SALUN-AT MARQUEZ
and PeachesNESTOR DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, [Tenants of Murong Property] vs. ELOISA
ESPEJO, ELENITA ESPEJO [wife of
tenant of Lantap property], EMERITA ESPEJO, OPHIRRO ESPEJO, OTHNIEL ESPEJO,
ORLANDO ESPEJO, OSMUNDO ESPEJO, ODELEJO ESPEJO and NEMI FERNANDEZ, Respondents.
doctrine
When the parties
admit the contents of written docs but put in issue whether these docs adequately and correctly express the true intention
of the parties, the deciding body is authorized to look beyond these
instruments and into the contemporaneous
and subsequent actions of the parties in order to determine such intent.
Rule 130, Sec 9
specifically provides that PER is exclusive only as "between the parties
and their successors-in-interest." The PER may not be invoked where at
least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to
the written doc in question, and does not base his claim on the instrument or
assert a right originating in the instrument.
facts
·
Espejos were the original registered owners of 2 parcels of agricultural
land (2 ha each)
o
Lantap –tenanted by PeachesNemi (who is the husband of Peaches Elenita)
o
Murong - tenanted by Sulan-at
Marquez and Nestor Dela Cruz.
·
The respondents mortgaged both parcels of land to Rural Bank of
Bayombong, Inc.. The mortgaged properties were foreclosed and sold to RBBI.
·
RBBI eventually consolidated title to
the properties and TCTs were issued in the name of RBBI.
o
TCT No. T-62096 dated Jan
14, 1985 was issued for the Murong property.
o
TCT No. T-62836 dated June
4, 1985 was issued for the Lantap property
·
Espejos bought back 1 of their lots from RBBI. (evidenced
by TCT No. T-62096 )
·
The
Deed of Sale did not mention the barangay where the property was located but
mentioned the title of the property (TCT No. T-62096),
which title corresponds to the Murong property.
·
Respondents never took possession of the Murong property. Nemi continued
working on the Lantap property. The Deed of Sale was annotated on TCT No.
T-62096 almost a decade later, on July 1, 1994.
·
RBBI executed separate Deeds of Voluntary Land Transfer (VLTs) in
favor of Marquez and Dela Cruz. Both VLTs described the subject as an
agricultural land located in Barangay Murong and covered by TCT No. T-62836 (which,
however, is the title corresponding to the Lantap property).
·
After the petitioners completed the payment of the purchase price of P90K to RBBI, the DAR issued
the corresponding Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to Marquez and Dela Cruz.
·
Both CLOAs stated that their subjects were parcels of agricultural land
situated in Barangay Murong.
let the
chaos begin…
·
Feb 10, 1997, respondents filed a Complaint before the RARAD of Bayombong. The
complaint was based on respondents’ theory that the Murong property was owned by the respondents by virtue of the 1985
buy-back.
·
RBBI answered that
it was the Lantap property which was the subject of the buy-back transaction
with Espejos.
OIC-RARAD
Decision
·
Ruled in favor of Nemi. RARAD ruled that the VLTs (Murong property) has a
mere typographical error.
·
RARAD declared that they were disqualified to become tenants of the
Lantap property.
·
Respondents repurchased the Lantap property, not the Murong property
(based on RBBI claim)
Ruling of the CA
·
DARAB erred in ruling that they repurchased the Lantap property, while
the petitioners were awarded the Murong property.
·
The
title numbers indicated in their respective deeds of conveyance should control
in determining the subjects thereof.
·
Using the BER, the Deed of Sale is the best evidence as to its contents,
particularly the description of the land which was the object of the sale
·
The additional description in the VLTs that the subject thereof is
located in Barangay Murong was considered to be a mere typographical error.
Issue 1: Is it correct to
apply the BER? no.
·
CA held that the Deed of Sale between respondents and RBBI is the best
evidence as to the property.
·
Petitioners argue that the CA erred in using the BER to determine the
subject of the Deed of Sale and the Deeds of Voluntary Land Transfer. They maintain that the issue in the case is
not the contents of the contracts but the intention of the parties that was not
adequately expressed in their contracts.
·
CA erred in its application of the BER. There is no room for the
application of the BER because there is no dispute regarding the contents of
the docs.
ISsue 2: whether the
admitted contents of these docs adequately and correctly express the true
intention of the parties.
·
Petitioners (and RBBI) maintain that while it refers to TCT No. T-62096,
the parties actually intended the sale of the Lantap property (covered by TCT
No. T-62836).
·
Respondents contend that the reference to TCT No. T-62836 (corresponding
to the Lantap property) reflects the true intention of RBBI and the
petitioners, and the reference to "Barangay Murong" was a
typographical error.
·
This
dispute reflects an intrinsic ambiguity in the contracts, arising from an
apparent failure of the instruments to adequately express the true intention of
the parties. To resolve the ambiguity, resort must be had to evidence outside
of the instruments.
·
The PER excludes parol or extrinsic evidence by which a party seeks to
contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the terms of a valid agreement or
instrument.
·
Respondents
are not parties to the VLTs executed between RBBI and petitioners; they are
strangers to the written contracts.
·
Rule 130, Sec 9 specifically provides that PER is exclusive only as
"between the parties and their successors-in-interest." The PER may
not be invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or
a privy of a party to the written doc in question, and does not base his claim
on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument.
·
The instant case falls under the exceptions to the PER, as provided in
the 2nd par of Rule 130, Sec 9:
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the
terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
1.
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement;
2.
The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
·
Guidance is provided by the ff Arts of the Civil Code involving the
interpretation of contracts:
·
Art 1370. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the
intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations
shall control. Peaches
If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the
parties, the latter shall prevail over the former.
·
Art 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties,
their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.
·
Rule 130, Sec 13: For the proper construction of an instrument, the
circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject
thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed
in the position of those whose language he is to interpret.
issue
3: won reformation of
their contract was necessary. no.
·
The subject of the Deed of Sale between RBBI and the respondents was the
Lantap property, and not the Murong property. The Murong property was in the
possession of the petitioners without any objection from the respondents. Petitioners
paid leasehold rentals for using the Murong property to RBBI, not to the respondents.
·
Such a mistake is not farfetched considering that TCT No. T-62836 only
refers to the Municipality of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, and does not indicate
the particular barangay where the property is located. Both properties are
bounded by a road and public land. Hence,
were it not for the detailed technical description, the titles for the 2
properties are very similar.
·
The respondents attempt to discredit petitioners’ argument that their
VLTs were intrinsically ambiguous and failed to express their true intention by asking why petitioners never filed an
action for the reformation of their contract.
·
A cause of action for the reformation of a contract only arises when one
of the contracting parties manifests an intention, by overt acts, not to abide
by the true agreement of the parties. Petitioners had no cause to reform their
VLTs because the parties thereto (RBBI and petitioners) never had any dispute
as to the interpretation and application thereof.
0 comments:
Post a Comment