G.R. No. 173622 - ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, JR., VS. PEOPLE’S LANDLESS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY FLORIDA RAMOS AND NARDO LABORA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the assailed Decision is SET ASIDE . Judgment is hereby rendered: DECLARING the contract of sale between PELA and defendant Bank valid and subsisting. ORDERING the defendant Bank to receive the balance of P150,000.00 of the purchase price from PELA as consigned in court. DECLARING the deed of sale executed by defendant Bank in favor or Robern Development Corporation as invalid and, therefore, void. ORDERING defendant Bank to return to Robern the full amount of P400,000.00 which Robern paid as the purchase price of the subject property within ten (10) days from finality of this decision. It shall earn a legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the tenth (10th) day aforementioned if there is delay in payment. ORDERING Robern Development Corporation to reconvey the land covered by T.C.T. No. 212983 in favor of Peoples Landless Association within a similar period of ten (10) days from finality of this decision. ORDERING defendant Bank to pay plaintiffs-appellants the following: The sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages; The sum of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; The sum of P30,000.00 as attorneys fees; A legal interest of SIX PERCENT (6%) per annum on the sums awarded in (a), (b), and (c) from the date of this Decision up to the time of full payment thereof. SO ORDERED . [38] Robern and Bernardo filed a Motion for Reconsideration [39] which Al-Amanah adopted. The CA, however, was firm in its disposition and thus denied [40] the same. Aggrieved, Robern and Al-Amanah separately filed Petitions for Review on Certiorari before us. However, Al-Amanahs Petition docketed as G.R. No. 173437, was denied on September 27, 2006 on procedural grounds. [41] Al-Amanahs Motion for Reconsideration of the said Resolution of dismissal was denied with finality on December 4, 2006. [42] Hence, only the Petition of Robern and Bernardo subsists. Petitioners Arguments Petitioners stress that there was no sale between PELA and Al-Amanah, for neither a deed nor any written agreement was executed. They aver that Dalig was a mere OIC of Al-Amanahs Davao Branch, who was never vested with authority by the board of directors of Al-Amanah to sell the lot. With regard to the notation on the March 18, 1993 letter and the four bank receipts, Robern contends that these are only in connection with PELAs offer. Petitioners likewise contend that Robern is a purchaser in good faith. The PELA members are mere informal settlers. The title to the lot was clean on its face, and at the time Al-Amanah accepted Roberns offer, the latter was unaware of the alleged transaction with PELA. And when PELA later represented to Robern that it entered into a transaction with Al-Amanah regarding the subject lot, Robern even wrote Al-Amanah to inquire about PELAs claim over the property. And when informed by Al-Amanah that it rejected the offer of PELA and of its action of requesting assistance from the local government to remove the occupants from the s