ANNEX-O_Spouses-Dario-Lacap-vs.-Jouvet-Ong-Lee-G.R.-No.-142131-11-December-2002..doc - ANNEX O SPS LACAP vs LEE G.R No 142131 THIRD DIVISION CORONA J

ANNEX-O_Spouses-Dario-Lacap-vs.-Jouvet-Ong-Lee-G.R.-No.-142131-11-December-2002..doc

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

ANNEX O SPS LACAP vs. LEE G.R. No. 142131.December 11, 2002 THIRD DIVISION, CORONA, J. FACTS: Before 1981, a certain Victor Facundo mortgaged two parcels of land and the improvements thereon to Monte de Piedad Savings Bank (the bank, for brevity). In 1981, herein petitioner spouses Dario and Matilde Lacap assumed to pay Facundo’s mortgage obligation to the bank. Due to their failure to pay their obligation to the bank, however, the latter foreclosed on the mortgage. During the auction sale, the bank emerged as the highest bidder and title passed on to it. The bank allowed the petitioner spouses to stay in the premises as lessees paying a monthly rental of P 800. The petitioner spouses introduced improvements thereon allegedly amounting to some P 500,000 after relying on the bank’s assurance that the property would be sold back to them. On May 1, 1996 5 , the petitioner spouses’ representative went to the bank to pay the monthly rental. However, the bank refused to accept the rentals inasmuch as, according to the bank, the property had already been sold to another person. When the petitioner spouses called the bank’s head office, the Vice-President of the Assets Division of the bank advised them to submit a written offer to the bank for P 1,100,000. The petitioner spouses complied that same day. But, on May 22, 1996, the bank turned down the petitioner spouses’ offer. On June 20, 1996, the petitioner spouses received a letter demanding that they vacate the premises because it was already owned by herein respondent, Jouvet Ong Lee. The petitioner spouses instituted a civil case against the respondent for cancellation of sale and damages with an application for preliminary injunction. This case is now pending before Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC, for brevity) of Davao City. Meanwhile, on October 30, 1996, the respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners. After trial, the Municipal Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 4, rendered judgment. On appeal, the RTC of Davao City, Branch 11, affirmed the assailed decision of the municipal trial court, with the modification that respondent should reimburse the petitioner spouses for the improvements the latter introduced to the premises. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration praying for the deletion of the order to reimburse petitioner spouses for the improvements introduced on the subject premises. On August 25, 1998, the RTC issued an order granting respondent’s motion. On August 23, 1999, the said court denied the petitioner spouses’ motion for reconsideration.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture