You are on page 1of 4

TERESITA DIO vs. ST. FERDINAND MEMORIALPARK, INC.G.R. No.

169578 November 30, 2006509 SCRA
453FACTS:
On December 11, 1973, Teresita Dio agreed to buy, on installmentbasis, a memorial lot from the St. Ferdinand
Memorial Park, Inc. (SFMPI) inL u c e n a C i t y. T h e p u r c h a s e w a s e v i d e n c e d b y a P r e - N e e d
P u r c h a s e Agreement. She obliged herself to abide by all such rules and regulationsgoverning the SFMPI dated
May 25, 1972. SFMPI issued a Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual. The ownership of Dio over the property
wasm a d e s u b j e c t t o t h e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s o f S F M P I , a s w e l l a s t h e government, including all
amendments, additions and modifications thatm a y l a t e r b e a d o p t e d . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e R u l e s ( R u l e 6 9 )
M a u s o l e u m building and memorials should be constructed by the Park Personnel. LotOwners cannot contract other
contractors for the construction of the saidbuildings and memorial, however, the lot owner is free to give their
owndesign for the mausoleum to be constructed, as long as it is in accordancew i t h t h e p a r k s t a n d a r d s . T h e
c o n s t r u c t i o n s h a l l b e u n d e r t h e c l o s e supervision of the Park Superintendent. The mortal remains of
Dio’s husband, father and daughter were i n t e r r e d i n t h e l o t a t h e r o w n e x p e n s e , w i t h o u t t h e
k n o w l e d g e a n d intervention of SFMPI..
In October 1986, Dio informed SFMPI, through its president and controlling stockholder, Mildred F. Tantoco,
that she was planning to builda mausoleum on her lot and sought the approval thereof. Dio showed to
Tantoco the plans and project specifications accomplished by her privatec o n t r a c t o r a t a n e s t i m a t e d c o s t
o f P 6 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . T h e p l a n s a n d specifi cations were approved, but Tantoco insisted that the
mausoleum be built by it or its agents at a minimum cost of P100,000.00 as providedin Rule 69 of the Rules and
Regulations the SFMPI issued on May 25, 1972. The total amount excluded certain specific designs in the
approvedplan which if included would cost Dio much more. Dio, through counsel,demanded that she be
allowed to construct the mausoleum within 10days, otherwise, she would be impelled to fi le the
necessary action/sagainst SFMPI and Tantoco. Dio fi led a Complaint for Injunction withDamages
against SFMPI and Tantoco before the RTC. She averred thatshe was not aware of Rule 69 of the SFMPI
Rules and Regulations; the a m o u n t o f P 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 a s c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t o f t h e m a u s o l e u m
w a s unconscionable and oppressive. She prayed that, after trial, judgment berendered in her favor, granting a
fi nal injunction perpetually restraining d e f e n d a n t s f r o m e n f o r c i n g t h e i n v a l i d R u l e 6 9 o f
S F M P I ’ s “ Ru l e s f o r M e m o r i a l Wo r k i n t h e M a u s o l e u m o f t h e Pa r k ” o r f r o m r e f u s i n g
o r preventing the construction of any improvement upon her property in thepark. The court issued a cease and desist
order against defendants. T h e t r i a l c o u r t r e n d e r e d j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n t s . O n appeal, the
CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner had knowledge of Rule 69 of SFMPI Rulesand Regulations for memorial works in the
mausoleum areas of the parkw h e n t h e P r e - N e e d P u r c h a s e A g r e e m e n t a n d t h e D e e d o f S a l e
w a s executed and whether the said rule is valid and binding upon petitioner.
RULING:
Plaintiff ’s allegation that she was not aware of the said Rules and Regulations lacks credence. Admittedly, in
her Complaint and during thetrial, plaintiff testified that she informed the defendants of her intention toconstruct a
mausoleum. Even counsel for the plaintiff , who is the son of t h e p l a i n t i ff , i n f o r m e d t h e C o u r t
d u r i n g t h e t r i a l i n t h i s c a s e t h a t h e r m o t h e r , t h e p l a i n t i ff h e r e i n , i n f o r m e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s
o f h e r p l a n t o construct and erect a mausoleum.
This act of the plaintiff clearly showsthat she was fully aware of the said rules and regulations
otherwise sheshould not consult, inform and seek permission from the defendants of her intention to
build a mausoleum if she is not barred by the rules and r e g u l a t i o n s t o d o t h e s a m e . W h e n s h e
s i g n e d t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e defendants, she was estopped to question and attack the legality of saidcontract
later on.F u r t h e r , a c o n t r a c t o f a d h e s i o n , w h e r e i n o n e p a r t y i m p o s e s a readymade form of contract
on the other, is not strictly against the law. Acontract of adhesion is as binding as ordinary contracts, the reason
beingthat the party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely.Contrary to petitioner’s
contention, not every contract of adhesion is an invalid agreement. Thus, the petition was denied.