G.R. No. 120747 - VICENTE GOMEZ, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF AWARDEE LUISA GOMEZ, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF MANILA ACTING THRU THE CITY TENANTS SECURITY COMMITTEE NOW THE URBAN SETTLEMENT OFFICE, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, after the presentation of evidence, the lower court promulgated its decision [21] dated 20 January 1993, the decretal portion of which reads: Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted : 1. Ordering the City of Manila through its agency the City Tenants Security Committee (now Urban Settlement Office) to set aside the order of cancellation of the award for Lot No. 4, Block 1 (formerly of the Ampil-Gorospe estate) in favor of Luisa Gomez, her heirs and successor-in-interest, the herein petitioner; 2. Prohibiting the City of Manila through its agency including the Register of Deeds of Manila from awarding the same lot and issuing the corresponding certificate of title therefor to any other person; 3. Ordering the City of Manila through its agency the City Tenants Security Committee (now Urban Settlement Office) to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the aforementioned lot in favor of the petitioner as successor-in-interest of the awardee and further ordering them to stop and/or refrain from disturbing the peaceful physical possession thereof of (sic) the petitioner; and 4. Ordering the City of Manila through its agency the City Tenants Security Committee (now Urban Settlement Office) to refund to the petitioner his overpayments amounting to P8,244.00 and to pay the costs of suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts decision prompting petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration which the appellate court denied via its assailed resolution dated 29 June 1995. Hence, the instant appeal where the core of controversy revolves around the propriety of CTSCs act of canceling the lot award, through Resolution No. 015-86, and further declaring the forfeiture of amounts paid by the awardee, as reasonable compensation for the use of the home lot. The petition is unmeritorious. A thorough scrutiny of the records and an even more exhaustive perusal of the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the fact of cancellation of the award covering Lot 4, Block 1, by the City of Manila, acting through the CTSC, was properly exercised within the bounds of law and contractual stipulation between the parties. Viewed broadly, petitioner anchors his case on the premise, albeit erroneous, that upon full payment of the purchase price of the lot in January 1980, Luisa Gomez, actual awardee, already acquired a vested right over the real property subject of the present controversy. Thus, according to petitioner, upon the death of Luisa Gomez on 09 January 1983, the alleged vested right was transmitted by operation of law to her lawful heirs, pursuant to Article 777 of the Civil Code. Additionally, petitioner submits that by virtue of the affidavit of adjudication with Deed of Donation executed on 01 February 1989 in his favor by the surviving children of Luisa, he, in effect, became the successor-in-interest of Luisa and thus entitled to whatever rights enjoyed by the latter over the