G.R. NO. 159373 - JOSE R. MORENO, JR., VS. PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OFFICE (FORMERLY, ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST). D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered on the basis of the agreed stipulation of facts and issues, without the introduction of evidence in accordance with Section 2, Rule 30 of the Revised Rules of Court, and after the submission of the parties of their respective Memoranda. x x x On August 10, 1994, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioner Moreno, viz .: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, ordering defendant to sell the 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th floors of the J. Moreno Building to plaintiff at the price of TWENTY[-]ONE MILLION (P21,000,000.00) PESOS; and ordering defendant to endorse the transaction to the Committee on Privatization, without costs. [2] Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration. [3] On November 16, 1994, the trial court denied the motion for lack of merit. [4] Respondent appealed with the Court of Appeals. From the time respondent filed its Notice of Appeal with the trial court, the parties submitted numerous motions, including petitioner's Motion to Dismiss [5] dated July 8, 1996. Petitioner moved that the case be dismissed due to the failure of respondent to file its brief within the reglementary period. On December 18, 1997, the Eighth Division of the appellate court granted [6] the motion to dismiss and denied [7] respondent's motion for reconsideration. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari [8] with this Court to reverse the dismissal of the appeal. On July 5, 1999, this Court, through a Resolution [9] of the Third Division, reversed the resolution dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal raises substantial issues justifying a review of the case on the merits. On January 30, 2003, the appellate court found that there was no perfected contract of sale over the subject floors and reversed the ruling of the trial court, viz.: WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 62, rendered in Civil Case No. 93-2756 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered DISMISSING the instant complaint. [10] Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by the appellate court in its questioned Resolution [11] dated July 31, 2003. Hence, this Petition contending that: IN REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION DATED 10 AUGUST 1994, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED ISSUES NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE COURT CONSIDERING THAT: I GIVEN THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A PERFECTED, VALID AND BINDING CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN PETITIONER MORENO AND RESPONDENT APT (NOW PMO) WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. II THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO HOLD RESPONDENT APT (NOW PMO) TO ITS CONTRACT OF SALE WITH PETITIONER MORENO CONSIDERING THAT: A. THERE IS NOTHING IRREGULAR OR UNCONSCIONABLE IN THE ACTS OF THE AGENTS OF R