Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
LEONCIA MANUEL
& MARINA S. MUDLONG,
Petitioners, - versus - LEONOR SARMIENTO, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 173857 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: March 21, 2012 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
of the Decision[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64449 promulgated on July 14, 2006,
which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch 81 (trial court) finding petitioners Leoncia Manuel and Marina
Mudlong liable to pay respondent Leonor Sarmiento her brokers commission as
well as moral and exemplary damages.
The
facts, as culled from the decision of the Court of Appeals and the records, are
as follows:
Petitioner
Leoncia Manuel appointed her granddaughter, petitioner Marina Mudlong, as her
attorney-in-fact,[3] granting
her the authority to sell a parcel of land containing an area of 23,959 square
meters located in Tigbe (Diliman), Norzagaray, Bulacan, registered in her (Leoncia Manuel) name. In
turn, Marina Mudlong informed several real estate brokers that the said
property was for sale, including respondent Leonor Sarmiento.
In
anticipation of the sale of the property and her eventual reimbursement, respondent voluntarily undertook the
reconstitution of the title over the subject property, its survey, as well as
the payment of real estate taxes and tax clearances thereon.
In March 1997, Chiao Liong Tan, a businessman, was
looking for a property to purchase in Norzagaray, Bulacan. Chiao Liong Tans secretary, Antonia de Leon,
told Josie Buluran, a broker, about it.
Josie Buluran and other brokers, namely, Ernesto Sanchez and Lucy
Eustaquio, started looking for a property for Chiao Liong Tan. Josie Buluran asked Rodolfo Santos, a former barangay
captain of Partida, Norzagaray, if
he knew of any property that might be for sale in the area. Rodolfo Santos told Josie Buluran that the
property of Leoncia Manuel, which was adjacent to his land, was for sale, and
that she should get in touch with respondent, because the title and other
documents of the property were in her possession. He referred Josie Buluran to
his wife, Teodora Doray
On
Hence, at P100.00
per square meter, and asked respondent to produce her authority to sell.
On
Respondent filled in the first form to reflect her
real agreement with petitioner Marina Mudlong: (1) the asking price for the property
was P65.00 per square meter; (2) respondents commission would be the
difference between Marina Mudlong's asking price and the price agreed upon by
the buyer; (3) the term of respondent's exclusive authority to sell was for one
month, which was reckoned from the date the said document was notarized on March
8, 1997.[4]
On the other hand, the second form reflected the
asking price as P120.00 per square meter, and respondents commission was
5% of the agreed price. This was the unnotarized
authority to sell that respondent submitted to Chiao Liong Tan as part of her
selling strategy.[5]
Although respondent submitted all the documents
required by Chiao Liong Tan, he did not get in touch with her again. On P90.00 per
square meter, or for the total price of P2,156,310.00.[6]
On P35,000.00
for the expenses she incurred in reconstituting the title over the subject
property, having it surveyed, and in paying the real estate taxes
and tax clearances thereon. In
addition, respondent asked for 10% of the selling price obtained from Chiao
Liong Tan as her commission, since the sale was consummated during the
one-month validity of her exclusive authority to sell.
Marina Mudlong ignored respondents demand. Thus, on
In their Answer,[9] petitioners denied having
given respondent an exclusive authority to sell. They stated that the authority to sell form
presented by respondent was blank, or without detail when petitioner Marina Mudlong
signed it, and that they never intended respondents authority to be exclusive
for one month from
Further, petitioners explained that respondents
negotiation with the buyer bogged down, because the buyer lost trust and
confidence in her for her misrepresentation and she ceased to be a party to the
negotiations.
Petitioners alleged that the only brokers who are
entitled to a commission from the sale are the spouses Rodolfo and Doray Santos,
Josie Buluran, Antonia de Leon, and Lucy Eustaquio, as they were the ones who
found the buyer, and pursued the sale to its conclusion.
During the trial, respondent presented some receipts for
the expenses that she incurred in getting the documents for the property of
petitioner Manuel, which receipts totalled P669.78. She admitted that she lost the receipts of
her other expenses.
On the other hand, to show that respondent's authority
to sell was not exclusive, petitioner Marina Mudlong presented two copies of authority
to sell, both dated
The main issue before the trial court was whether the plaintiff,
herein respondent, being an exclusive agent, was entitled to her commission for
the sale of the property of defendants, petitioners herein.
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby
rendered
1. ordering the defendants to,
jointly and severally, pay the plaintiff the amount of P323,815.00 as
actual and compensatory damages;
2. ordering the defendants to,
jointly and severally, pay the plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as
attorney's fees and P1,000.00 per appearance in court;
3. ordering the defendants to,
jointly and severally, pay the plaintiff the amount of P50,000.00 as
moral damages and another P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
4. pay the costs of the suit.[13]
Petitioners
appealed the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals, alleging that the
trial court erred in finding that there was due execution of the
authority to sell; in considering respondent as one of the agents entitled to a
commission; in not finding that there were other agents in the transaction; in
giving credence to the sole and uncorroborated testimony of respondent;
and that the trial court erred in appreciating the facts of the case.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court with modification. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in
that the amount of actual and compensatory damages awarded to Leonor Sarmiento
is INCREASED to P599,644.78, while the award of attorneys fees is
DELETED.[14]
The
Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly
found that the notarized authority to sell executed by petitioner Marina
Mudlong, in favor of respondent, was validly executed; hence, its terms must be given effect.
Since the sale to the buyer was consummated within the period of respondents exclusive authority to sell, respondent
was entitled to a commission of P25.00 per square meter, or a total of P598,975.00.
The appellate court found that respondent worked on the sale of the property,
and provided the buyer with the documents that facilitated the sale of the
property. It held that the presence of
the other agents, namely, Rodolfo Santos, Josie Buluran, Antonia de Leon, and Lucy
Eustaquio, did not detract from the exclusive nature of the authority to sell
that petitioner Marina Mudlong had granted to respondent. It stated that the
fact that Marina Mudlong granted the other brokers an authority to sell on March
11, 1997, after she had already constituted respondent as her exclusive
agent on March 8, 1997, and during
the validity of respondents exclusive authority to sell, underscores Marina
Mudlongs bad faith and intentional breach of her contract with respondent.
The
Court of Appeals upheld the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages to
respondent, as it found that the breach of contract by petitioner Marina Mudlong
was attended by bad faith, citing Article 2220 of the Civil Code. The appellate
court stated that it was apparent that respondent suffered from wounded
feelings, because despite all the work that she had put into the sale of the
subject property, petitioner Mudlong excluded respondent from the sale, granted
authorities to sell to the other brokers during the effectivity of respondent's
exclusive authority to sell, and withheld respondents rightful commission from
her.
The appellate court also upheld the award of exemplary
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to set an example for the public
good.[15] It ruled that the exclusive authority to sell
granted by petitioner Marina Mudlong to respondent is a valid contract that has
the effect of law between the parties, and Mudlongs wanton breach thereof
should not be countenanced lest it set a bad precedent in the community.
However, the appellate court deleted the grant of
attorney's fees by the trial court, as the reasons or grounds therefor were not
stated in the body of the decision.[16]
Thereafter,
petitioners filed this petition before this Court, raising the following
issues:
I
[THE] COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING RESPONDENT AS EXCLUSIVE
AGENT/BROKER OF THE PETITIONERS NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
II
[THE] COURT OF
APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT IN THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED, SHALL EXCLUDE OTHER AGENTS OR CO-AGENTS TO A FEE OR
COMMISSION, GRANTING ARGUENDO, THAT
SAID AUTHORITY REMAINS VALID AND EFFECTIVE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.[17]
Petitioners
contend that the Court of Appeals erred in finding respondent as exclusive
agent of petitioners despite evidence to the contrary, that is, there were two
sets of authority to sell, one notarized, while the other was unnotarized; the
unnotarized authority to sell was presented to the buyer, while the notarized
authority to sell was presented to the court as the basis for respondents
action. According to petitioners, the
only authority to sell that should be recognized is the unnotarized authority
to sell presented to the buyer, as the said authority played a vital and
determining role, without which there could be no meeting of the minds between
the buyer and the seller with respect to the sale of the property.
Petitioners also contend that the Court of
Appeals erred in upholding the finding of the trial court that respondent was
entitled to the payment of commission by reason of the exclusive nature of the
notarized authority to sell granted to respondent, even if respondent was not
able to close the sale of the property between petitioners and the buyer. They argue that the Court of Appeals erred in
holding that the presence of the other agents did not detract from the
exclusive nature of the authority to sell granted to respondent.
The
main issues raised are: (1) whether or not the notarized exclusive authority to
sell granted to respondent is valid; and (2) whether or not respondent is
entitled to her brokers commission.
Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, providing for appeals by certiorari before the Supreme
Court, it is clearly enunciated that only questions of law may be set forth.[18] The Court may resolve questions of fact only in exceptional cases[19]
as follows:
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5)
when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the
Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of
the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation
of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in
the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not
disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on
the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[20]
Petitioners
contend that (1) the Court of Appeals committed errors in its findings of facts
as the appellate court delved on speculations; (2) the inferences it made are
mistaken or absurd; (3) there was misapprehension of facts; and (4) the facts
are conflicting, contrary to the admission of respondent, and contradicted by
the evidence on record.
However, a careful review by this Court of the
records of this case would show that the appellate court did not err in its
factual findings. The appellate court
correctly stated that respondent was able to prove her case against petitioners
by a preponderance of evidence. It found
respondents testimony to be credible, positive and supported by documentary
evidence.
The validity of the notarized authority
to sell which granted respondent exclusive authority to sell the property of
Leoncia Manuel for one month, which was reckoned from the date of notarization
of the document on
The trial court correctly found that the authority to
sell executed by
Since the
authority to sell is valid and binding, its terms must be given effect. Under
the authority to sell, P65.00 per square meter and the actual selling price.
Since the sale to Chiao Liong Tan was consummated at P90.00 per square
meter, and executed on 25 March 1997, within the period of Leonor's exclusive
authority to sell, it follows that she is entitled to a commission of P25.00
per square meter, or a total of P598,975.00.
Moreover, it
is beyond cavil that Leonor had worked on the sale of the subject property, as
shown by her efforts to have its title reconstituted, to have it surveyed, to
pay its real estate taxes, and to secure a tax clearance thereon.
Unfortunately,
Leonor was not able to produce all the receipts pertaining to the expenses that
she had incurred in relation to the documentation of the subject property. All
the same, she is entitled to be reimbursed for those expenses that she was able
to prove, in the amount of P669.78.
The presence of
the other agents, namely, Rodolfo, Josie, Antonia de Leon, and Lucy Eustaquio
does not detract from the exclusive nature of the authority to sell that
The
notarized exclusive authority to sell entitles respondent to the amount of commission
stated therein, which is the difference between petitioner Marina Mudlongs
asking price of P65.00 per square meter and the actual selling price of P90.00
per square meter. Thus, the difference of P25.00 per square meters
multiplied by the land area of 23,959 square meters amounts to the commission
of P598,975.00, which amount the Court of Appeals awarded to respondent.
The sale of the property was consummated on P100.00
per square meter. However, the buyer
later went directly to the owner of the property, and the selling price was
lowered to P90.00 per square meter. These circumstances show that the
Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the trial courts decision that
respondent was entitled to the payment of her commission for the sale of the
subject property within the period of respondents exclusive authority to sell.
The
unnotarized authority to sell presented to the buyer with a higher asking price
of P120.00 was, as the Court of Appeals stated, a selling strategy[23]
that already included the commission that respondent would gain from the sale. Respondent testified that the buyer agreed to
the price of P100.00 per square meter.[24] However, the buyer no longer contacted her
and went straight to the seller, and the final selling price agreed upon was P90.00
per square meter. Hence, contrary to the
contention of petitioners, the variation in the unnotarized authority to sell
cannot affect the validity of the notarized authority to sell, which is the
basis of respondents commission. The
alleged revocation of the authority to sell of respondent was not raised in the
lower court; hence, it could not be raised for the first time on appeal.[25]
As
regards the informants of respondent, namely, Josie Buluran, the spouses
Rodolfo and Doray Santos, and Lucy Eustaquio, respondent testified that they
will get their commission from her.[26]
Factual
findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carry even
more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial
court.[27] The Court has carefully reviewed the records
of this case and finds no cogent reason to overturn the finding of the Court of
Appeals.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 64449, dated
Costs
against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROBERTO
A. ABAD JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Third Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned
by Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada, with Associate Justices Portia
Alio Hormachuelos and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; rollo pp.
38-49.
[3] Kasunduan, Exhibit 8, records, p. 37.
[4] Exhibit
A, id. at 6.
[5] Exhibit 8, id. at 126.
[6] Exhibit B, id. at 9.
[7] Records, pp. 14-15.
[8]
[9]
[10] Exhibit 1, id. at 35.
[11] Exhibit 2, id. at 36.
[12] Rollo, pp. 32-37.
[13]
[14]
[15] Citing Lamis v. Ong, G.R. No.
148923,
[16] Citing
[17] Rollo, p. 22.
[18] Tayco v. Heirs of Concepcion
Tayco-Flores, G.R. No. 168692,
[19]
[20]
[21] Rollo, pp. 44-46.
[22] Exhibit B, records, p. 9
[23] TSN,
[24] TSN,
[25] De
la Rama Steamship Co. v. National Development Co., G.R. No. L-26966,
[26] TSN,
[27] Marquez v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 116689,