LEVISTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., VS. LEGASPI TOWERS 200, INC., AND VIVIAN Y. LOCSIN AND PITONG MARCORDE.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. to exercise its option to appropriate the additional structure constructed on top of the penthouse owned by plaintiff Leviste Management Systems, Inc. within sixty [60] days from the time the Decision becomes final and executory. Should defendant Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. choose not to appropriate the additional structure after proper indemnity, the parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the Court shall fix the terms thereof. For lack of merit, the third party complaint and the counterclaims are hereby dismissed. Costs against the plaintiff. [6] When the parties' respective motions for reconsideration were denied by the trial court, both elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. On May 26, 2011, the Court of Appeals, acting on the consolidated appeals of LEMANS and Legaspi Towers, rendered its Decision affirming the decision of the RTC of Makati City. The Court of Appeals held that the appeal of LEMANS should be dismissed for failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 in relation to Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, as the subject index of LEMANS' brief did not contain a digest of its arguments and a list of textbooks and statutes it cited. [7] For this reason, the appellate court no longer passed upon the sole issue raised by LEMANS, i.e., whether its construction of Concession 4 should be valued at its actual cost or its market value. As regards the appeal of Legaspi Towers, the Court of Appeals held that while Concession 4 is indeed a nuisance, LEMANS has been declared a builder in good faith, and noted that Legaspi Towers failed to contest this declaration. Since Concession 4 was built in good faith, it cannot be demolished. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the validity of the building permit for Concession 4, holding that if the application and the plans appear to be in conformity with the requirements of governmental regulation, the issuance of the permit may be considered a ministerial duty of the building official. [8] The Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Legaspi Towers and the Motion for Reconsideration of LEMANS were denied for lack of merit in the appellate court's Resolution [9] dated November 17, 2011. Consequently, LEMANS and Legaspi Towers filed separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari with this Court based on the following grounds: [LEMANS PETITION:] I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPLY THE DEPRA VS. DUMLAO DOCTRINE WHEN IT REFUSED TO RULE ON THE PROPER VALUATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE PURCHASE PRICE IN THE EVENT THAT RESPONDENT LEGASPI TOWERS EXERCISES ITS OPTION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN, REFUSING TO RULE ON THE VALUATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT DISREGARDED THE EVIDENCE ALREADY SUBMITTED AND PART OF THE RECORDS. [10] [LEGASPI TOWERS PETITION:] THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT [LEGA