G.R. No. 190016 - FREDERICK VENTURA, MARITES VENTURA-ROXAS, AND PHILIP VENTURA (HEIRS OF DECEASED DOLORES C. VENTURA), VS. HEIRS OF SPOUSES EUSTACIO T. ENDAYA AND TRINIDAD L. ENDAYA, NAMELY, TITUS L. ENDAYA, ENRICO L. ENDAYA, AND JOSEPHINE ENDAYA­BANTUG,[1].D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it directed [39] the Division Clerk of Court to issue the corresponding Entry of Judgment. An Entry of Judgment [40] was, thus, made in the CA Book of Entries of Judgments certifying that the August 18, 2006 Decision became final and executory on March 25, 2007. The records were thereafter remanded [41] to the RTC. In July 2009, respondent Titus Endaya, heir of Sps. Endaya, [42] demanded [43] petitioners to vacate the subject properties, which they refused. On November 10, 2009, petitioners filed the instant petition invoking the benevolence of the Court to set aside the CAs August 18, 2006 Decision and, instead, reinstate the RTC Decision in the interest of substantial justice. They claimed that they had no knowledge of the demise of their counsel; therefore, they were unable to file a timely motion for reconsideration before the CA or the proper petition before the Court. Further, they contend that they have proven full payment of the purchase price within the payment period as required by the contract to sell. For their part, the heirs of Sps. Endaya (respondents) objected [44] to the belated filing of the petition long after the said CA Decision had lapsed into finality, especially as the petition raised factual issues that are improper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules. In any case, they countered that the CA correctly held that petitioners failed to fully comply with their obligations under the contract to sell; thus, respondents are under no obligation to execute any deed of sale over the subject properties in favor of petitioners. On September 22, 2010, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda, [45] which they duly submitted. The Issues Before the Court The principal issues in this case are: ( a ) whether or not petitioners right to appeal before the Court should be upheld; and ( b ) whether or not respondents should execute a deed of sale over the subject properties in favor of petitioners. The Court's Ruling The petition is partly meritorious. Anent the first issue, it is observed that the CA erroneously sent the notice of the assailed August 18, 2006 Decision to petitioners at No. 2 , Barangay San Martin de Porres, Parañaque City, instead of their address of record, i.e. , Marian Road 2 , Brgy. San Martin de Porres, Parañaque, Metro Manila [46] and thus, was returned unserved for the reason insufficient address. [47] The notices of the Entry of Judgment [48] and the transmittal letter [49] to the Clerk of Court of the RTC indicate this fact. As such, there was clearly no proper and valid service of the said CA Decision which deprived petitioners of the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration before the CA and/or further appeal to the Court. Verily, it would be unjust and unfair to allow petitioners to suffer the adverse effects of the premature entry of judgment made by the CA. Therefore, the Court deems it prudent to