ProvRem_Reyes v. Lim [Judicial Deposit as a Prov Rem in Case of EQUITY]

7/24/2019 ProvRem_Reyes v. Lim [Judicial Deposit as a Prov Rem in Case of EQUITY]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/provremreyes-v-lim-judicial-deposit-as-a-prov-rem-in-case-of-equity 1/9

Reyes v. Lim

Case Reference No., Date

CHARACTERS:

• Petitioner David Reyes – seller with respect to Jose Lim; lessor with respect to

Harrison Lumber

• Respondent Jose Lim – buyer

• Respondents Harisson Lumber, Inc. and huy hen! "en! – lessees

FACTS:

• 1994, Reyes and Lim entered into a contract to sell ("Contract to Sell") a parcel of

land which was leased and occupied by Harisson Lumber, Inc and Keng.• #he contract stipulated, amon! others, that Reyes should be able to have the

lessees vacate the sub$ect property

• Harisson Lumber and "en! DID NOT vacate despite notice by Reyes

• Plot #wist% Reyes &led a civil action for ANNULENT o' the ontract an!

for DAA"ES a!ainst Lim, Harisson Lumber and "en!

o he alleged that LIM COI!"# with Harrison Lumber O$ $O

!%C%$" the &roperty '$IL the &()),))) monthly penalty would ha*e

accumulated and "+'%L"# the unpaid purchase price of P18,000,000

• Keng and Harrison Lumer!s %nswer

o #"I"# that they conni*ed with Lim to defraud Reyes

o alleged that Reyes %&&RO!"# their re-uest for an

"$"/IO of time to *acate the &roperty due to their difficulty in

finding a new location for t#eir usiness

• Lim!s $ns%er&

o he was R"%#0 %# 1ILLI2 $O &%0 the balance of the purchase price on

or efore 8 'arc# 199

o he re-uested a meeting with Reyes but Reyes 3ept &O/$&OI2 their

meetingo Reyes O44"R"# $O R"$'R the &5) million down payment to Lim

because Reyes was ha*ing problems in remo*ing the lessee from the

&ropertyo Lim R"6"C$"# Reyes7 offer and proceeded to *erify the status of Reyes7

title to t#e Proert* Lim learned that Reyes had %LR"%#0 /OL# the &roperty

to Line One 4oods Corporation 89Line One9:• +e*es filed an $'-.. Comlaint

• Lim!s $'-.. $ns%er&



o Lim prayed for the cancellation of t#e Contract to Sell and for the

I//'%C" O4 % 1RI$ O4 &R"LIMI%R0 %$$%CHM"$

against Reyes• trial court #"I"# the prayer for a writ of reliminar* attac#ment

• 199/, Lim re-uested in open court that Reyes be OR#"R"# $O#"&O/I$ the &5) million down payment with the cashier of the Regional

$rial Court of Paraaue 2#e trial court 2R%$"# this motion ;• 3entuall*, trial court directed Reyes to deposit t#e P10 million do%n a*ment %it#

t#e Cler of Court on or efore 50 6ctoer 199/

• +e*es filed a Petition for Certiorari %it# C$7 C$ .S'SS. t#e Petition&

o $RI%L CO'R$ CO'L# !%LI#L0 I//'" the assailed orders in the

e<ercise of its "+'I$0 6'RI/#IC$IO since the &RO!I/IO%L

R"M"#I"/ under the Rules of Court #O O$ %&&L0 to this caseo assailed orders merely directed Reyes to deposit the &5) million to

t#e custod* of t#e trial court $O &RO$"C$ $H" I$"R"/$ O4 LIM who

paid the amount to Reyes as down payment• Hence, +e*es filed t#e instant Petition for +e3ie%&

o Reyes points out that #"&O/I$ I/ O$ %MO2 the pro*isional remedies

enumerated in the 5==> Rules of Ci*il &rocedure7 enumeration in t#e Rules is

"CL'/I!"

o +e*es argues t#at a court C%O$ %&&L0 "+'I$0 and re-uire deposit I4

$H" L%1 %LR"%#0 &R"/CRI?"/ the specific pro*isional remedies %#ic#

do not include deosit

ISSUE:

()* the )rder directin! Reyes to deposit P+- to the custody o' the court is

valid

RULIN":

/01, it is valid.

$his is not a case of e-uity o*erruling a positi*e pro*ision of law or udicial rule for $H"R" I/ O" $H%$ 2O!"R/ this particular case $his is a C%/" O4 /IL"C"

OR I/'44ICI"C0 O4 $H" L%1 and the Rules of Court

f left alone, suc# silence will result in un@ust enrichment to Reyes at t#e e:ense of

Lim 2#e silenceAhiatus may also imperil restitution, which is a precondition to the

rescission of the Contract to /ell t#at +e*es #imself sees



%rticle = of the Ci*il Code "&R"//L0 M%#%$"/ the courts to M%K" %

R'LI2 despite the 9silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.9 $his calls for

the %&&LIC%$IO O4 "+'I$0.

"-uity is the principle by which substantial @ustice may be attained in

cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law areI%#"+'%$"

$hus, the trial court in the e<ercise of its e-uity @urisdiction M%0 !%LI#L0

OR#"R $H" #"&O/I$ of the &5) million down payment in court 2#e urose of

t#e e:ercise of euit* urisdiction in t#is case is to &R"!"$ '6'/$ "RICHM"$

and to ensure restitution

$he e-uities weigh hea*ily in fa*or of Lim, who paid the &5) million down

payment in good faith only to disco*er later that Reyes had subse-uently sold the

&roperty to another buyer

ow, since R"0"/ I/ #"M%#I2 $O R"/CI# the Contract to /ell, H"

C%O$ R"4'/" to #"&O/I$ the &5) million down payment in court /IC"

/'CH #"&O/I$ 1ILL "/'R" R"/$I$'$IO of t#e P10 million to its rig#tful o%ner

% court of e-uity will not rescind a contract 'L"// $H"R" I/

R"/$I$'$IO , that is, the parties are restored to the status -uo ante

?y see3ing rescission, a seller necessarily offers to return what he has recei*ed

from the buyer. /uch a seller M%0 O$ $%K" ?%CK his offer if the CO'R$

#""M/ I$ "+'I$%?L" , to &R"!"$ '6'/$ "RICHM"$ and ensure

restitution , to &'$ $H" MO"0 I 6'#ICI%L #"&O/I$.

n t#is case, it %as ust, euitale and roer for t#e trial court 26 6+.+ 2H

.P6S2 of t#e P10 million do%n a*ment to re3ent unust enric#ment * +e*es at t#e

e:ense of Lim

$rt ;; of t#e Ci3il Code ro3ides t#at O person may un@ustly enrich himself

at the e<pense of another . 2#is rincile applies also to procedural remedies ,

&RO!I#"# $H%$ the aggrie*ed party H%/ O O$H"R %C$IO based on contract,

-uasiBcontract, crime, -uasiBdelict or any other pro*ision of law OR during t#e

endenc* of t#e case, #e has O O$H"R R"CO'R/" ?%/"# O $H"

&RO!I/IO%L R"M"#I"/ of the Rules of Court

2#us, t#e 6rder of udicial deosit is 3alid



+eulic of t#e P#iliines

/'&R"M" CO'R$

'anila

<+S2 .=S6-

2.R. o. 5(D(5 %ugust 55, D))

#%!I# R"0"/ 8/ubstituted by !ictoria R. 4abella:, etitioner,

3s

6O/" LIM, CH'0 CH"2 K"2 and H%RRI/O L'M?"R, IC., resondents

C%R&IO, J .

$he Case

2#is is a etition for re3ie% oncertiorari

of t#e .ecision1

dated 1; 'a* 1998 of t#e Court of $ealsin C$>?+ SP -o 4@;;4 2#e Court of $eals dismissed t#e etition for certiorari assailing t#e

6rders dated @ 'arc# 199/, 5 Aul* 199/ and 5 6ctoer 199/ of t#e +egional 2rial Court of

Paranaue, Branc# ;@0; ("trial court") in Ci3il Case -o 9>05;

$he 4acts

6n ;5 'arc# 199, petitioner .a3id +e*es ("+e*es") filed efore t#e trial court a comlaint for

%'LM"$ O4 CO$R%C$ %# #%M%2"/ against respondents Aose Lim ("Lim"), C#u*

C#eng Keng ("Keng") and Harrison Lumer, nc ("Harrison Lumer")

2#e comlaint5

alleged t#at on / -o3emer 1994, Reyes as seller and Lim as buyerentered into a contract to sell ("Contract to Sell") a parcel of land ("Proert*") located

along <B Harrison Street, Pasa* Cit* Harrison Lumber occupied the &roperty as lessee

%it# a mont#l* rental of P5,000 2#e Contract to Sell ro3ided for t#e follo%ing terms and

conditions&

1 2#e total consideration for t#e urc#ase of t#e aforedescried arcel of land toget#er %it#

t#e erimeter %alls found t#erein is 2-2D ?H2 'LL6- (P;8,000,00000) PS6S

a*ale as follo%s&

(a) 2- 'LL6- (P10,000,00000) PS6S uon signing of t#is Contract to Sell7

() 2#e alance of ?H2- 'LL6- (P18,000,00000) PS6S s#all e aid on or efore

'arc# 8, 199 at 9&50 $' at a an to e designated * t#e Bu*er ut uon t#e comlete

3acation of all t#e tenants or occuants of t#e roert* and e:ecution of t#e .eed of

$solute Sale Ho%e3er, if t#e tenants or occuants #a3e 3acated t#e remises earlier t#an

'arc# 8, 199, t#e =-.6+ s#all gi3e t#e =-. at least one %ee ad3ance notice for

t#e a*ment of t#e alance and e:ecution of t#e .eed of $solute Sale



; 2#at in t#e e3ent, t#e tenants or occuants of t#e remises suect of t#is sale s#all not

3acate t#e remises on 'arc# 8, 199 as stated ao3e, t#e =-. s#all %it##old t#e

a*ment of t#e alance of P18,000,00000 and t#e =-.6+ agrees to a* a enalt* of

<our ercent (4E) er mont# to t#e #erein =-. ased on t#e amount of t#e

do%na*ment of 2- 'LL6- (P10,000,00000) PS6S until t#e comlete 3acation of t#e

remises * t#e tenants t#erein

4

2#e comlaint claimed t#at +e*es #ad informed Harrison Lumer to 3acate t#e Proert* efore t#e

end of Aanuar* 199 +e*es also informed Keng and Harrison Lumer t#at if t#e* failed to 3acate

* 8 'arc# 199, #e %ould #old t#em liale for t#e enalt* of P400,000 a mont# as ro3ided in t#e

Contract to Sell 2#e complaint further alleged that LIM COI!"# with Harrison

Lumber O$ $O !%C%$" the &roperty until the &()),))) monthly penalty

would ha*e accumulated and e-ualed the unpaid purchase price of P18,000,000

6n 5 'a* 199, Keng and Harrison Lumer filed their %nswerE #"0I2 they conni*ed with

Lim to defraud Reyes Keng and Harrison Lumer alleged that Reyes %&&RO!"#their re-uest for an "$"/IO of time to *acate the &roperty due to their

difficulty in finding a new location for t#eir usiness Harrison Lumer claimed t#at as of

'arc# 199, it #ad alread* started transferring some of its merc#andise to its ne% usiness location

in 'alaon/

6n 51 'a* 199, Lim filed his %nswerF stating that he was R"%#0 %# 1ILLI2 $O

&%0 the balance of the purchase price on or efore 8 'arc# 199 Lim re-uested a

meeting with Reyes t#roug# t#e latter!s daug#ter on t#e signing of t#e .eed of $solute Sale

and t#e a*ment of t#e alance but Reyes 3ept &O/$&OI2 their meeting 6n 9 'arc#

199, Reyes O44"R"# $O R"$'R the &5) million down payment to Lim becauseReyes was ha*ing problems in remo*ing the lessee from the &roperty Lim

R"6"C$"# Reyes7 offer and proceeded to *erify the status of Reyes7 title to t#e

Proert* Lim learned that Reyes had %LR"%#0 /OL# the &roperty to Line One

4oods Corporation 89Line One9: on 1 'arc# 199 for P1@,/8;,840 $fter t#e registration of

t#e .eed of $solute Sale, t#e +egister of .eeds issued to Line 6ne 2C2 -o 154/@/ co3ering t#e

Proert* Lim denied conni3ing %it# Keng and Harrison Lumer to defraud +e*es

6n ; -o3emer 199, +e*es filed a 'otion for Lea3e to <ile $mended Comlaint due to

suer3ening facts 2#ese included t#e filing * Lim of a comlaint for estafa against +e*es as %ell

as an action for secific erformance and nullification of sale and title lus damages efore anot#ertrial court9 2#e trial court granted t#e motion in an 6rder dated ;5 -o3emer 199

In his %mended %nswer dated 18 Aanuar* 199@,10 Lim prayed for the cancellation of t#e

Contract to Sell and for the I//'%C" O4 % 1RI$ O4 &R"LIMI%R0

%$$%CHM"$ against Reyes 2#e trial court #"I"# the prayer for a

writ of reliminar* attac#ment in an 6rder dated / 6ctoer 199@



6n @ 'arc# 199/, Lim re-uested in open court that Reyes be OR#"R"# $O

#"&O/I$ the &5) million down payment with the cashier of the Regional $rial

Court of Paraaue 2#e trial court 2R%$"# this motion

6n ; 'arc# 199/, +e*es filed a 'otion to Set $side t#e 6rder dated @ 'arc# 199/ on t#e groundt#e 6rder racticall* granted t#e reliefs Lim ra*ed for in #is $mended $ns%er11 2#e trial court

denied +e*es! motion in an 6rder 1; dated 5 Aul* 199/ Citing $rticle 158 of t#e Ci3il Code, t#e trial

court ruled t#at an action for rescission could roser onl* if t#e art* demanding rescission can

return %#ate3er #e ma* e oliged to restore s#ould t#e court grant t#e rescission

2#e trial court denied +e*es! 'otion for +econsideration in its 6rder 15 dated 5 6ctoer 199/ n t#e

same order, t#e trial court directed +e*es to deosit t#e P10 million do%n a*ment %it# t#e Cler of

Court on or efore 50 6ctoer 199/

6n 8 .ecemer 199/, +e*es14 filed a Petition for Certiorari1 %it# t#e Court of $eals +e*es

ra*ed t#at t#e 6rders of t#e trial court dated @ 'arc# 199/, 5 Aul* 199/ and 5 6ctoer 199/ e setaside for #a3ing een issued %it# gra3e ause of discretion amounting to lac of urisdiction 6n 1;

'a* 1998, t#e Court of $eals dismissed t#e etition for lac of merit

Hence, t#is etition for re3ie%

$he Ruling of the Court of %ppeals

2#e Court of %ppeals ruled the $RI%L CO'R$ CO'L# !%LI#L0 I//'" the assailed

orders in the e<ercise of its "+'I$0 6'RI/#IC$IO 2#e court ma* grant euitale

reliefs to reat#e life and force to sustanti3e la% suc# as $rticle 1581@ of t#e Ci3il Code since the

pro*isional remedies under the Rules of Court do not apply to this case

2#e Court of $eals #eld t#e assailed orders merely directed Reyes to deposit the &5)

million to t#e custod* of t#e trial court to protect the interest of Lim who paid the

amount to Reyes as down payment 2#is did not mean t#e mone* %ould e returned

automaticall* to Lim

$he Issues

+e*es raises t#e follo%ing issues&

1 #et#er t#e Court of $eals erred in #olding t#e trial court could issue t#e uestioned

6rders dated 'arc# @, 199/, Aul* 5, 199/ and 6ctoer 5, 199/, reuiring etitioner .a3id

+e*es to deosit t#e amount of 2en 'illion Pesos (P10,000,00000) during t#e endenc* of

t#e action, %#en deosit is not among t#e ro3isional remedies enumerated in +ule / to @1

of t#e 199/ +ules on Ci3il Procedure



; #et#er t#e Court of $eals erred in finding t#e trial court could issue t#e uestioned

6rders on grounds of euit* %#en t#ere is an alicale la% on t#e matter, t#at is, +ules /

to @1 of t#e 199/ +ules on Ci3il Procedure1/

$he Court7s Ruling

+e*es! contentions are %it#out merit

Reyes points out that #"&O/I$ I/ O$ %MO2 the pro*isional remedies

enumerated in the 5==> Rules of Ci*il &rocedure +e*es stresses t#e enumeration in t#e

Rules is e<clusi*e -ot one of t#e ro3isional remedies in +ules / to @118 alies to t#is case

+e*es argues t#at a court cannot apply e-uity and re-uire deposit if the law already

prescribes the specific pro*isional remedies %#ic# do not include deosit +e*es in3oes

t#e rincile t#at euit* is "alied onl* in t#e asence of, and ne3er against, statutor* la% or : : :

udicial rules of rocedure"19+e*es adds t#e fact t#at t#e ro3isional remedies do not include deosit

is a matter of dura le: sed le:;0

2#e instant case, howe*er, is precisely one where there is a hiatus in the law and

in the Rules of Court f left alone, t#e hiatus will result in un@ust enrichment to Reyes

at t#e e:ense of Lim 2#e hiatus may also imperil restitution, which is a precondition

to the rescission of the Contract to /ell t#at +e*es #imself sees $his is not a case of

e-uity o*erruling a positi*e pro*ision of law or udicial rule for there is none that go*erns this

particular case $his is a case of silence or insufficiency of the law and the Rules of

Court n t#is case, %rticle = of the Ci*il Code e<pressly mandates the courts to

ma3e a ruling despite the 9silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.9D5 $his

calls for the application of e-uity,;; %#ic# "fills t#e oen saces in t#e la%";5

$hus, the trial court in the e<ercise of its e-uity @urisdiction may *alidly order the

deposit of the &5) million down payment in court 2#e urose of t#e e:ercise of euit*

urisdiction in t#is case is to pre*ent un@ust enrichment and to ensure

restitution uit* urisdiction aims to do comlete ustice in cases %#ere a court of la% is

unale to adat its udgments to t#e secial circumstances of a case ecause of t#e infle:iilit* of its

statutor* or legal urisdiction;4 "-uity is the principle by which substantial @ustice may

be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are

inade-uate;

+e*es is seeing rescission of t#e Contract to Sell n #is amended ans%er, Lim is also seeing

cancellation of t#e Contract to Sell 2#e trial court t#en ordered +e*es to deosit in court t#e P10

million do%n a*ment t#at Lim made under t#e Contract to Sell +e*es admits receit of t#e P10

million do%n a*ment ut ooses t#e order to deosit t#e amount in court Reyes contends

that prior to a @udgment annulling the Contract to /ell, he has the 9right to use,



possess and en@oy9DE the &5) million as its 9owner9D> unless the court orders its

preliminary attachment.;8

2o suscrie to +e*es! contention %ill unustl* enric# +e*es at t#e e:ense of Lim +e*es sold to

Line 6ne t#e Proert* e3en efore t#e alance of P18 million under t#e Contract to Sell %it# Lim

ecame due on 8 'arc# 199 6n 1 'arc# 199, +e*es signed a .eed of $solute Sale;9

in fa3or of Line 6ne 6n 5 'arc# 199, t#e +egister of .eeds issued 2C2 -o 154/@/ 50 in t#e name of Line

6ne51 Reyes cannot claim ownership of the &5) million down payment because

Reyes had already sold to another buyer the &roperty for which Lim made the

down payment. n fact, in #is Comment5; dated ;0 'arc# 199@, +e*es reiterated #is offer to

return to Lim t#e P10 million do%n a*ment

6n alance, it is unreasonale and unust for +e*es to oect to t#e deosit of t#e P10 million do%n

a*ment 2#e alication of euit* al%a*s in3ol3es a alancing of t#e euities in a articular case, a

matter addressed to t#e sound discretion of t#e court Here, we find the e-uities weigh hea*ily

in fa*or of Lim, who paid the &5) million down payment in good faith only to disco*er

later that Reyes had subse-uently sold the &roperty to another buyer

n "ternal 2ardens Memorial &ar3s Corp. *. I%C,55 t#is Court #eld t#e laintiff could not continue

to enefit from t#e roert* or funds in litigation during t#e endenc* of t#e suit at t#e e:ense of

%#ome3er t#e court mig#t ultimatel* adudge as t#e la%ful o%ner 2#e Court declared&

n t#e case at ar, a careful anal*sis of t#e records %ill s#o% t#at etitioner admitted among

ot#ers in its comlaint in nterleader t#at it is still oligated to a* certain amounts to ri3ate

resondent7 t#at it claims no interest in suc# amounts due and is %illing to a* %#oe3er is

declared entitled to said amounts : : :

Fnder t#e circumstances, t#ere aears to e no lausile reason for etitioner!s oections

to t#e deosit of t#e amounts in litigation after #a3ing ased for t#e assistance of t#e lo%er

court * filing a comlaint for interleader %#ere t#e deosit of aforesaid amounts is not onl*

reuired * t#e nature of t#e action ut is a contractual oligation of t#e etitioner under t#e

Land .e3eloment Program (+ollo, ;;)

2#ere is also no lausile or ustifiale reason for +e*es to oect to t#e deosit of t#e P10 million

do%n a*ment in court $he Contract to /ell can no longer be enforced because

Reyes himself subse-uently sold the &roperty to Line One Bot# +e*es and Lim are

no% seeing rescission of t#e Contract to Sell Fnder $rticle 158 of t#e Ci3il Code, rescission

creates t#e oligation to return t#e t#ings t#at are t#e oect of t#e contract +escission is ossileonl* %#en t#e erson demanding rescission can return %#ate3er #e ma* e oliged to restore %

court of e-uity will not rescind a contract 'L"// $H"R" I/ R"/$I$'$IO, that

is, the parties are restored to the status -uo ante54

2#us, since Reyes is demanding to rescind the Contract to /ell, he cannot refuse

to deposit the &5) million down payment in court5 Suc# deosit %ill ensure restitution of



t#e P10 million to its rig#tful o%ner Lim, on t#e ot#er #and, #as not#ing to refund, as #e #as not

recei3ed an*t#ing under t#e Contract to Sell5@

n 2o*ernment of the &hilippine Islands *. 1agner and Cleland 1agner,5/ t#e Court ruled t#e

refund of amounts recei3ed under a contract is a recondition to t#e rescission of t#e contract 2#e

Court declared&

2#e ?o3ernment, #a3ing ased for rescission, must restore to t#e defendants %#ate3er it

#as recei3ed under t#e contract t %ill onl* e ust if, as a condition to rescission, t#e

?o3ernment e reuired to refund to t#e defendants an amount eual to t#e urc#ase rice,

lus t#e sums e:ended * t#em in imro3ing t#e land (Ci3il Code, art 1;9)

2#e principle that no person may un@ustly enrich himself at the e<pense of another

is embodied in %rticle DDF of the Ci*il Code 2#is rincile applies not only to

substanti*e rights but also to procedural remedies 6ne condition for in3oing t#is

rincile is t#at the aggrie*ed party H%/ O O$H"R %C$IO based on contract,

-uasiBcontract, crime, -uasiBdelict or any other pro*ision of law 59 Courts can e:tend

t#is condition to t#e #iatus in t#e +ules of Court %#ere t#e aggrie3ed art*, during t#e endenc* of

t#e case, has no other recourse based on the pro*isional remedies of the Rules of

Court

2#us, a court ma* not ermit a seller to retain, endente lite, mone* aid * a u*er if t#e seller

#imself sees rescission of t#e sale ecause #e #as suseuentl* sold t#e same roert* to anot#er

u*er40 ?y see3ing rescission, a seller necessarily offers to return what

he has recei*ed from the buyer. /uch a seller may not ta3e bac3 his

offer if the court deems it e-uitable, to pre*ent un@ust enrichment andensure restitution, to put the money in @udicial deposit.

2#ere is unust enric#ment %#en a erson unustl* retains a enefit to t#e loss of anot#er, or %#en a

erson retains mone* or roert* of anot#er against t#e fundamental rinciles of ustice, euit* and

good conscience41n this case, it was @ust, e-uitable and proper for the trial

court $O OR#"R $H" #"&O/I$ of the &5) million down payment to

pre*ent un@ust enrichment by Reyes at the e<pense of Lim.4;

1H"R"4OR", %e $<<+' t#e .ecision of t#e Court of $eals

S6 6+.+.

ProvRem_Reyes v. Lim [Judicial Deposit as a Prov Rem in Case of EQUITY]

Documents

Transcript of ProvRem_Reyes v. Lim [Judicial Deposit as a Prov Rem in Case of EQUITY]