1997 December 9
G.R. No. 124554
Facts: Petitioner EGMPC and private respondent NPUM entered into a Land Development
Agreement dated October 6, 1976. Under the agreement, EGMPC was to develop a parcel of land
owned by NPUM into a memorial park subdivided into lots. The parties further agreed that EGMPC
had the obligation to remit monthly to NPUM forty percent (40%) of its net gross collection from the
development of a memorial park on property owned by NPUM. It also provides for the designation of
a depository/trustee bank to act as the depository/trustee for all funds collected by EGMPC.
Later, two claimants of the parcel of land surfaced Maysilo Estate and the heirs of a certain Vicente
Singson Encarnacion. EGMPC thus filed an action for interpleader against Maysilo Estate and NPUM.
The Singson heirs in turn filed an action for quieting of title against EGMPC and NPUM.
From these two cases, several proceedings ensued. One such case, from the interpleader action,
EGMPC assailed the appellate court's resolution requiring "petitioner Eternal Gardens [to] deposit
whatever amounts are due from it under the Land Development Agreement with a reputable bank to
be designated by the respondent court."
The trial court dismissed the cases and the appellate court affirmed insofar as it dismissed the claims
of the intervenors, including the Maysilo Estate, and the titles of NPUM to the subject parcel of land
were declared valid; and the trial court's decision favor of the Singson heirs was reversed and set
aside. Through the resolution issued by the Supreme Court resolution, the Court of Appeals proceeded
with the disposition of the case and required the parties to appear at a scheduled hearing on June 16,
1994, "with counsel and accountants, as well as books of accounts and related records,' to determine
the remaining accrued rights and liabilities of said parties."
[G.R. No. 182435. August 13, 2012.]
LILIA B. ADA, et al., vs. FLORANTE BAYLON
FACTS:
This case involves the estate of spouses Florentino Baylon and Maximina Elnas Baylon (Spouses Baylon)
who died on November 7, 1961 and May 5, 1974, respectively. 3 At the time of their death, Spouses Baylon
were survived by their legitimate children, namely, Rita Baylon (Rita), Victoria Baylon (Victoria), Dolores
Baylon (Dolores), Panfila Gomez (Panfila), Ramon Baylon (Ramon) and herein petitioner Lilia B. Ada
(Lilia).
Dolores died intestate and without issue on August 4, 1976. Victoria died on November 11, 1981 and was
survived by her daughter, herein petitioner Luz B. Adanza. Ramon died intestate on July 8, 1989 and was
survived by herein respondent Florante Baylon (Florante), his child from his first marriage, as well as by
petitioner Flora Baylon, his second wife, and their legitimate children, namely, Ramon, Jr. and herein
petitioners Remo, Jose, Eric, Florentino and Ma. Ruby, all surnamed Baylon.
The accounting of the parties' respective obligations was referred to the Court's Accountant, Mrs.
Carmencita Angelo, with the concurrence of the parties, to whom the documents were to be submitted.
NPUM prepared and submitted a Summary of Sales and Total Amounts Due based on the following
documents it likewise submitted to the court. However, EGMPC did not submit any document
whatsoever to aid the appellate court in its mandated task. Thus, the appellate court declared that
EGMPC has waived its right to present the records and documents necessarily for accounting, and
that it will now proceed "to the mutual accounting required to determine the remaining accrued rights
and liabilities of the said parties…and that the Court will proceed to do what it is required to do on the
basis of the documents submitted by the NPUMC. Ms. Angelo submitted her Report dated January
31, 1995, to which the appellate court required the parties to comment on. EGMPC took exception to
the appellate court's having considered it to have waived its right to present documents. Considering
EGMPC's arguments, the court set a hearing date where NPUM would present its documents
"according to the Rules [of Court], and giving the private respondent [EGMPC] the opportunity to object
thereto."
ISSUE: Whether or not EGMPC is liable for interest because there was still the unresolved issue of
ownership over the property subject of the Land Development Agreement of October 6, 1976.
RULING: The Supreme Court held that the argument is without merit. EGMPC under the agreement
had the obligation to remit monthly to NPUM forty percent (40%) of its net gross collection from the
development of a memorial park on property owned by NPUM. It also provides for the designation of
a depository/trustee bank to act as the depository/tru