G.R. No. 198718 - SPOUSES TEODORO AND ROSARIO SARAZA AND FERNANDO SARAZA, VS. WILLIAM FRANCISCO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered[,] judgment is hereby rendered ordering [petitioner] Fernando M. Saraza as follows, viz : to EXECUTE a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the 100-square meter parcel of land located in Barangay Bangkal, City of Makati and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 220530 of the Registry of Deeds of Makati in favor of [respondent] William Francisco pursuant to their Agreement dated 01 September 1999; to DELIVER to [respondent] William Francisco the Owners Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 220530 covering the 100-square meter parcel of land located in Barangay Bangkal, City of Makati which is subject of the Deed of Absolute Sale; and to PAY all taxes imposable by law for the transfer of the title in the name of [respondent], pursuant to the parties AGREEMENT dated 1 September 1999; to PAY [respondent] William Francisco the following: 4.1 One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00) as and by way of damages; 4.2 One Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand Pesos (Php 177,000.00) as and by way of attorneys fees; and 4.3 the costs of suit. SO ORDERED . [16] Dissatisfied, Fernando questioned the RTC Decision before the CA. In addition to the defenses which he raised during the proceedings before the RTC, he argued that the RTC of Imus lacked jurisdiction over the case as it involved an adjudication of ownership of a property situated in Makati City. [17] The Ruling of the CA The CA affirmed the RTC rulings via the Decision dated June 28, 2011. The CA rejected the petitioners allegation that the amount of P1,200,000.00 remained unpaid by the respondent, citing the stipulation in their Agreement which provided that the said amount was paid upon the contracts execution. On the issue of jurisdiction, the CA cited Fernandos failure to seasonably file before the lower court a motion to dismiss stating that the action should have been filed in Makati City. More importantly, the Court explained that the case was a personal action since it did not involve a claim of ownership of the subject property, but only sought Fernandos execution of a deed of sale in the respondents favor. Thus, the venue for the action was the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant, at the plaintiffs option. [18] Petitioner Fernandos Motion for Reconsideration [19] was denied by the CA in the Resolution dated September 30, 2011. [20] Hence, this petition for review on certiorari . The Issue The main issue for the Courts resolution is: Whether or not the petitioners are bound to comply with their obligations to the respondent as embodied in their Agreement dated September 1, 1999. This Courts Ruling The respondents satisfaction of his obligation under the Agreement It is imperative to look into the respondents compliance with his covenants under the subject Agreement in order to ascertain whether or not he can compel the petitioners to satisfy their respective undertakings. At the outset, the Court underscores the limited scope of a petition f