Mandin-Trotin v. Bongo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a parcel of land, Lot No. 3982 in Panglao, Bohol, with an area of 32,668 square meters, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 64051 issued in 1990 in the name of Candido Bongo. The Heirs of Diosdado Bongo claim ownership based on an alleged Escritura de Venta from March 9, 1929, where their predecessor, Diosdado, purportedly purchased the land. They assert that Diosdado allowed Candido, his brother, to occupy and cultivate the land, and later to build a house on it, with Candido sharing the produce. After Diosdado's death, Candido continued to share harvests with his heirs. However, in 1997, the Heirs of Diosdado Bongo discovered Candido had applied for and obtained a free patent and title to the land, leading them to file an adverse claim and subsequently a complaint for annulment of title and recovery of ownership, alleging Candido's patent application was fraudulent. Procedural History: The Heirs of Diosdado Bongo filed a complaint on March 10, 1999, seeking to annul Candido Bongo's title. The Heirs of Candido Bongo countered, asserting Candido acquired the land in good faith, occupied it as owner for over 30 years, and that Diosdado and Candido had agreed the land would belong to Candido. On March 14, 2000, Paz Mandin-Trotin (herein petitioner) filed a motion to intervene, claiming she had entered into a Deed of Conditional Sale with the Heirs of Candido Bongo for one hectare of the land on August 21, 1997, and had paid P100,000.00. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Heirs of Diosdado Bongo's complaint on February 28, 2011, ruling their claim was barred by prescription and the Statute of Limitations, and that the Escritura de Venta lacked evidentiary weight and had inconsistent area descriptions. The RTC left the settlement of Trotin's claim to the parties involved. The Heirs of Diosdado Bongo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On April 10, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision, dismissing the appeal and also denying Trotin's intervention, finding the Escritura de Venta insufficient to prove ownership and the Deed of Conditional Sale to be a contract to sell, which Trotin breached by failing to pay the balance. The Petition: Paz Mandin-Trotin filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision that affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the Heirs of Diosdado Bongo's complaint and denied her intervention. Trotin raises two issues: first, whether the RTC erred in leaving the settlement of her cross-claim to the parties instead of granting relief due to the respondents' default on her cross-claim; and second, whether the CA erred in ruling that her failure to pay the balance of the purchase price within the stipulated period relieved the respondents of their obligation, thereby voiding the contract to sell. Trotin argues that the Deed of Conditional Sale was novated by subsequent agreements allowing installment payments and deferring the final deed of sale until the resolution of the civil case. She seeks to introduce her Affidavit of Merit and related agreements as evidence, contending they demonstrate the novation and her right to the property upon full payment. The respondents argue that a Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law and cannot consider new evidence or factual reviews, and that Trotin's claims of novation and new evidence were not raised in the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in leaving the settlement of the matter between intervenor Trotin and respondents; specifically, whether this procedural issue is moot due to the CA's subsequent ruling on the merits of Trotin's cross-claim. Whether the CA erred in ruling that intervenor Trotin's failure to pay the balance of the purchase price within the period provided in the DCS relieved respondents of any obligation to hold the property in reserve for her; specifically, whether the DCS was a contract to sell, whether Trotin's failure to pay rendered the contract void, and whether the alleged subsequent agreements constituted a valid novation.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The CA Decision is affirmed with modification. The cross-claim of petitioner Paz Mandin-Trotin against respondents is dismissed, and she is ordered to immediately vacate the one-hectare portion of Lot No. 3982 and turn over its possession to the respondents. The P100,000.00 paid by Trotin shall be considered as rental for the property from October 31, 1997, until she vacates.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Court found the issue of the RTC's handling of the settlement to be superfluous because the CA had already ruled on the merits of intervenor Trotin's cross-claim against the respondents. The RTC's initial disposition was superseded by the CA's comprehensive review and resolution of the matter. Therefore, the procedural issue of how the RTC handled the cross-claim became moot. On the second issue: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the Deed of Conditional Sale (DCS) was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, where ownership was retained by the sellers until full payment, and the buyer's full payment was a suspensive condition. Intervenor Trotin's failure to pay the P900,000.00 balance by the stipulated deadline meant the DCS became ineffective, as the DCS explicitly stated that failure to pay the balance by October 31, 1997, would render the contract null and void without further formality. The Court also held that intervenor Trotin's theory of novation, based on alleged subsequent agreements, could not be entertained because these alleged agreements were not presented during the trial and were being introduced for the first time on appeal, which is prohibited. The Court found the claim of discovering these documents in 2014, after they were allegedly executed in 2000-2001, to be highly suspicious and not constituting newly discovered evidence. Therefore, the DCS was not novated, and Trotin's failure to pay rendered the contract void, extinguishing the vendors' obligation to hold the property for her.
Main Doctrine
A Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law and cannot be used to re-examine evidence or introduce new evidence not presented during trial. Claims of novation, if not raised and substantiated during the trial, cannot be considered for the first time on appeal.