GR 171832; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171832 ; October 12, 2009
ANTIPOLO PROPERTIES, INC. (now PRIME EAST PROPERTIES, INC.), Petitioner, vs. CESAR NUYDA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Antipolo Properties, Inc. entered into a “Kasunduan” with an association of settlers, Magtanim Upang Mabuhay, Inc. (MUMI), wherein MUMI members would vacate certain estates to allow petitioner’s development, and in return, petitioner would provide resettlement lots and disturbance compensation. Subsequently, petitioner and respondent Cesar Nuyda, a MUMI member, executed a separate “Kasunduan” on June 7, 1991. This contract expressly recognized respondent’s membership, awarded him a lot of not less than 2,880 square meters in the resettlement area, and guaranteed payment of disturbance compensation. Respondent complied by vacating his occupied portion.
After petitioner demolished the improvements in 1998, it reneged on its obligations under the June 1991 agreement. Respondent filed a complaint for specific performance and damages. The Regional Trial Court ruled in his favor, ordering petitioner to transfer the lot, pay compensation, and award damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Cesar Nuyda is entitled to the benefits under the June 7, 1991 Kasunduan, specifically the award of a resettlement lot and disturbance compensation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic rests on the binding nature of contracts and the principle of estoppel. The June 7, 1991 Kasunduan is a valid and enforceable contract. Its clear and unmistakable terms expressly recognized respondent as a “kinikilala at karapat-dapat na kasapi” (recognized and qualified member) of MUMI and awarded him specific benefits. Contracts are binding as the law between the parties, and absent any showing that its stipulations are contrary to law, morals, public policy, or that consent was vitiated, it must be enforced as agreed.
Petitioner is estopped from denying respondent’s entitlement. Having expressly recognized him in the contract and thereby inducing him to vacate the property peacefully, petitioner cannot subsequently claim he was a mere caretaker and thus unqualified. Furthermore, petitioner’s own contemporaneous and subsequent act of granting identical benefits to another MUMI member who was also a caretaker negates its interpretation that only occupants in the concept of owners could avail of the benefits. The clear terms of the agreement govern, and petitioner is obligated to comply.