G.R. No. 170540 - EUFEMIA BALATICO VDA. DE AGATEP, VS. ROBERTA* L. RODRIGUEZ AND NATALIA AGUINALDO VDA. DE LIM. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment to wit: 1. Dismiss the instant complaint for reconveyance for lack of merit; 2. Sustain the legality of TCT No. 10559 [14] in the name of defendant Roberta Rodriguez; and 3. Award actual damages in favor of plaintiff Eufemia Balatico Vda. de Agatep against defendant Natalia Aguinaldo Vda. de Lim in the amount of Php18,000.00 with legal interest to be computed from the filing of the instant case up to the full completion of its payment. SO DECIDED. [15] In awarding damages in favor of herein petitioner, the RTC ruled that Lim enriched herself at the expense of petitioner and her husband by benefiting from the proceeds of the sale but failing to deliver the object of such sale. Hence, on grounds of justice and equity, petitioner should be awarded an adequate compensation for the value of the loss suffered. Herein petitioner filed an appeal with the CA contending that the RTC erred in not considering the merit of the evidence and arguments proven and submitted by petitioner on the issues defined and agreed upon by the parties. Petitioner also averred that the RTC erred in deciding the case on issues different from those defined and agreed upon by the parties during the pre-trial conference and that the trial court further erred in dismissing the amended complaint. On September 9, 2005, the CA rendered its Decision dismissing herein petitioner's appeal for lack of merit and affirming the assailed Decision of the RTC. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated November 16, 2005. Hence, the present petition with the following assignment of errors: IV.1. IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PNB, THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR; IV.2. IN HOLDING THAT "NOTWITHSTANDING THE DISMISSAL OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS AGAINST PNB, THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS DECISION NONETHELESS FULLY PASSED UPON THE MERITS OF APPELLANT'S CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SAID MORTGAGEE BANK," THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR; IV.3. AS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE ERROR IV.2, THE RULING OF THE APPELLATE COURT THAT PNB IS A MORTGAGEE, BUYER AND LATER SELLER IN GOOD FAITH, IS A REVERSIBLE ERROR; IV.4. THE DECISION, ANNEX A, ERRED IN REJECTING PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS THAT PNB DID NOT ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP OVER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION; IV.5. THE DECISION, ANNEX A, ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT DECIDED THE CASE UPON SUCH ISSUES DIFFERENT FROM THOSE AGREED UPON DURING THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE DESERVES SCANT CONSIDERATION; AND IV.6. THE DECISION, ANNEX A, ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO HER CAUSE OF ACTION OF RECONVEYANCE. [16] In her first assigned error, petitioner contends that Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court does not require another pre-trial, as well as the filing of another pre-trial brief, when the complaint is amended to implead another defendant. Th