Ampeloquio v. Napiza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Romeo Napiza and other co-owners were owners of two parcels of land. Petitioner Rudy S. Ampeloquio, Sr., a real estate developer, and respondent executed an "Assignment of Rights" dated September 11, 1981, concerning Lot No. 4685, wherein respondent was to persuade co-owners for development in exchange for 5% of petitioner's share. Respondent claimed the subject was the Palolang Malapit property (Lot No. 3424), while petitioner claimed it was the Palolang Malayo property (Lot No. 4685) and that the number in the Assignment of Rights was a typographical error. Respondent facilitated the development of the Palolang Malapit property, culminating in an Extra-judicial Partition with Waiver and a Contract of Development. Petitioner gave respondent P20,000.00 and a land title as commission. Respondent alleged petitioner failed to comply with his undertaking under the Assignment of Rights, leading to demands for settlement. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for Specific Performance before the RTC, seeking conveyance of 891.4 square meters of land from petitioner's share or its market value, plus attorney's fees and damages. The RTC ruled in favor of respondent, finding the Palolang Malapit property as the subject of the Assignment of Rights, that the action had not prescribed, and that venue was proper. The RTC ordered petitioner to deliver the land or its market value, with deductions for payments made, and awarded P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision but reduced attorney's fees to P20,000.00. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought to nullify the CA decision, arguing that the subject lot was Palolang Malayo, that respondent failed to fulfill his obligation, that the action had prescribed and was barred by laches, and that the transaction was illegal under Ministry Order No. 35, Series of 1995, invoking the doctrine of in pari delicto.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals and RTC erred in finding that the Palolang Malapit property was the subject of the Assignment of Rights. Whether the respondent's cause of action has prescribed or is barred by laches. Whether the respondent is prohibited from claiming compensation due to Ministry Order No. 35, Series of 1995, and if the parties are in pari delicto.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 October 2004 and its Resolution dated 3 February 2005 in CA-G.R. CV No. 69206 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the subject matter of the Assignment of Rights: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the Palolang Malapit property was the subject of the Assignment of Rights, not the Palolang Malayo property. The Court found that the lower courts' conclusions were sufficiently supported by the evidence on record and could withstand scrutiny. Petitioner's claim of a typographical error in the lot number was accepted by the lower courts, who considered the practical construction given to the contract by the parties. The fact that petitioner gave respondent P20,000.00 and a land title as consideration for respondent's efforts in consummating the development of Palolang Malapit further supported the conclusion that this was the intended subject matter. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and would not disturb the findings of the trial and appellate courts unless there was an overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted fact of substance. On prescription and laches: The Supreme Court held that the respondent's cause of action had not prescribed. The Court clarified that the prescriptive period for a written contract accrues from the occurrence of the breach, not from the date of execution. In this case, the breach occurred in March 1995 when petitioner denied any obligation. Even if the accrual were considered from the execution date of September 11, 1981, the prescriptive period was interrupted by written extrajudicial demands made by respondent in 1989 and 1990, and again by a final demand letter in March 1995. These demands effectively wiped out the elapsed period and started a fresh ten-year prescriptive period. Laches was also deemed unavailing, as respondent's repeated demands negated any presumption of neglect or omission in asserting his right. On Ministry Order No. 35 and in pari delicto: The Supreme Court ruled that the issues concerning Ministry Order No. 35, Series of 1995, and the doctrine of in pari delicto could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court noted that petitioner failed to allege or raise these defenses before the trial court. The established rule is that issues not raised and ventilated in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as doing so would violate principles of fair play, justice, and due process. Therefore, these arguments were deemed waived and could not be considered by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
The accrual of the prescriptive period for an action based on a written contract commences not from the date of execution but from the occurrence of the breach. Written extrajudicial demands interrupt the running of the prescriptive period.