QR Link

Title
Cari vs. Spouses Cueto

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 198636 REYES, J 8 Oct 2014

A dispute over a parcel of land leads to a ruling in favor of the respondents,

who are ordered to be reimbursed for their expenses and awarded attorney's
fees, while the claims of co-ownership and bad faith are not considered.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 198636)

v0.1-beta

Facts:
Spouses Gavino Cueto and Carmelita Cueto (respondents) !led a complaint for
speci!c performance with damages against Esperanza Carinan and her son,
Jazer Carinan.

Esperanza and her late husband acquired the rights over a parcel of land and
assumed the payment of monthly amortizations to the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS).

Several amortizations remained unpaid, and the respondents paid o"

Esperanza's outstanding debt to prevent the cancellation of the conditional sale
of the property.

The respondents also paid for the transfer of the property and the renovation of
the house on the land.

The respondents claimed that Esperanza and Jazer agreed to execute a deed of
sale once the title was transferred to their names, with the condition that the
respondents would be given the !rst option to buy it back within three years by
reimbursing the expenses incurred.
Issue:

1. Whether there was a contract of loan or a donation between the parties.

2. Whether there was co-ownership between the parties.

3. Whether the respondents were builders in bad faith.

4. Whether the award of attorney's fees was proper.

Ruling:

The court ruled in favor of the respondents and a#rmed the lower courts' decisions.

Ratio:

The court found that there was a clear intention for the respondents to be
reimbursed for the amounts they spent on the property.

Esperanza's claim that the payments were purely gratuitous was unsupported
by evidence.

To prevent unjust enrichment, Esperanza should refund the payments made by

the respondents.

There was no need to transfer ownership of the property to the respondents, as

it would disregard Esperanza's interest and the payments she made for the
property's purchase.

The court upheld the award of attorney's fees in favor of the respondents.

Esperanza's claims of co-ownership and the respondents being builders in bad

faith were not considered, as these were not raised during the proceedings and
were beyond the scope of the petition.