Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 97332 October 10, 1991
SPOUSES JULIO D. VILLMOR ND MRIN VILLMOR, petitioners,
vs.
T!E !ON. COURT O" PPELS ND SPOUSES MCRI L#INGIS RE$ES ND
RO#ERTO RE$ES,respondents.
Tranquilino F. Meris for petitioners.
Agripino G. Morga for private respondents.

MEDILDE, J.:p
This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$.R.
No. %&'() entitled, *Spouses Julio Villamor and Marina Villamor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus
Spouses Macaria a!ing-isa "e#es and "o!erto "e#es, $efendants-Appellants,* hich
reversed the decision of the Re+ional Trial !ourt ,-ranch '%'. at !aloocan !it/ in !ivil !ase
No. !#'%0&%.
The facts of the case are as follos1
Macaria 2abin+isa Re/es as the oner of a )33#s4uare 5eter lot located at -aesa,
!aloocan !it/, as evidenced b/ Transfer !ertificate of Title No. ,'6&7'. '6076, of the
Re+ister of Deeds of Ri8al.
In 9ul/ '0(', Macaria sold a portion of 733 s4uare 5eters of the lot to the Spouses 9ulio and
Marina and Villa5or for the total a5ount of P%',333.33. :arlier, Macaria borroed P%,333.33
fro5 the spouses hich a5ount as deducted fro5 the total purchase price of the 733
s4uare 5eter lot sold. The portion sold to the Villa5or spouses is no covered b/ T!T No.
7007; hile the re5ainin+ portion hich is still in the na5e of Macaria 2abin+#isa is covered
b/ T!T No. 7007& ,pars. ; and (, !o5plaint.. On Nove5ber '', '0(', Macaria e<ecuted a
*Deed of Option* in favor of Villa5or in hich the re5ainin+ 733 s4uare 5eter portion ,T!T
No. 7007&. of the lot ould be sold to Villa5or under the conditions stated therein. The
docu5ent reads1
D::D OF OPTION
This Deed of Option, entered into in the !it/ of Manila, Philippines, this ''th da/ of
Nove5ber, '0(', b/ and beteen Macaria 2abin+#isa, of a+e, 5arried to Roberto Re/es,
li=eise of a+e, and both residein+ on Reparo St., -aesa, !aloocan !it/, on the one hand,
and on the other hand the spouses 9ulio Villa5or and Marina V. Villa5or, also of a+e and
residin+ at No. ;;% Reparo St., corner -aesa Road, -aesa, !aloocan !it/.
>ITN:SS:T?
That, I Macaria 2abin+isa, a5 the oner in fee si5ple of a parcel of land ith an area of )33
s4uare 5eters, 5ore or less, 5ore particularl/ described in T!T No. ,'6&7'. '6076 of the
Office of the Re+ister of Deeds for the province of Ri8al, issued in 5a/ na5e, I havin+
inherited the sa5e fro5 5/ deceased parents, for hich reason it is 5/ paraphernal
propert/@
That I, ith the confor5it/ of 5/ husband, Roberto Re/es, have sold one#half thereof to the
aforesaid spouses 9ulio Villa5or and Marina V. Villa5or at the price of P(3.33 per s4. 5eter,
hich as +reatl/ hi+her than the actual reasonable prevailin+ value of lands in that place at
the ti5e, hich portion, after se+re+ation, is no covered b/ T!T No. 7007; of the Re+ister
of Deeds for the !it/ of !aloocan, issued on "u+ust '(, '0(' in the na5e of the
afore5entioned spouses vendees@
That the onl/ reason h/ the Spouses#vendees 9ulio Villa5or and Marina V. Villa5or, a+reed
to bu/ the said one#half portion at the above#stated price of about P(3.33 per s4uare 5eter,
is because I, and 5/ husband Roberto Re/es, have a+reed to sell and conve/ to the5 the
re5ainin+ one#half portion still oned b/ 5e and no covered b/ T!T No. 7007; of the
Re+ister of Deeds for the !it/ of !aloocan, henever the need of such sale arises, either on
our part or on the part of the spouses ,9ulio. Villa5or and Marina V. Villa5or, at the sa5e
price of P(3.33 per s4uare 5eter, e<cludin+ hatever i5prove5ent 5a/ be found the
thereon@
That I a5 illin+ to have this contract to sell inscribed on 5/ aforesaid title as an
encu5brance upon the propert/ covered thereb/, upon pa/5ent of the correspondin+ fees@
and
That e, 9ulio Villa5or and Marina V. Villa5or, hereb/ a+ree to, and accept, the above
provisions of this Deed of Option.
IN >ITN:SS >?:R:OF, this Deed of Option is si+ned in the !it/ of Manila, Philippines, b/
all the persons concerned, this ''th da/ of Nove5ber, '0('.
9A2IO VI22"MOR M"!"RI" 2"-IN$IS"
>ith M/ !onfor5it/1
M"RIN" VI22"MOR RO-:RTO R:B:S
Si+ned in the Presence Of1
1
M"RI"NO C. SANI$"
ROS"2IND" S. :A$:NIO
"!DNO>2:D$M:NT
R:PA-2I! OF T?: P?I2IPPIN:S.
!ITB OF M"NI2" . S.S.
"t the !it/ of Manila, on the ''th da/ of Nove5ber, '0(', personall/ appeared before 5e
Roberto Re/es, Macaria 2abin+isa, 9ulio Villa5or and Marina Ventura#Villa5or, =non to 5e
as the sa5e persons ho e<ecuted the fore+oin+ Deed of Option, hich consists of to ,%.
pa+es includin+ the pa+e hereon this ac=noled+e5ent is ritten, and si+ned at the left
5ar+in of the first pa+e and at the botto5 of the instru5ent b/ the parties and their
itnesses, and sealed ith 5/ notarial seal, and said parties ac=noled+ed to 5e that the
sa5e is their free act and deed. The Residence !ertificates of the parties ere e<hibited to
5e as follos1 Roberto Re/es, "#%%&0&, issued at Manila on 9an. %(, '0(', and -#;3%3%;,
issued at Ma=ati, Ri8al on Feb. '6, '0('@ Macaria 2abin+isa, "#7770'73 and -#'%))'3&,
both issued at !aloocan !it/ on "pril ';, '0(', their Eoint Ta< "cct. Nu5ber bein+ 73%6#()(#
)@ 9ulio Villa5or, "#63&, issued at Manila on 9an. '&, '0(', and -#'76, issued at Manila on
March ', '0('@ and Marina Ventura#Villa5or, "#637, issued at Manila on 9an. '&, '0(', their
Eoint Ta< "cct. Nu5ber bein+ )36#%3%#).
Doc. No. ';%)@
Pa+e No. %&@
-oo= No. 76@
Series of '0('. ,pp. %;#%0, Rollo.
"ccordin+ to Macaria, hen her husband, Roberto Re/es, retired in '06&, the/ offered to
repurchase the lot sold b/ the5 to the Villa5or spouses but Marina Villa5or refused and
re5inded the5 instead that the Deed of Option in fact +ave the5 the option to purchase the
re5ainin+ portion of the lot.
The Villa5ors, on the other hand, clai5ed that the/ had e<pressed their desire to purchase
the re5ainin+ 733 s4uare 5eter portion of the lot but the Re/eses had been i+norin+ the5.
Thus, on 9ul/ '7, '06(, after conciliation proceedin+s in the baran+a/ level failed, the/ filed a
co5plaint for specific perfor5ance a+ainst the Re/eses.
On 9ul/ %), '060, Eud+5ent as rendered b/ the trial court in favor of the Villa5or spouses,
the dispositive portion of hich states1
>?:R:FOR:, and ,sic. in vie of the fore+oin+, Eud+5ent is hereb/
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and a+ainst the defendants orderin+ the
defendant M"!"RI" 2"-IN$#IS" R:B:S and RO-:RTO R:B:S, to sell
unto the plaintiffs the land covered b/ T.!.T No. 7007& of the Re+ister of
Deeds of !aloocan !it/, to pa/ the plaintiffs the su5 of P7,333.33 as and
for attorne/Fs fees and to pa/ the cost of suit.
The counterclai5 is hereb/ DISMISS:D, for 2"!D OF M:RIT.
SO ORD:R:D. ,pp. %&#%;, Rollo.
Not satisfied ith the decision of the trial court, the Re/es spouses appealed to the !ourt of
"ppeals on the folloin+ assi+n5ent of errors1
'. ?O2DIN$ T?"T T?: D::D OF OPTION :G:!AT:D ON
NOV:M-:R '', '0(' -:T>::N T?: P2"INTIFF#"PP:22::S "ND
D:F:ND"NT#"PP:22"NTS IS STI22 V"2ID "ND -INDIN$ D:SPIT:
T?: 2"PS: OF MOR: T?"N T?IRT::N ,'7. B:"RS FROM T?:
:G:!ATION OF T?: !ONTR"!T@
%. F"I2IN$ TO !ONSID:R T?"T T?: D::D OF OPTION !ONT"INS
O-S!AR: >ORDS "ND STIPA2"TIONS >?I!? S?OA2D -:
R:SO2V:D "$"INST T?: P2"INTIFF#"PP:22::S >?O
ANI2"T:R"22B DR"FT:D "ND PR:P"R:D T?: S"M:@
7. ?O2DIN$ T?"T T?: D::D OF OPTION :GPR:SS:D T?: TRA:
INT:NTION "ND PARPOS: OF T?: P"RTI:S D:SPIT: "DV:RS:,
!ONT:MPOR"N:OAS "ND SA-S:HA:NT "!TS OF T?: P2"INTIFF#
"PP:22::S@
&. F"I2IN$ TO PROT:!T T?: D:F:ND"NT#"PP:22"NTS ON
"!!OANT OF T?:IR I$NOR"N!: P2"!IN$ T?:M "T "
DIS"DV"NT"$: IN T?: D::D OF OPTION@
;. F"I2IN$ TO !ONSID:R T?"T :HAIT"-2: !ONSID:R"TION TI2T IN
F"VOR OF T?: D:F:ND"NT#"PP:22"NTS@ and
). ?O2DIN$ D:F:ND"NT#"PP:22"NTS 2I"-2: TO P"B P2"INTIFF#
"PP:22::S T?: "MOANT OF P7,333.33 FOR "ND -B >"B OF
"TTORN:BFS F::S. ,pp. 7'#7%, Rollo.
On Februar/ '%, '00', the !ourt of "ppeals rendered a decision reversin+ the decision of the
trial court and dis5issin+ the co5plaint. The reversal of the trial courtFs decision as
pre5ised on the findin+ of respondent court that the Deed of Option is void for lac= of
consideration.
The Villa5or spouses brou+ht the instant petition for revie on certiorari on the folloin+
+rounds1
I. T?: !OART OF "PP:"2S $R"V:2B :RR:D IN FINDIN$ T?"T T?:
P?R"S: >?:N:V:R T?: N::D FOR SA!? S"2: "RIS:S ON OAR
,PRIV"T: R:SPOND:NT. P"RT OR ON T?: P"RT OF T?: SPOAS:S
9A2IO D. VI22"MOR "ND M"RIN" V. VI22"MORF !ONT"IN:D IN T?:
D::D OF OPTION D:NOT:S " SASP:NSIV: !ONDITION@
II. "SSAMIN$ FOR T?: S"D: OF "R$AM:NT T?"T T?:
HA:STION:D P?R"S: IS IND::D " !ONDITION, T?: !OART OF
2
"PP:"2S :RR:D IN NOT FINDIN$, T?"T T?: S"ID !ONDITION ?"D
"2R:"DB -::N FA2FI22:D@
III. "SSAMIN$ FOR T?: S"D: OF "R$AM:NT T?"T T?:
HA:STION:D P?R"S: IS IND::D " !ONDITION, T?: !OART OF
"PP:"2S :RR:D IN ?O2DIN$ T?"T T?: IMPOSITION OF S"ID
!ONDITION PR:V:NT:D T?: P:RF:!TION OF T?: !ONTR"!T OF
S"2: D:SPIT: T?: :GPR:SS OFF:R "ND "!!:PT"N!:
!ONT"IN:D IN T?: D::D OF OPTION@
IV. T?: !OART OF "PP:"2S :RR:D IN FINDIN$ T?"T T?: D::D
OF OPTION IS VOID FOR 2"!D OF !ONSID:R"TION@
V. T?: !OART OF "PP:"2S :RR:D IN ?O2DIN$ T?"T " DISTIN!T
!ONSID:R"TION IS N:!:SS"RB TO SAPPORT T?: D::D OF
OPTION D:SPIT: T?: :GPR:SS OFF:R "ND "!!:PT"N!:
!ONT"IN:D T?:R:IN. ,p. '%, "ollo.
The pivotal issue to be resolved in this case is the validit/ of the Deed of Option hereb/ the
private respondents a+reed to sell their lot to petitioners *henever the need of such sale
arises, either on our part ,private respondents. or on the part of 9ulio Villa5or and Marina
Villa5or ,petitioners..* The court a quo, rule that the Deed of Option as a
valid %ritten a+ree5ent beteen the parties and 5ade the folloin+ conclusions1
<<< <<< <<<
&t is interesting to state t'at t'e agreement !et%een t'e parties are
evidence !# a %riting, 'ence, t'e controverting oral testimonies of t'e
'erein defendants cannot !e an# !etter t'an t'e documentar# evidence,
%'ic', in t'is case, is t'e $eed of (ption ,:<h. *"* and *"#a*.
The la provides that hen the ter5s of an a+ree5ent have been
reduced to ritin+ it is to be considered as containin+ all such ter5s, and
therefore, there can be, beteen the parties and their successors in
interest no evidence of their ter5s of the a+ree5ent, other than the
contents of the ritin+. ... ,Section ( Rule '73 Revised Rules of !ourt.
2i=eise, it is a +eneral and 5ost infle<ible rule that herever ritten
instru5ents are appointed either b/ the re4uire5ents of la, or b/ the
contract of the parties, to be the repositories and 5e5orials of truth, an/
other evidence is e<cluded fro5 bein+ used, either as a substitute for
such instru5ents, or to contradict or alter the5. This is a 5atter both of
principle and of polic/@ of principle because such instru5ents are in their
nature and ori+in entitled to a 5uch hi+her de+ree of credit than evidence
of polic/, because it ould be attended ith +reat 5ischief if those
instru5ents upon hich 5anFs ri+hts depended ere liable to be
i5peached b/ loose collateral evidence. )'ere t'e terms of an
agreement are reduced to %riting, t'e document itself, !eing constituted
!# t'e parties as t'e e*positor of t'eir intentions, it is t'e onl# instrument
of evidence in respect of t'at agreement hich the la ill reco+ni8e so
lon+ as it e<ists for the purpose of evidence. ,Star=ie, :V, pp. )&6, );;
cited in Dasheenath vs. !hund/, >.R. )6, cited in FranciscoFs Rules of
!ourt, Vol. VII Part I p. ';7. ,:5phasis supplied, pp. '%)#'%(, Records..
The respondent appellate court, hoever, ruled that the said deed of option is void for lac= of
consideration. The appellate court 5ade the folloin+ dis4uisitions1
Plaintiff#appellees sa/ the/ a+reed to pa/ P(3.33 per s4uare 5eter for the
portion purchased b/ the5 althou+h the prevailin+ price at that ti5e as
onl/ P%;.33 in consideration of the option to bu/ the re5ainder of the
land. This does not see5 to be the case. In the first place, the deed of
sale as never produced b/ the5 to prove their clai5. Defendant#
appellants testified that no cop/ of the deed of sale had ever been +iven
to the5 b/ the plaintiff#appellees. In the second place, if this as reall/
the condition of the prior sale, e see no reason h/ it should be
reiterated in the Deed of Option. On the contrar/, the alle+ed overprice
paid b/ the plaintiff#appellees is +iven in the Deed as reason for the desire
of the Villa5ors to ac4uire the land rather than as a consideration for the
option +iven to the5, althou+h one 5i+ht onder h/ the/ too= nearl/ '7
/ears to invo=e their ri+ht if the/ reall/ ere in due need of the lot.
"t all events, the consideration needed to support a unilateral pro5ise to
sell is a dinstinct one, not so5ethin+ that is as uncertain as P(3.33 per
s4uare 5eter hich is alle+edl/ F+reatl/ hi+her than the actual prevailin+
value of lands.F " sale 5ust be for a price certain ,"rt. '&;6.. For ho
5uch the portion conve/ed to the plaintiff#appellees as sold so that the
balance could be considered the consideration for the pro5ise to sell has
not been shon, be/ond a 5ere alle+ation that it as ver/ 5uch belo
P(3.33 per s4uare 5eter.
The fact that plaintiff#appellees 5i+ht have paid P'6.33 per s4uare 5eter
for another land at the ti5e of the sale to the5 of a portion of defendant#
appellantFs lot does not necessaril/ prove that the prevailin+ 5ar=et price
at the ti5e of the sale as P'6.33 per s4uare 5eter. ,In fact the/ clai5 it
as P%;.33.. It is i5probable that plaintiff#appellees should pa/ P;%.33
per s4uare 5eter for the privile+e of bu/in+ hen the value of the land
itself as alle+edl/ P'6.33 per s4uare 5eter. ,pp. 7&#7;, Rollo.
"s e<pressed in $on8ales v. Trinidad, )( Phil. )6%, consideration is *the h/ of the contracts,
the essential reason hich 5oves the contractin+ parties to enter into the contract.* The
cause or the i5pellin+ reason on the part of private respondent e<ecutin+ the deed of option
as appearin+ in the deed itself is the petitionerFs havin+ a+reed to bu/ the 733 s4uare 5eter
portion of private respondentsF land at P(3.33 per s4uare 5eter *hich as +reatl/ hi+her
than the actual reasonable prevailin+ price.* This cause or consideration is clear fro5 the
deed hich stated1
That the onl/ reason h/ the spouses#vendees 9ulio Villa5or and Marina
V. Villa5or a+reed to bu/ the said one#half portion at the above stated
price of about P(3.33 per s4uare 5eter, is because I, and 5/ husband
Roberto Re/es, have a+reed to sell and conve/ to the5 the re5ainin+
one#half portion still oned b/ 5e ... ,p. %), "ollo.
3
The respondent appellate court failed to +ive due consideration to petitionersF evidence hich
shos that in '0)0 the Villa5or spouses bou+h an adEacent lot fro5 the brother of Macaria
2abin+#isa for onl/ P'6.33 per s4uare 5eter hich the private respondents did not rebut.
Thus, e<pressed in ter5s of 5one/, the consideration for the deed of option is the difference
beteen the purchase price of the 733 s4uare 5eter portion of the lot in '0(' ,P(3.33 per
s4.5.. and the prevailin+ reasonable price of the sa5e lot in '0('. >hatever it is, ,P%;.33 or
P'6.33. thou+h not specificall/ stated in the deed of option, as ascertainable. PetitionerFs
alle+edl/ pa/in+ P;%.33 per s4uare 5eter for the option 5a/, as opined b/ the appellate
court, be i5probable but i5probabilities does not invalidate a contract freel/ entered into b/
the parties.
The *deed of option* entered into b/ the parties in this case had uni4ue features. Ordinaril/,
an optional contract is a privile+e e<istin+ in one person, for hich he had paid a
consideration and hich +ives hi5 the ri+ht to bu/, for e<a5ple, certain 5erchandise or
certain specified propert/, fro5 another person, if he chooses, at an/ ti5e ithin the a+reed
period at a fi<ed price ,:nri4ue8 de la !avada v. Dia8, 7( Phil. 06%.. If >e loo= closel/ at the
*deed of option* si+ned b/ the parties, >e ill notice that the first part covered the state5ent
on the sale of the 733 s4uare 5eter portion of the lot to Spouses Villa5or at the price of
P(3.33 per s4uare 5eter *hich as hi+her than the actual reasonable prevailin+ value of
the lands in that place at that ti5e ,of sale..* The second part stated that the onl/ reason h/
the Villa5or spouses a+reed to bu/ the said lot at a 5uch hi+her price is because the vendor
,Re/eses. also a+reed to sell to the Villa5ors the other half#portion of 733 s4uare 5eters of
the land. ?ad the deed stopped there, there ould be no dispute that the deed is reall/ an
ordinar/ deed of option +rantin+ the Villa5ors the option to bu/ the re5ainin+ 733 s4uare
5eter#half portion of the lot in consideration for their havin+ a+reed to bu/ the other half of
the land for a 5uch hi+her price. -ut, the *deed of option* ent on and stated that the sale of
the other half ould be 5ade *henever the need of such sale arises, either on our
,Re/eses. part or on the part of the Spouses 9ulio Villa5or and Marina V. Villa5or. It appears
that hile the option to bu/ as +ranted to the Villa5ors, the Re/eses ere li=eise +ranted
an option to sell. In other ords, it as not onl/ the Villa5ors ho ere +ranted an option to
bu/ for hich the/ paid a consideration. The Re/eses as ell ere +ranted an option to sell
should the need for such sale on their part arise.
In the instant case, the option offered b/ private respondents had been accepted b/ the
petitioner, the pro5ise, in the sa5e docu5ent. The acceptance of an offer to sell for a price
certain created a bilateral contract to sell and bu/ and upon acceptance, the offer, ipso
facto assu5es obli+ations of a vendee ,See "t=ins, Droll I !o. v. !ua Mian Te=, '3% Phil.
0&6.. De5andabiliti/ 5a/ be e<ercised at an/ ti5e after the e<ecution of the deed.
In Sanc'e+ v. "igos, No. 2#%;&0&, 9une '&, '0(%, &; S!R" 7)6, 7(), >e held1
In other ords, since there 5a/ be no valid contract ithout a cause of
consideration, the pro5isor/ is not bound b/ his pro5ise and 5a/,
accordin+l/ ithdra it. Pending notice of its %it'dra%al, 'is accepted
promise parta,es, 'o%ever, of t'e nature of an offer to sell %'ic', if
accepted, results in a perfected contract of sale.
" contract of sale is, under "rticle '&(; of the !ivil !ode, *perfected at the 5o5ent there is a
5eetin+ of 5inds upon the thin+ hich is the obEect of the contract and upon the price. Fro5
that 5o5ent, the parties 5a/ reciprocall/ de5and perfor5 of contracts.* Since there as,
beteen the parties, a 5eetin+ of 5inds upon the obEect and the price, there as alread/ a
perfected contract of sale. >hat as, hoever, left to be done as for either part/ to de5and
fro5 the other their respective underta=in+s under the contract. It 5a/ be de5anded at an/
ti5e either b/ the private respondents, ho 5a/ co5pel the petitioners to pa/ for the
propert/ or the petitioners, ho 5a/ co5pel the private respondents to deliver the propert/.
?oever, the Deed of Option did not provide for the period ithin hich the parties 5a/
de5and the perfor5ance of their respective underta=in+s in the instru5ent. The parties could
not have conte5plated that the deliver/ of the propert/ and the pa/5ent thereof could be
5ade indefinitel/ and render uncertain the status of the land. The failure of either parties to
de5and perfor5ance of the obli+ation of the other for an unreasonable len+th of ti5e renders
the contract ineffective.
Ander "rticle ''&& ,'. of the !ivil !ode, actions upon ritten contract 5ust be brou+ht ithin
ten ,'3. /ears. The Deed of Option as e<ecuted on Nove5ber '', '0('. The acceptance,
as alread/ 5entioned, as also accepted in the sa5e instru5ent. The co5plaint in this case
as filed b/ the petitioners on 9ul/ '7, '06(, seventeen ,'(. /ears fro5 the ti5e of the
e<ecution of the contract. ?ence, the ri+ht of action had prescribed. There ere alle+ations
b/ the petitioners that the/ de5anded fro5 the private respondents as earl/ as '06& the
enforce5ent of their ri+hts under the contract. Still, it as be/ond the ten ,'3. /ears period
prescribed b/ the !ivil !ode. In the case of Santos v. Gana#o,
2#7'6;&, Septe5ber 0, '06%, '') S!R" &7', this !ourt affir5in+ and subscribin+ to the
observations of the court a quo held, thus1
... "ssu5in+ that Rosa $ana/o, the oppositor herein, had the ri+ht based
on the "+ree5ent to !onve/ and Transfer as contained in :<hibits F'F and
F'#"F, her failure or the abandon5ent of her ri+ht to file an action a+ainst
Pul5ano Molintas hen he as still a co#oner of the on#half ,'J%. portion
of the '3,333 s4uare 5eters is no barred b/ laches andJor prescribed b/
la because she failed to brin+ such action ithin ten ,'3. /ears fro5 the
date of the ritten a+ree5ent in '0&', pursuant to "rt. ''&& of the Ne
!ivil !ode, so that hen she filed the adverse clai5 throu+h her counsel
in '0;0 she had absolutel/ no 5ore ri+ht hatsoever on the sa5e, havin+
been barred b/ laches.
It is of Eudicial notice that the price of real estate in Metro Manila is continuousl/ on the rise.
To allo the petitioner to de5and the deliver/ of the propert/ subEect of this case thirteen ,'7.
/ears or seventeen ,'(. /ears after the e<ecution of the deed at the price of onl/ P(3.33 per
s4uare 5eter is ine4uitous. For reasons also of e4uit/ and in consideration of the fact that the
private respondents have no other decent place to live, this !ourt, in the e<ercise of its e4uit/
Eurisdiction is not inclined to +rant petitionersF pra/er.
"!!ORDIN$2B, the petition is D:NI:D. The decision of respondent appellate court is
"FFIRM:D for reasons cited in this decision. 9ud+e5ent is rendered dis5issin+ the
co5plaint in !ivil !ase No. !#'%0&% on the +round of prescription and laches.
SO ORD:R:D.
4