SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 210423, July 05, 2021
CHANELAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent.
G.R. No. 210539
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. CHANELAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follpws:The trial court ruled that there was no valid reason to reform the JVA. The requisites under Article 13596 of the Civil Code on reformation of contracts were simply not present. The JYA clearly stipulated that CDC shall renovate the building and sell the units at its own expense. Regardless of actual sales receipt, CDC also agreed to pay P180,300,000.00, plus 71% in the proceeds of sale.
1. Dismissing the instant complaint for reformation of contract and damages filed by Chanelay Development Corporation against Government Service Insurance System for lack of cause of action;
2. Declaring the cancellation of the Joint Venture Agreement by Government Service Insurance System valid.
3. Ordering Chanelay Development Corporation to pay Government Service Insurance System the guaranteed payment of One Hundred Eighty Million Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P180,300,000.00) stipulated in clause 4.02 of the JVA, with legal interest from 9 November 1998 until fully paid;
4. Declaring all improvements on the building introduced by Chanelay Development Corporation and existing at the time of the cancellation of the JVA, including those unlawfully constructed, forfeited in favor of Government Service Insurance System;
5. Declaring the Transfer/Condominium Certificates of Titles listed under Annex "7" of the Second Amended Answer and registered in the name of Chanelay Development Corporation or its successor/s-in-interest null and void;
6. Declaring the contracts to sell entered into by Chanelay Development Corporation with third parties over several units of Chanelay Tower, including the parking slots, null and void;
7. Denying Government Service Insurance System's prayer for actual damages in the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) for the alleged adverse effect of the unlawful construction of two additional floors on the building as well as opportunity cost, the amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) as exemplary damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as litigation expenses and attorney's fees for lack of factual basis;
8. Dismissing the complaints-in-interventions filed by Goldesc and ETS for lack of cause of action; and
9. Dismissing the counterclaims of Government Service Insurance System against the intervenors.
Cost against the plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 24, 2008 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 231 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION to the effect that: 1) The portion in the decision ordering Chanelay Development Corporation to pay Government Service Insurance System the guaranteed payment of One Hundred Eighty Million Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P180,300,000.00) stipulated in clause 4.02 of the JVA, with legal interest from 9 November 1998 and until fully paid is DELETED; 2) Chanelay Development Corporation is ORDERED to return to GOLDESC Development Corporation the amount paid by the latter pursuant to the Contract to Sell dated December 1996 amounting to TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FIVE PESOS AND 42/100 (Php2,355,745.42); and 3) Chanelay Development Corporation is ORDERED to pay Equipment Technical Services Ten Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 10,700,000.00) as compensation for the installation of the automatic fire sprinkler system and over-all sanitary and plumbing system pursuant to the agreements dated October 11, 1996 and May 13, 1997.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryFirst. An action for reformation of instrument may prosper only upon the concurrence of the following: (1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract; (2) the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties to the contract; and (3) the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.10 Here, CDC failed to establish that GSIS acted fraudulently or in an inequitable manner, leading to the JVA's failure to reflect the true intentions of the parties. On the contrary, the complaint simply stemmed from CDC's desire to avoid its obligations under the JVA.
SO ORDERED.9
In its Comment,15 GSIS ripostes that CDC's reliance on Article 1385 is misplaced. The provision refers to rescission and not cancellation or termination of contract. Here, the contract was not merely rescinded; it was terminated pursuant to clause 7.01 of the JVA due to CDC's countless violations thereof.16ARTICLE III – MARKETING OF THE UNIT
3.01. The CDC is hereby appointed and designated by the GSIS as the sole and exclusive marketing agent to sell (at no less than the average price of P35,000.00 per sq.m.) and to prospective buyers all the units of the Condominium building with full power and authority to hire the services of sales agents, representatives and marketing firms to be able to achieve the projected marketing time table.
CDC and GSIS agree that the success of the project depends largely on the marketing, promotions, campaigns, strategies and efforts of the sales agents, representatives and marketing firms thus hired by CDC. Toward this end, CDC and GSIS shall conduct a periodic review of their performances and activities and GSIS shall have the right to make such recommendation suggestions it may deem appropriate and necessary for the change or the hiring of other sales agents, representatives and marketing firms.
3.04. The Condominium Certificate of Title of the unit sold shall likewise be delivered to the buyer only upon full payment of the total purchase price of the unit, and execution of the final Deed of Conveyance/Absolute Sale by the GSIS.In G.R. No. 210539, GSIS maintains that it is entitled to the award of 1180,300,000.00 as guaranteed under paragraph 4.02 of the JVA, as well as liquidated damages. GSIS alleges that the amount is compensation for surrendering possession of the property to CDC. In Pryce Corp. v. PAGCOR,17 the Court held that the termination or cancellation of a contract would necessarily entail the enforcement of its terms prior to such termination or cancellation.18 With regard to liquidated damages, GSIS pleads for equity.19
1) | Is GSIS required to reimburse CDC for the latter's expenses in the renovation and rehabilitation of the tower? |
2) | Is GSIS bound to honor CDC's contracts with third parties? |
1) | Is GSIS entitled to receive payment from CDC in the amount of P180,300,000.00 pursuant to paragraph 4.02 of the JVA? |
2) | Is GSIS entitled to liquidated damages? |
Verily, the effect of termination was specifically stated in the JVA – forfeiture of property rights sans reimbursement. CDC agreed to this term without reservation. It must therefore abide by its bond.Article VII – Cancellation and Penalty
7.01. Should CDC fail to start the construction works or at any time abandon the same or otherwise commit any breach of its obligations and commitments under this Agreement, this Joint Venture arrangement shall be deemed terminated and cancelled without need of judicial action by giving thirty (30) days written notice to that effect to the CDC who hereby agrees to abide by the decision of the GSIS.
All constructions or improvements existing at the time of said cancellation shall automatically become the property of GSIS without any right on the part of CDC for reimbursement for the value thereof, but GSIS may opt to require CDC to remove the same at its expense. (emphasis added)
Verily, CDC was merely appointed and designated by the GSIS as the sole and exclusive marketing agent in selling the tower's unsold units. The above-cited provision is not a blanket authority to transact on the property, contrary to CDC's claim. Rather, it is specifically limited to marketing activities. Otherwise stated, CDC did not have authority to enter into contracts to sell or lease contracts with third parties, including Goldesc and ETS. Consequently, GSIS is not bound by CDC's contracts with them.ARTICLE III – MARKETING OF THE UNIT
3.01. The CDC is hereby appointed and designated by the GSIS as the sole and exclusive marketing agent to sell (at no less than the average price of P35,000.00 per sq.m.) and to prospective buyers all the units of the Condominium building with full power and authority to hire the services of sales agents, representatives and marketing firms to be able to achieve the projected marketing time table.
CDC and GSIS agree that the success of the project depends largely on the marketing, promotion, campaigns, strategies and efforts of the sales agents, representatives and marketing firms thus hired by CDC. Toward this end, CDC and GSIS shall conduct a periodic review of their performances and activities and GSIS shall have the right to make such recommendationsuggestions it may deem appropriate and necessary for the change or the hiring of other sales agents, representatives and marketing firms.
Specific performance is "[t]he remedy of requiring exact performance of a contract in the specific form in which it was made, or according to the precise terms agreed upon. [It is t]he actual accomplishment of a contract by a party bound to fulfill it." Rescission of contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, is a remedy available to the obligee when the obligor cannot comply with what is incumbent upon him. It is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party who violates the reciprocity between them. Rescission may also refer to a remedy granted by law to the contracting parties and sometimes even to third persons in order to secure reparation of damages caused them by a valid contract; by means of restoration of things to their condition in which they were prior to the celebration of the contract.Here, paragraph 4.02 of the JVA required CDC to pay GSIS P180,300,000.00. For GSIS to insist payment of this amount would be tantamount to requiring specific performance. If the JVA is to be pursued to its conclusion, this amount should be complied with as part of exacting performance under the JVA. On the other hand, if rescission is chosen, GSIS may no longer claim this amount. It could not have its cake and eat it, too.
At the outset, we must distinguish between an action for rescission as mapped out in Article 1191 of the Civil Code and that provided by Article 1381 of the same Code. The articles read:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryHere, the JVA involved reciprocal obligations wherein CDC was obligated, inter alia, to renovate the Chanelay Towers, market its unsold units, and remit payment to GSIS. In exchange, GSIS was to transfer possession of the property to CDC. GSIS complied with its obligation; CDC did not. Thus, GSIS invoked its right to rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code as embodied in paragraph 7.01 of the JVA.Art. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.Article 1191, as presently worded, speaks of the remedy of rescission in reciprocal obligations within the context of Article 1124 of the Old Civil Code which uses the term "resolution". The remedy of resolution applies only to reciprocal obligations such that a party's breach thereof partakes of a tacit resolutory condition which entitles the injured party to rescission. The present article, as in the Old Civil Code, contemplates alternative remedies for the injured party who is granted the option to pursue, as principal actions, either a rescission or specific performance of the obligation, with payment of damages in each case. On the other hand, rescission under Article 1381 of the Civil Code, taken from Article 1291 of the Old Civil Code, is a subsidiary action, and is not based on a party's breach of obligation.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.
This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.
Art. 1381. The following contracts are rescissible:
(1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they represent suffer lesion by more than one fourth of the value of the things which are the object thereof;
(2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees, if the latter suffer the lesion state in the preceding number;
(3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them;
(4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority;
(5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated 7 April 2021.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Stephen C. Cruz; G.R. No. 210423, rollo, pp. 73-104.
2Id. at 112-115.
3 G.R. No. 210539, rollo, pp. 19-26.
4 G.R No. 210423, rollo, p. 120.
5 Penned by Judge Pedro B. Corales: id. at 126-149.
6 Article 1359, Civil Code. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the end that such true intention may be expressed.
If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but annulment of the contract.
7 G.R. No. 210539, rollo, pp. 81-83.
8 G.R. No. 210423, rollo, pp. 73-104.
9Id. at 103-104.
10Huibonhoa v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 386, 405 (1999).
11 See Laperal v. Solid Homes, Inc., 499 Phil. 367, 380 (2005).
12 "All constructions or improvements existing at the time of said cancellation shall automatically become the property of GSIS without any right on the part of CDC for reimbursement for the value thereof, but GSIS may opt to require CDC to remove the same at its expense." (Par. 2, Clause 7.01, JVA)
13 G.R. No. 210423, rollo, pp. 112-115.
14 Article 1385, Civil Code. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore.
Neither shall rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith.
In this case, indemnity for damages may be demanded from the person causing the loss. (1295)
15 G.R. No. 210423, rollo, pp. 162-187.
16Id. at 121-122. Article VII – Cancellation and Penalty, JVA, 7.01. Should CDC fail to start the construction works or at any time abandon the same or otherwise commit any breach of its obligations and commitments under this Agreement, this Joint Venture arrangement shall be deemed terminated and cancelled without need of judicial action by giving thirty (30) days written notice to that effect to the CDC who hereby agrees to abide by the decision of the GSIS.
All constructions or improvements existing at the time of said cancellation shall automatically become the property of GSIS without any right on the part of CDC for reimbursement for the value thereof, but GSIS may opt to require CDC to remove the same at its expense.
17 497 Phil. 490, 560 (2005).
18Id. citing Sps. Mercader, v. DBP, 387 Phil. 828 (2000).
19 G.R. No. 210539, rollo, p. 23
20Id. at 167-187.
21 G.R. No. 210423, rollo, pp. 250-257.
22 G.R. No. 210539, rollo, pp. 213-228.
23Morla v. Belmonte, 678 Phil. 102, 117 (2011) (citations omitted).
24 G.R. No. 210423, rollo, p. 63 (Petition for Review), CDC states under Par. 29 that the issues to be resolved by the Honorable Supreme Court relate to the right of the petitioner to be reimbursed for the costs and value of the improvements, renovation and rehabilitation of respondent's building in view of the rescission of the JVA and the obligation of respondent GSIS to honor the sales contracts entered into by petitioner as the sole sales and marketing agent of respondent GSIS.
25 G.R. No. 210539, rollo, pp. 167-187. In Page 185 of the rollo (Comment of CDC), CDC respectfully prayed for the reformation of the JVA. See also rollo, pp. 176-184 where CDC alleges that reformation of instrument of the JVA again.
26 257 Phil. 174, 178 (1989).
27 See Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Keppel Cebu Shipyard, 688 Phil. 78, 102-103 (2012) (citations omitted).
28 See Sps. Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, 806 Phil. 39, 47 (2017).
29Id. at 48.
30 375 Phil. 328, 362 (1999), citing Rios and Reyes v. Jacinto, 49 Phil. 7, 12-13 (1926).
31 576 Phil. 538, 543-544 (2008).
32 499 Phil. 367, 381-382 (2005).
33Agustin v. Bacalan, 220 Phil. 28, 36 (1985).
34 See Denila v. Republic, G.R. No. 206077, July 15, 2020.cralawredlibrary