Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 97795 -

G.R. No. 97795 -

Cited Laws

RA 89RA 647RA 444RA 447RA 435RA 264RA 557RA 240RA 237RA 161RA 36RA 679RA 709
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the latter to resell the property above referred to, the plaintiffs herein in accordance with the above-mentioned decisions; and to pay plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS and the costs of this suit. Plaintiffs pray for such other and further reliefs which may be legal, just and proper in the premises.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering the latter to resell the property above referred to, the plaintiffs herein in accordance with the above-mentioned decisions; and to pay plaintiffs attorneys fees in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS and the costs of this suit. Plaintiffs pray for such other and further reliefs which may be legal, just and proper in the premises. [5] On April 29, 1961, the then Araneta Institute of Agriculture (AIA) filed a Complaint-in-Intervention in Civil Case No. C-760. It alleged that on November 28, 1961, the fifty-two plaintiffs had executed a Kasunduan Na May Patnubay Kapangyarihan Hinggil Sa Asyenda Gonzales, Baesa, Caloocan, Rizal with the AIA where the tenants, through their attorney-in-fact, Marciano Baylon, conveyed to the AIA their priority rights to purchase ( pangunahing karapatang bilhin ) from the PHHC a total of 507,376 square meters which would surely be adjudicated to them as their share in the Gonzales Estate. However, the PHHC did not conform to the Kasunduan . On August 2, 1961, the lower court issued an order allowing the AIA to intervene. The AIA, thereafter, produced a Compromise Agreement dated November 28, 1961 purportedly entered into by only thirteen of the tenants, including Gregorio Bajamonde, with the AIA. It appeared therein that the aforesaid tenants sold their rights to purchase the lots occupied by them to the AIA. However, the PHHC and the Republic were not signatories to the aforementioned compromise agreement. On July 2, 1968, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing the intervention of the AIA. [6] The AIA appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. On December 11, 1961, twenty-eight out of the fifty-seven tenants-plaintiffs entered into a partial compromise agreement [7] covering the lands respectively occupied by them, this time with the PHHC. Included therein was Gregorio Bajamonde, the tenant of Lot 54 and Lot 75 covering an area of 8,967 square meters and 9,427 square meters, respectively. In the said agreement, the Board of Directors of the PHHC approved Resolution No. 269 dated December 1, 1961 agreeing to resell the lots to the tenants with the following conditions: 2. Defendants agree to sell said lots, at the rate of P3.80 per square meter, and the plaintiffs herein agree to buy the same and pay the purchase price thereof, in the following manner: (a) An amount equivalent to thirty (30%) of the purchase price thereof, upon execution of the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of the plaintiffs herein; (b) Balance thereof, to be paid within a period of 5 years in equal semestral installments, deferred payments to bear 6% interest per annum, and to be secured by a first mortgage on the same property in favor of the defendants, and further subject to the condition that no subsequent conveyance or transfer or other form of encumbrance shall be made on th