Contreras vs. Court of Appeals

A judgment is not invalidated by the absence of signatures on a copy transmitted to a party when the official record on file bears the complete signatures of the ponente and concurring justices, such absence being a mere clerical error. Further, a trial court does not exceed its jurisdiction in ordering the conveyance of property to a party exercising a right of redemption at the price paid by the original buyer, where the complaint specifically prayed for the exercise of that right under Article 1622 of the Civil Code.

A house was constructed around 1949 on a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal, by Eulalia Leis on land owned by Filomena Gatchalian. The house and the land thereafter followed separate chains of ownership. The house was eventually acquired by Isabelita Bumatay (later Isabelita Alcantara), daughter of Leis, who purchased it from the Rural Bank of Teresa (Rizal), Inc. in 1980. The land passed to the spouses Matawaran, who mortgaged it—together with the house—to CCDB. After foreclosure, CCDB consolidated title in its name. In 1990, CCDB sold the land "together with improvements existing thereon" to Jerty Pascual Contreras. The Alcantaras, asserting ownership of the house and an adjacent lot, sued to annul the sale and exercise their right of pre-emption and redemption.

• Nature: The case involved a complaint for annulment of a deed of absolute sale and the exercise of the right of pre-emption and redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code, filed by respondent spouses Danilo and Isabelita Alcantara against petitioner Jerty Pascual Contreras, CCDB, and the spouses Matawaran.

• Segregated Ownership of Land and House: Around 1949, Eulalia Leis had a house constructed on land owned by Filomena Gatchalian in San Jose Street, Antipolo, Rizal. Leis obtained a Tax Declaration for the house that year. By 1974, the house had been renovated with strong materials and an expanded floor area.

• Chain of Ownership Over the House: The house was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Teresa (Rizal), Inc., which eventually acquired ownership after the mortgagor's failure to pay. In 1980, Isabelita Bumatay (later Isabelita Alcantara), daughter of Leis, purchased the house back from the bank by virtue of a deed of sale.

• Chain of Ownership Over the Land: The land was owned by Gatchalian when the house was built. Ownership later passed to the spouses Felipe Matawaran and Ofelia Oliveros. In 1980, the spouses Matawaran mortgaged the land, together with the house, to CCDB as security for a ₱200,000.00 loan. The mortgage deeds described the property as including a two-storey residential building with a floor area of 220 square meters. After default, CCDB foreclosed and acquired the property in 1984. No redemption having been made, CCDB consolidated title and TCT No. 115486 was issued in its name.

• Adjacent Lot Purchase: In July 1983, the Alcantaras purchased a 76-square-meter lot adjacent to the house from Florencio Oliveros.

• Sale to Petitioner: CCDB advertised the subject land for sale from 1986 to 1990 with no buyers. In March 1990, CCDB and Contreras entered into a Contract to Sell involving the subject land "together with the improvements existing thereon." A Deed of Absolute Sale dated 13 November 1990 formalized the sale to Contreras for ₱212,400.00. Contreras had been renting the lower floors of the house from the Alcantaras beginning in 1987.

• The Complaint and Vindication of Ownership: The Alcantaras' complaint sought annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale, asserting ownership of the house and claiming that the Matawaran spouses had no capacity to mortgage it. They alleged a right of pre-emption and redemption under Article 1622 as owners of an adjacent lot. The complaint specifically prayed that the trial court "allow the plaintiffs to exercise their right of pre-emption and redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code of the Philippines." The Matawaran spouses, in their Answer, admitted the Alcantaras' ownership of the house and claimed they never misrepresented ownership to CCDB.

• Trial Court Findings: The RTC found that the Alcantaras' ownership of the house was clearly established by the Deed of Sale between RBTRI and Isabelita, various tax declarations, the testimony of Lourdes Pascual that petitioner had rented from the Alcantaras since 1987, and the Matawarans' admission. These facts were held sufficient to "negate the general presumption that the accessory follows the principal." The RTC concluded that CCDB erroneously included the house in the sale to Contreras, applied Article 1622 by analogy, and granted the Alcantaras the right to purchase the land at the same price.

• Invalidity of the CA Decision for Lack of Signatures: Petitioner alleged that the copy of the Court of Appeals decision she received was not signed by the ponente and the members of the Twelfth Division, violating Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, which requires judgments to be signed by the judge who prepared them. She presented Annex "A," the unsigned page 6, as proof.

• Relief Beyond That Prayed For: Petitioner argued that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering CCDB to convey the subject land to the Alcantaras upon payment of ₱212,400.00, contending that the Alcantaras never demanded in their complaint that the house and lot be sold to them. Petitioner characterized the complaint as one claiming only a portion of the house, not the whole property as ruled by the trial court.

• The Supreme Court decision does not detail specific arguments presented by respondents. The ruling focuses on the deficiencies in petitioner's arguments.

• Validity of the CA Decision: Whether the Court of Appeals decision was invalid for failure to serve a copy bearing the signatures of the ponente and concurring justices.

• Relief Awarded: Whether the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering CCDB to convey the subject land to the Alcantaras upon payment of ₱212,400.00, a relief allegedly not prayed for in the complaint.

• Validity of the CA Decision: The absence of signatures on the copy transmitted to petitioner was a mere clerical error that did not invalidate the decision. The official copy on file with the Court of Appeals rollo bore the complete signatures of the ponente and the two concurring justices. The signature requirement under Section 1, Rule 36 serves as indubitable proof that the judges actually prepared and concurred in the decision, and such proof was satisfied by the signed copy in the official records. There was no alteration or intercalation in either copy indicating a difference between the decision signed and the decision served. The transmission of an unsigned page was nothing more than a clerical error that cannot give rise to nullification, though the Court of Appeals could be faulted for the oversight.

• Relief Awarded: The trial court did not award relief beyond that prayed for. The amount of ₱212,400.00 was the exact consideration in the Deed of Absolute Sale that petitioner herself attached to her Answer. More critically, the Alcantaras' complaint specifically prayed for a judgment "allowing the plaintiffs to exercise their right of pre-emption and redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, and directing [CCDB] to instead convey Lot A-4 registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115486 … in favor of the plaintiffs." The relief granted—conveyance upon payment of the same price CCDB had sold to petitioner—was the necessary affordance of the right of redemption under Article 1622. The complaint proceeded from the premise that the Alcantaras owned the entire house and sought both judicial affirmation of that ownership and the exercise of pre-emptive rights over the land. A bare pronouncement of entitlement without ordering reconveyance at a reasonable price would have been insufficient.

• Validity of Judgments — Clerical Error in Transmission of Signature Page: The formal requirement under Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court that a judgment be signed by the judge who prepared it is satisfied where the official record on file bears the complete signatures of the ponente and concurring justices. The inadvertent transmission of an unsigned page to a party is a clerical error that does not invalidate the decision, provided no alteration or intercalation exists between the signed and unsigned copies that would indicate a material difference.

• Relief Within the Pleadings — Right of Redemption under Article 1622: When a complaint specifically prays for the exercise of the right of pre-emption and redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code, a trial court's order directing conveyance of the subject property to the plaintiff upon payment of the same price paid by the defendant-buyer is relief properly within the pleadings. The grant of the right of redemption necessarily entails reconveyance at a reasonable price, which the purchase price paid by the original buyer presumptively represents.

• "The signature requirement under Section 1 of Rule 36, which is rooted in the most common of senses, is necessitated as indubitable proof that the judges who prepared and concurred in the decision actually did so. Such proof, in this case, is reflected in the copy of the decision that appears in the official records of the Court of Appeals."

• "Considering that the copy sent to petitioner does bear, in all other pages save for the sixth, the initials of the ponente, and the certifications of the clerk of court and the division chairperson, we are wont to believe that the transmission of the unsigned page six to petitioner is nothing more than a clerical error."

• "It is hardly the case of the trial court pulling a rabbit out of the hat, for the precise relief granted by the RTC is drawn from the Alcantaras' specific prayer in their complaint that sought a judgment 'allowing the plaintiffs to exercise their right of pre-emption and redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, and directing [CCDB] to instead convey Lot A-4 … in favor of the plaintiffs.'"

• N/A — The decision does not cite or discuss prior case law as controlling precedent for the issues resolved. The resolution rests on the direct application of Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court and Article 1622 of the Civil Code, in light of the pleadings and official records.

• Article 1622, Civil Code of the Philippines: Provides that whenever a piece of urban land which is so small and so situated that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, having been bought merely for speculation, is about to be re-sold, the owner of the adjoining land has a right of pre-emption at a reasonable price. If the re-sale has been perfected, the adjoining owner has a right of redemption, also at a reasonable price. The Court affirmed the lower courts' application of this provision, holding that the Alcantaras' complaint sufficiently alleged and prayed for its exercise, and the relief of reconveyance at the original sale price was the necessary implementation of that right.

• Section 1, Rule 36, Rules of Court: Requires that a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case be signed by the judge who prepared the decision. The Court held this requirement satisfied by the signed copy in the official records, with the unsigned copy served on petitioner being a clerical error not affecting the decision's validity.

Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, and Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

• N/A — The decision was unanimous; no dissenting opinions were recorded.