Amoguis v. Ballado, etc.; G.R. No. 189626. August 20, 2018
839 Phil. 1
G.R. No. 189626. August 20, 2018
FACTS:
In 1969, the Ballado Spouses entered into contracts with St. Joseph Realty to buy two parcels of land on installment. The contracts provided for automatic rescission and cancellation if the Ballado Spouses failed to make payments or comply with the terms of the contract. The Ballado Spouses made payments until 1979, when St. Joseph Realty's collector refused to receive them and advised them to suspend payments and remove a small house they had built on the land. The Ballado Spouses complied, but the collector never returned to collect payments. In 1987, the Ballado Spouses discovered that St. Joseph Realty had rescinded their contracts and sold the land to the Amoguis Brothers, who had taken down the Ballado Spouses' fences and trees. The Ballado Spouses attempted to pay the remaining balance on their contract and asked for reconsideration, but St. Joseph Realty returned their check and claimed it was received inadvertently. The Ballado Spouses are now seeking to compel St. Joseph Realty to fulfill their contract and return the land to them.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Ballado Spouses, and against St. Joseph Realty and the Amoguis Brothers. It concluded that the Ballado Spouses proved their desire to complete their payment, and that it was Pinili who refused to receive their payment because of the small house erected on the lands for their caretaker. It also ruled that based on evidence, St. Joseph Realty never made attempts to collect from them. St. Joseph Realty's notices of rescission were deliberately sent to the wrong address of the lands involved, and not to the Ballado Spouses' home address. The RTC also noted that the Ballado Spouses failed to file a formal offer of evidence. However, this was not detrimental to their case as some of these documents were admitted by St. Joseph Realty, including the contracts to sell and the letters that it sent to the Ballado Spouses through the wrong address.
Only the Amoguis Brothers timely filed their appeal brief. Since St. Joseph Realty failed to file its appeal brief, the Court of Appeals considered it to have abandoned its appeal.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling. As to the rescission of contracts to sell, the CA sustained that it was improperly and unlawfully done by St. Joseph Realty. It stated that since St. Joseph Realty did not validly rescind the contracts to sell, it had no legal basis to sell the properties to the Amoguis Brothers.
The Amoguis Brothers now argue that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case, and that the testimonial and documentary pieces of evidence presented by the Ballado Spouses are not formally offered, and thus may not be appreciated by the RTC.
ISSUES:
- Whether or not the RTC lack of jurisdiction was lost by waiver or estoppel. - YES
- Whether or not the Amoguis Brothers are buyers in good faith and have preferential right to Lot Nos. 1 and 2. - NO.
HELD:
The decision of the CA is sustained.
(1)
YES.The Amoguis Brothers are already estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Laches had already set in.
From the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1344, it is clear that the exclusive original jurisdiction for specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman is lodged with the National Housing Authority.
The Ballado Spouses' rights and interests lie not just as buyers of any property, but buyers of subdivision lots from a subdivision developer. From the circumstances between St. Joseph Realty and the Ballado Spouses, there is no doubt that the then National Housing Authority had jurisdiction to determine the parties' obligations under the contracts to sell and the damages that may have arisen from their breach. The Ballado Spouses' Complaint should have been filed before it. The National Housing Authority also had jurisdiction over the injunction and annulment of titles sought against petitioners as these were incidental to St. Joseph Realty's unsound business practices.
Where there is no jurisdiction over a subject matter, the judgment is rendered null and void. A void judgment has absolutely no legal effect, "by which no rights are divested, from which no rights can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts performed and all claims flowing out of are void." Because there is in effect no judgment, res judicata does not apply to commencing another action despite previous adjudications already made.
However, estoppel by laches bars a party from invoking lack of jurisdiction in an unjustly belated manner especially when it actively participated during trial. After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court.
In this case, the law that determines jurisdiction of the National Housing Authority had been in place for more than a decade when the Complaint was filed. St. Joseph Realty raised lack of jurisdiction in its Answer. The Amoguis Brothers sought affirmative relief from the RTC and actively participated in all stages of the proceedings. Therefore, there was no valid reason for them to raise the issue of jurisdiction only now before the Supreme Court.
As to the admissibility of the Ballado Spouses' testimonial and documentary evidence, the CA was correct to consider only the contracts to sell. These were the only documents attached to the written formal offer of evidence that they filed. Hence, these documents should be considered as the only documentary evidence formally offered.
All evidence must be formally offered. Otherwise, the court cannot consider them. However, testimonial evidence not formally offered but not timely objected to by an opposing party may be still be considered by the court. The purpose of offering a witness' testimony is for the court to expertly assess whether questions propounded are relevant and material, and if the witness is competent to answer.
(2)
In this case, based on the evidence on record, the Amoguis Brothers failed to discharge this burden.
A buyer in good faith is one who purchases and pays fair price for a property without notice that another has an interest over or right to it.
This rule does not apply, however, when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation.
It is incumbent upon a buyer to prove good faith should he or she assert this status. This burden cannot be discharged by merely invoking the legal presumption of good faith.
In this case, based on the evidence on record, the Amoguis Brothers failed to discharge this burden. Though they were informed by Francisco on his claim to the properties only after their purchase, it is undisputed from the records that mango and chico trees were planted on the properties, and that they were cordoned off by barbed wires. St. Joseph Realty also informed them that there were previous buyers, who allegedly abandoned their purchase. To merely claim that they were buyers in good faith, absent any proof, does not make the case for them.