Pryce Properties
Corporation vs. Sps. Sotero Octobre, Jr., et al.
G.R. No. 186976.
December 7, 2016
Facts
Octobre (Spouses
Octobre) signed a Reservation Agreement with petitioner Pryce
Properties Corporation (Pryce) for the purchase of two lots with a
total of 742 square meters located in Puerto Heights Village, Puerto
Heights, Cagayan de Oro City. The parties subsequently executed a
Contract to Sell over the lot for the price of P2,897,510.00 on
January 7, 1998. On February 4, 2004, Pryce issued a certification
that Spouses Octobre had fully paid the purchase price and
amortization interests, as well as the transfer fees and other
charges in relation to the property, amounting to a total of
P4,292,297.92. But Pryce had yet to deliver the certificates of
title, which prompted Spouses Octobre to formally demand its
delivery. Despite repeated demands, Pryce failed to comply. Thus, on
May 18, 2004, Spouses Octobre filed a complaint before the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), for specific performance,
revocation of certificate of registration, refund of payments,
damages and attorney's fees.
Pryce was unable to
deliver the titles to Spouses Octobre because it had previously
transferred custody of the titles, along with others pertaining to
the same development project, to China Banking Corporation (China
Bank) as part of the Deed of Assignment executed on June 27, 1996
under which Pryce obligated itself to deliver to China Bank the
"contracts to sell and the corresponding owner's duplicate
copies of the transfer certificates of title, tax declaration, real
estate tax receipts and all other documents and papers relating to
the assigned receivables until such receivables are paid or
repurchased by Pryce. The titles to the lots purchased by Spouses
Octobre were among those held in custody by China Bank. When Pryce
defaulted in its loan obligations to China Bank sometime in May 2002,
China Bank refused to return the titles to Pryce.
The HLURB Arbiter
ordered Pryce to refund the payments made by the spouses with legal
interest and to pay the latter compensatory damages amounting to
P30,000.00, attorney's fees and costs of suit.
On appeal, the HLURB
Board of Commissioners modified the Decision by ordering Pryce to pay
the redemption value to China Bank so that the latter may release the
titles covering the lots purchased by Spouses Octobre. In default
thereof, Pryce shall refund the payments with legal interest. The HLURB Board upheld the grant of compensatory damages, attorney's fees
and costs to Spouses Octobre. Pryce moved for reconsideration but
it was denied.
Thereafter, Pryce
appealed the case to the Office of the President, which affirmed in
full the HLURB Board's Decision. Undeterred, Pryce elevated the case
to the Court of Appeals which denied the petition for review and
affirmed the Office of the President's Decision.
Pryce went to the
Supreme Court primarily arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in
upholding the award of compensatory damages because Spouses Octobre
failed to present competent proof of the actual amount of loss.
Issue
Whether a breach of
contract automatically triggers the award of actual or compensatory
damages.
Ruling
No. To be
entitled to compensatory damages, the amount of loss must therefore
be capable of proof and must be actually proven with a reasonable
degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best
evidence obtainable. The burden of proof of the damage suffered is
imposed on the party claiming the same, who should adduce the best
evidence available in support thereof.
It is clear that the
amount paid by Spouses Octobre to Pryce as purchase price for the
lots has been adequately proved. There is no dispute that Spouses
Octobre are entitled to such amount with legal interest. The issue
being raised by Pryce is only with respect to the P30,000.00 awarded
as compensatory damages.
The records of this case
are bereft of any evidentiary basis for the award of P30,000.00 as
compensatory damages. When the HLURB Arbiter initially awarded the
amount, it merely mentioned that “[Spouses Octobre] are entitled to
compensatory damages, which is just and equitable in the
circumstances, even against an obligor in good faith since said
damages are the natural and probable consequences of the contractual
breach committed.” On the other hand, the Court of Appeals
justified the award of compensatory damages by stating that "it
is undisputed that petitioner Pryce committed breach of contract in
failing to deliver the titles 'to respondents [Spouses] Octobre which
necessitated the award of compensatory damages.
In the absence of
adequate proof, compensatory damages should not have been awarded.
Nonetheless, we find that nominal damages, in lieu of compensatory
damages, are proper in this case. Under Article 2221, nominal damages
may be awarded in order that the plaintiffs right, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for
any loss suffered. xxx xxx. So long as there is a violation of the
right of the plaintiff-whether based on law, contract, or other
sources of obligations-an award of nominal damages is proper. Proof
of bad faith is not required. The BLURB Arbiter and the Court of
Appeals appear to have confused nominal damages with compensatory
damages, since their justifications more closely fit the former.
It is undisputed that
Pryce failed to deliver the titles to the lots subject of the
Contract to Sell even as Spouses Octobre had already fully settled
the purchase price. Its inability to deliver the titles despite
repeated demands undoubtedly constitutes a violation of Spouses
Octobre's right under their contract. That Pryce had transferred
custody of the titles to China Bank pursuant to a Deed of Assignment
is irrelevant, considering that Spouses Octobre were not privy to
such agreement.
In fine, contractual
breach is sufficient to justify an award for nominal damages but not
compensatory damages.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103615 are MODIFIED in
that nominal damages in the amount of P30,000.00 are awarded in lieu
of compensatory damages.
Thanks Andrea! By the way, can you assist me in getting the top lawyer in Manila.
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend lawyer from SyCip Salazar Hernandez Gaitmaitan Law Office in Makati City.
Delete