GR 143939; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143939 ; November 22, 2001
HEIRS OF ROSARIO POSADAS REALTY, INC., petitioner, vs. ROSENDO BANTUG, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rosendo Bantug purchased a subdivision lot from petitioner on installment, evidenced by a Contract to Sell. After paying a downpayment and several amortizations, Bantug sought to secure housing loans from the SSS and later from Premiere Development Bank to pay the balance. Both loan applications failed because petitioner refused to transfer the title to Bantug’s name as required by the lenders’ letters of guarantee. Bantug eventually stopped paying amortizations and filed a complaint for specific performance with the HLURB.
The HLURB Arbiter ruled the petitioner’s subsequent notarial cancellation of the contract was invalid and meant to harass Bantug. It found that while Bantug was in delay, petitioner had condoned this by accepting late payments. However, the Arbiter also held petitioner was not obligated to execute a deed of sale or transfer title since Bantug had not fully paid. The HLURB Board of Commissioners and the Office of the President affirmed this. The Court of Appeals largely upheld these findings but ruled petitioner had no duty to execute a deed of sale due to Bantug’s non-compliance.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its rulings regarding the cancellation of the Contract to Sell, the rights under RA 6552 (Maceda Law), the status of Bantug as a builder, and petitioner’s ability to issue a clean title.
RULING
The Supreme Court did not rule on the substantive legal issues raised by the petitioner. Prior to the Court’s resolution, the parties filed a joint motion to render judgment based on an amicable settlement. They agreed to: 1) affirm the validity of the Contract to Sell; 2) full payment of the balance plus interest by Bantug; 3) approval of Bantug’s prior transfer of his rights to a third party; and 4) mutual release from all claims.
The Court granted the joint motion. It found the terms of the amicable settlement were not contrary to law, morals, good customs, or public policy. Consequently, the petition was declared moot and academic. The Court ordered both parties to faithfully abide by the terms of their settlement. The legal principle applied is that courts may approve and render judgment upon amicable settlements voluntarily entered into by the parties, as it promotes the efficient administration of justice and ends litigation.