SPS. ESTER SANTIAGO & DOMINGO CRISTOBAL ,IMELDA SANTIAGO & JHONY TAI AND JOSE SANTIAGO & EVELYN DAMIN AND ELIZABETH SANTIAGO VS. AIDA G. DIZON G.R. No. 172771
Petitioners: Ester Santiago,Domingo Cristobal,Imelda Santiago,Jhony Tai,Jose Santiago,Evelyn Damin, Elizabeth Santiago Respondent: Aida G. Dizon
Petitioner Elizabeth filed an ejecment case against Aida G. Dizon. The ejecment case whice was filed before the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court(MeTC), Branch 21,alleged the following: (a) When Aida failed to settle her loan to Monte de Piedad, the property that she had morgaged was forclose.By then,Petitioner Elizabeth Santiago,on Aida Dizon’s behalf paid the mortgaged property to Monte de Piedad for P550,000. (b) On May 29,1987, respondent and petitioners executed an agreement giving respondent “the option to buy back the property within 3 months from the date of this agreement at the price of P900,000. Failing respondent should “vacate the premises occupied by her,and turn over possesion thereof to [petitioners] including the lesees of the building. (c) Respondent continued to stay in the property. After 3 months, the respondent did not repurchase the property,thus, the petitioners registered with the Registry of Deeds of Manila the Deed of Sale executed by Monte de Piedad in favor of Respondent,as well as the Deed of Sale of the property executed by respondent in favor of petitioners who were issued a title thereover. (d) Repondent did not repurchase the property after 3 months and failed to vacate the property. Branch 21 decided in petitioner Elizabeth’s favor.On appeal,Branch 27 of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila reversed the MeTC decision. The Court of the Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. On petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration, the appellate court reversed the RTC decision and reinstated the MeTC decision (in favor of petitioner Elizabeth). Respondent thus filed a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document