G.R. No. 120274 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO A. PADILLA AND GERALDINE S. PADILLA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES CLAUDIO AÑONUEVO AND CARMELITA AÑONUEVO.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, in view of all the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED, and a new one is rendered DECLARING Lot II, Block 6 of LRC Plan PSD-4666, now covered under TCT No. 35735, Registry of Deeds of Quezon City, as an OPEN SPACE for public use and enjoyment; DECLARING as null and void TCT No. 35735 in the name of Francisco Padilla, married to Geraldine Padilla, and all other certificates of title derived therefrom; and, ORDERING Spouses Claudio and Carmelita Añonuevo, and all persons in privy to them, their heirs and assigns, to cease and desist from disturbing the possession and control exercised by the HOMEOWNERS of Carmel II-A Subdivision, over said Lot II, Block 6. xxx [2] With the above ruling, we are constrained to deny the instant petition for being utterly without merit. On the main issue of payment for the lot, petitioners could not compel private respondents to pay the purchase price for the property whether by installment or in full. For, clearly petitioners had nothing to sell to private respondents, since their title to the property has been declared null and void. Moreover, on the issue of restitution raised by both petitioners and private respondents, we note that both decisions in CA-G.R. CV No. 20442 and in CA-G.R. CV No. 35119 did not provide for restitution. This issue must now be laid to rest. Petitioners admit that private respondents paid them P175,136 for the first installment on the lot, [3] and P75,136 for the second installment, [4] or a total of P250,272. Since petitioners' title to the property sold was subsequently declared null and void, there could not be any valid sale between the parties as petitioners had nothing to convey to private respondents. Hence, petitioners were not entitled to the installment payments made by private respondents. Thus, petitioners should be ordered to return to private respondents the amounts paid with legal interest yearly of 6% thereon from the time of receipt by petitioners of the installments until fully restituted to private respondents, on the principle that no one may be allowed to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. [5] Petitioners' view that private respondents should not be allowed to retain the subject lot without having fully paid therefor, as this constitutes unjust enrichment, has boomeranged. They wanted the lot returned to them along with their copy of the TCT, and the rescission of the deed of absolute sale. But petitioners proceeded from the erroneous assumption that the lot was theirs. As earlier stated, this Court has already ruled that petitioners' title to the lot is null and void. It is now declared as OPEN SPACE for public use and enjoyment under the control of the Homeowners of Carmel II-A subdivision. Clearly, therefore, petitioners could not seek the return to them of a lot not rightfully theirs. Petitioners also insist that private respondents settle the latter's mortgage debt with Equitable Venture Capital Corporation, obtain