [herein Respondent] Melinda F. Bonga alleged that she is the owner of a two-door residential apartment and another unfinished apartment unit and a lot situated at Coronado St., Hulo, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. On February 9, 1990, she sold her 2-door residential apartment to [petitioner] for a price of P330,000.00 This agreement was embodied in a Deed of Conditional Sale. The contract specifically states that [petitioner] pays a down-payment of P130,000.00 and [the] balance of P200,000.00 shall be paid within twelve months from execution thereof to [respondent] alone. The down payment was paid by [petitioner]. In the absence of [respondent] who was then abroad, [petitioner] occupied the other vacant door of the former's apartment, which was not the subject of the contract, and rented out the unit or apartment door which [petitioner] was supposed to occupy per contract. Aside from this violation, [petitioner] also failed and refused to pay the balance of P200,000.00 to [respondent] despite repeated demands. For failure to pay, [respondent] was constrained to engage the services of a lawyer x x x whom she agreed to pay P20,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees, plus P1,000.00 per appearance; that in order to prevent [petitioner] from further introducing improvements in the subject property, [respondent] prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; that over and above this claim, [respondent] sought to recover a total amount of P60,000.00 moral and exemplary damages. "Answering the Complaint, [petitioner] denied that [respondent] owned the unfurnished apartment unit. She also denied that she refused to pay the balance of the purchase price of the property in question asserting that she made payments [for] the balance to [respondent]'s husband who insisted that he was the real owner of the property. "During the pre-trial, the parties agreed on the only two issues to be resolved by the [trial] court. These were so stated in the Pre-trial Order dated October 1