G.R. No. 176841 - ANTHONY ORDUÑA, DENNIS ORDUÑA, AND ANTONITA ORDUÑA, VS. EDUARDO J. FUENTEBELLA, MARCOS S. CID, BENJAMIN F. CID, BERNARD G. BANTA, AND ARMANDO GABRIEL, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The four (4) plaintiffs are hereby ordered by this Court to pay each defendant (except Armando Gabriel, Jr., Benjamin F. Cid, and Eduardo J. Fuentebella who did not testify on these damages), Moral Damages of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, so that each defendant shall receive Moral Damages of Eighty Thousand (P80,000.00) Pesos each . Plaintiffs shall also pay all defendants (except Armando Gabriel, Jr., Benjamin F. Cid, and Eduardo J. Fuentebella who did not testify on these damages), Exemplary Damages of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos each so that each defendant shall receive Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos as Exemplary Damages. Also, plaintiffs are ordered to pay each defendant (except Armando Gabriel, Jr., Benjamin F. Cid, and Eduardo J. Fuentebella who did not testify on these damages), Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as Attorney's Fees, jointly and solidarily. Cost of suit against the plaintiffs. [21] On the main, the RTC predicated its dismissal action on the basis of the following grounds and/or premises: 1. Eduardo was a purchaser in good faith and, hence, may avail himself of the provision of Article 1544 [22] of the Civil Code, which provides that in case of double sale, the party in good faith who is able to register the property has better right over the property; 2. Under Arts. 1356 [23] and 1358 [24] of the Code, conveyance of real property must be in the proper form, else it is unenforceable; 3. The verbal sale had no adequate consideration; and 4. Petitioners' right of action to assail Eduardo's title prescribes in one year from date of the issuance of such title and the one-year period has already lapsed. From the above decision, only petitioners appealed to the CA, their appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 79680. The CA Ruling On December 4, 2006, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision affirming the RTC decision. The fallo reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the 26 May 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3 of Baguio City in Civil Case No. 4989-R is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.