G.R. Nos. 102526-31 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing the Complaints have to be as they are hereby ordered DISMISSED, including their claims for attorneys fees and costs of litigation. On defendants/purchasers counterclaims, defendant Spouses Demetrio Batayola et al. in Civil Case No. 3188-V-89 are awarded P10,000.00 attorneys fees in resisting this case; and all defendants in the rest of the cases are awarded P10,000.00 in each case as attorneys fees, likewise for resisting these claims. Hence, this petition for review. [5] The Facts The uncontested facts [6] are narrated by Respondent Court of Appeals, as follows: [7] On different dates specified herein below, Pacweld Steel Corporation (Pacweld) a now defunct domestic corporation executed in favor of present defendants herein a Contract to Sell pieces of lots payable in installment [for] which payments started to be made. For a better perspective, the following are herein reflected: Defendants/Purchasers Dates of Contracts Meliton Banoyo Feb. 6, 1967 Batayola Spouses Nov. 25, 1967 Romeo M. Gomez Feb. 27, 1968 Carlos V. David March 4, 1968 Leonido Bongco March 15, 1968 Bonifacio Vasquez May 31, 1967 Purchasers/ Total Total Payments Last Defendants Consideration Payments Dates Banoyo P10,000.00 P4,303.43 Nov. 23, 1971 Batayola 7,271.92 7,232.24 Romeo Gomez 6,945.68 8,669.55 April 24, 1972 David 11,430.00 7,221.13 Nov. 22, 1972 Bongco 11,700.00 8,855.18 Jan. 22, 1974 + 303.20 Vasquez 8,730.00 7,505.37 Aug. 9, 1972 On or about the year 1972[,] the above-mentioned defendant[s]-purchasers deferred/refused further payments on their amortization to Pacweld because of [the] refusal of Lorenzo V. Lagandaon, then President of Pacweld officials [sic] to undertake the development of the areas bought. Defendants/Purchasers, together with other lot buyers filed an action for Specific Performance with the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXVII, docketed as Civil Case No. 87763 entitled Rolando Fadul et al., Plaintiffs vs. Pacweld Steel Corporation et al. On October 12, 1976 the said Court promulgated its decision stating therein the following. From all the foregoing evidence introduced by the plaintiffs, as well as the stipulation of facts entered into by the defendants with the former, the Court is fully convinced that defendants indeed have not lived up to the conditions of its [sic] contract particularly paragraph 6-A thereof. The roads which were supposed to be cemented in fact, had been constructed as clearly shown in Exhibits B, B-1, B-2 and B-3. So also, with the big holes existing on the roads. For this reason, the Court further concludes that plaintiffs have adequately proven their cause of action by clear preponderance of evidence. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads as follows: Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, as follows: Ordering the defendants to strictly comply with their obligations under the contract to sell (par.