Chunky Monkeys: CM Digest

Chunky Monkeys CM Digest
Case Name: Bacaling v. Muya, et al.

Docket: G.R. No. 148404-05
Date: April 11, 2002
Ponente: De Leon, Jr., J.
Bacaling owned land

110 lots = used as mortgage then it was forclosed by GSIS
Bacaling was able to buy it back from GSIS
Respondents grabbed for themselves the landholdings pero claimed na they were
legally instituted by bacaling’s administrator
Tong bought the land from Bacaling after Bacaling bought land from GSIS
Para matransfer yung land, Bacaling executed SPA in favor of tong
10 years later Bacaling wanted to nullify the sales and revoking the agency
FACTS
 Bacaling and her spouse owned 3 parcels of land subsequently divided into 110
sub-lots. The landholding was approved as “residential” or “subdivision” by the National
Urbvan Planning Commission (NUPC). Bureau of Lands approved the subdivision
plan for purpose of developing said property into a low-cost residential ocmmunity
which the spouses referred to as the Bacaling-Moreno Subdivision.
 The 110 lots, along with other parcels of land, were used as mortgage for a loan
worth P600,000, of which only P240,000 were released. Subsequently the Bacalings
failed to pay the amortization and the lots, including the 110 sub-lots, was
foreclosed by GSIS. Eventually, Bacaling (by then a widow) was eventually
able to restore to herself ownership of the 110 sub-lots.
 According to findings of the Office of President, in 1972, respondents grabbed
exclusively for themselves the said landholdings. Apparently, respondents took
advantage of the problematic peace and order situation at the onset of martial law and
the foreclosure of the lots by GSIS. Respondents however, claimed that they were
legally instituted by Bacaling’s administrator/overseer as tenant-tillers of the
subject parcels of land, and that subsequently, their relationship with the landowner
was changed to one of leasehold.
 Petitioner Tong, in 1990, bought from Bacaing the subject sub-lots for P1.7M.
This was after Bacaling repurchased the subject property from GSIS. To secure
performance of the contract of sale and facilitate the transfer of title to Tong,
Bacaling appointed him in 1992 as her attorney-in-fact, under an irrevocable
special power of attorney.
 10 Years after perfection and execution of the sale, Bacaling filed a complaint to nullify
sale, but it was dismissed with prejudice and became final and executory. (Take note of
this.)
 Following the sale, Tong filed for a petition for Cancellation of Certificates of Land
Transfer against respondents with the Department of Agrarian Reform. DAR dismissed
the petition. Appeal to Central office but rejected. MR Failed. Appealed to Office of
President who reversed the decision of DAR. Respondents now elevated to CA.
Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre

Chunky Monkeys CM Digest
 Before the petition was resolved, Bacaling manifested to CA that she was revoking
the irrevocable power of attorney in favor of Tong and admitting the status of
respondents as her tenants of the 110 sub-lots. CA reversed the OP decision and
validated the certificates of land transfers in favor of respondets. Tong MR. CA denied.
ISSUE and HELD

1. W/N Tong have the requisite interest to litigate this petition for review on certiorari. YES
 There should be no doubt that as transferee of the 110 sub-lots through a
contract of sale as attorney in fact of Bacaing, under an irrevocable SPA, Tong
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the isntant case as well as
the orders and decisions in the proceedings a quo.
 We rule that Bacaling cannot revoke at her whim and pleasure the irrevocable
SPA which she had duly executed in favor of petitioner Tong and duly
acknowledge before a notary public. The agency is one coupled with interest
which is explicitly irrevocable since the deed of agency was prepared and
signed and/or accepted by Tong and Bacaling with a view to completing the
performance of the contract of sale of the 110 sub-lots. It is for this reason that
the mandate of the agency constituted Tong as the real party in interest to remove all
clouds on the title of Bacaling and that, after all these cases are resolved, to use the
irrevocable SPA to ultimately “cause and effect the transfer of the aforesaid lots in the
name of the Vendees and execute and deliver document/s or instruments of whatever
nature necessary to accomplish the foregoing acts and deeds.” The fiduciary
relationship inherent in ordinary contracts of agency is replaced by material
consideration which in the type of agency herein established bars the removal
or dismissal of Tong as Bacaling’s attorney in fact on the ground of alleged
loss of trust and confidence.
2. **W/N private respondents are agricultural tenants entitled to the benefits accorded by
our agrarian laws. No (Lack of requisites for valid agricultural leashold
relationship)
3. **W/N 110 sub-lots are residential. Yes
Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre

Chunky Monkeys: CM Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chunky Monkeys: CM Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chunky Monkeys: CM Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chunky Monkeys CM Digest

Case Name: Bacaling v. Muya, et al.

Bacaling owned land

Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre

ISSUE and HELD

3. **W/N 110 sub-lots are residential. Yes

Balbanero, Bruzon, Go, Olazo, Ong, Santos, Sarmiento, Umandap, Yrreverre

You might also like