G.R. No. 123655 - ANGEL BAUTISTA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO ATIENZA (FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF JULITA ATIENZA, BENEDICTO DE LEON AND RIZALINO ATIENZA), AMELIA ATIENZA, GREGORIO ATIENZA, CONRADO ATIENZA AND REALTY BARON CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, TCT No. T-12113 was issued in favor of Realty Baron Corporation. On January 26, 1979, petitioner verified from the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay if respondents had already secured a new title for the property. He discovered that the property sold to him has been subdivided into two lots. [16] He also learned that the respondents sold to Realty Baron Corporation the property covered by TCT No. 12106 (now TCT No. 12113), the same area which Papa was planning to buy from him. [17] On January 27, 1979, petitioner wrote a letter [18] to Felicito Papa, son of Nicanor Papa, Sr. and President of Realty Baron Corporation, reminding the latter that he is the owner of the property sold by the respondents. [19] On Apri1 3, 1979, a Notice of Adverse Claim was registered by petitioner in the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City, against TCT No. T-12107. [20] Petitioner also filed an adverse claim over the lot covered by TCT No. 12113. The adverse claims were cancelled after the lapse of the period provided by law. On December 29, 1979, petitioner filed the present action for specific performance and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 35608 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, to compel the respondents to comply with their obligation to deliver the title over the property. Petitioner; also caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens over TCT Nos. 12107 and 12113 before the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City. [21] Thus, Realty Baron Corporation decided not to pay the balance of the contract price in the amount of P 520,000.00. [22] It also intervened in the specific performance case. Petitioner claimed that due to respondents' nonperformance of their obligations under the contract, he would need to spend more to develop the property. He also suffered sleepless nights and experienced serious anxieties. [23] Moreover, he was constrained to engage the services of a lawyer to file the complaint for specific performance against the respondents for a P 20,000.00 legal fee. [24] On September 17, 1986, the lower court rendered its decision, [25] declaring that there was a perfected contract to sell between petitioner and the respondents. It held that title over the subject lot did not pass to petitioner because the sale was subject to the condition that petitioner would advance the necessary expenses for the registration of the property in the names of respondents. Further, it held that petitioner was the one who reneged on his obligation so he could not successfully demand for specific performance nor ask for damages. It ordered petitioner to pay P100,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Realty Baron Corporation was also directed to complete its payment of P500,000.00 to the respondents. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. On January 31, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 33213, affirming the lower court ruling. Hence, the present petition.