REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Regional Trial Court
CITY OF MAKATI
10th Division

MIGUEL RAMONKITO MENDOZA,

Plaintiff.
Civil Case No. 4455

-versus- For: Specific performance

of Contract

ABIGAIL SOL IDMILAO MENDOZA,

Defendant.

x------------------------------------------x
DECISION

Antecedents
Before this court is a Complaint for Specific performance of Contract
with Damages filed by Miguel Ramonkito Mendoza (Miguel for
brevity) against his sister Abigail Sol Idmilao Mendoza (Abigail for
brevity)) due to Abigail’s unjustified refusal to heed Miguel’s just
demands in their perfected Contract of Sale.
Version of the Prosecution
Miguel and his sister Abigail executed a notarized contract of sale
on July 5, 2019 wherein Abigail was supposed to sell to Miguel her
collection of Hello Kitty and Keroppi Japanese collector’s items
initially amounting to approximately PHP 250, 000.00. Upon
execution of the contract, Miguel gave Abigail a down payment in
the amount of PhP 100,000.00.
However, 2 days before the agreed delivery time, Abigail had a
sudden change of heart and decided to tell Miguel that she is not
interested in selling the items in the contract. Miguel resented
Abigail’s decision since the former executed another contract of
sale the subject items in favor of Monico Aggabao, Jr.
Due to violation of a standing Right of First Refusal in the contract
and the unlawful breach of contract by Abigail the only viable
option for Miguel is Specific performance under of Art. 1191 of the
New Civil Code of the Philippines. Miguel later filed Civil Case
No. 3344 dated August 1, 2019 for Specific Performance docketed
as Miguel Ramonkito Mendoza V. Abigail Sol Mendoza.
However, Miguel withdrew Civil Case No. 3344 since Abigail
suddenly pleaded for forgiveness and promised to forgo her
contract to Aggabao.
 What was followed was a 2nd notarized contract of sale between 2
parties that was perfected on September 20, 2019. Miguel paid his
sister PHP approximately 250,000 as consideration. Both parties
signed and perfected the 2nd contract on the same day September
20, 2019.
Unfortunately Miguel did not claim the collection because on
September 27, 2019 Abigail again refused to honor the 2nd
contract.

Version of the Defense

Abigail denied the claims made against her stating that the RTC
should dismiss the case on 1. The ground that that the claim or
demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been extinguished
since Abigail has already delivered the items to her brother on
September 27, 2019 the agreed date of delivery and, 2. Even if the
RTC rules otherwise the RTC has no jurisdiction on ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter since the gross value of the items
located in Metro Manila are less than PHP 400,000.00. She presents
several delivery receipts dated September 27, 2019 as proof of her
claim. She also presented an inventory showing the price of her
collection of Hello Kitty and Keroppi Japanese collector’s items.

Issues
 1. Whether or not Plaintiff Miguel can validly ask for the
Specific Performance of the Contract of Sale dated
September 20, 2019.
2. Whether or not the motion to dismiss the case on the ground
that the claim or demand set forth in Plaintiff Miguel’s
complaint has been paid since Abigail has already delivered.
3. Whether or not the motion to dismiss the case on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter since the gross
value of the items is less than PHP 400,000.00 is valid.

Ruling
1. The Court rules in favor of Miguel.
Under Art. 1191 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines: The
power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of
the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission
of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may
also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter
should become impossible.
Miguel was allowed by law to opt for either Specific Performance
or Rescission. He would later chose the Former over the Later.
Plaintiff Miguel an original copy of the Contract of Sale dated
September 20, 2019 as attached in his Judicial Affidavit has been
presented to the Court:
24. Q - What occurred next?
 A - A 2nd notarized Contract of Sale between me and my sister was
perfected on September 20, 2019. I paid my sister PHP 500,000 as
consideration for the whole collection to be delivered on September 27, 2019.
We signed and perfected the 2nd contract on the same day September 20,
2019.

25. Q - What do you have as proof of this?

A - I have the copy of the 2nd Contract of Sale.

For the record your Honor, may I request that the Contract of Sale between
Miguel and Abigail dated September 20, 2019 be marked as EXHIBIT F.

26. Q - What followed ?

A - I did not claim the collection because on September 27, 2019
Abigail again refused to honor the 2nd contract and deliver the items.

By Law if there is an agreement as to time of delivery such delivery

must be within the time stipulated in the contract or bill of lading
Clearly Abigail failed to again honor her contract with her own
brother.
In the case of Spouses Romeo Pajares And Ida T. Pajares, Petitioners
Vs. Remarkable Laundry And Dry Cleaning, the Supreme Court
ruled that :
 A case for breach of contract [sic] is a cause of action either for specific
performance or rescission of contracts. An action for rescission of contract,
as a counterpart of an action for specific performance, is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
The case above shows that Miguel was within bounds to file for a
Specific Performance since Abigail failed a second time to deliver the
items as promised. In short, the cause of action of Breach of Contract
leading to the Specific Performance prayed for by Miguel is valid.

2. The motion to dismiss is untenable.

Abigail claims that delivery has been made since the items have been
delivered to Miguel September 27, 2019. However the delivery
receipts presented have not been included in Abigail’s Judicial
Affidavit. Worse the counsel of Abigail attached her documentary
and object evidence in a separate instrument. In effect Abigail’s
claims cannot be given credence. This Court cannot accept evidence
not included in a parties’ Judicial Affidavit as stated in the Judicial
Affidavit Rule:
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit Rule. - (a) A
party who fails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time
shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however,
allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a
valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the
defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P
5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
Abigail has also instead postponed time and again her submission of
Judicial Affidavit to the detriment of the Court and Miguel. A late
submission of the Judicial Affidavit of Abigail should not be granted.
This dilatory tactic cannot stand will not be tolerated.
This means the petition to dismiss the case on the ground that the
claim or demand has been paid is untenable since Abigail has not
presented any credible evidence to prove such.

3. No. The motion of Abigail is untenable.

Although initially the gross value of the items was pegged at PHP
250,000.00 Miguel gave a corrected estimate of the items in his
Judicial Affidavit dated October 20, 2019:
24. Q - What occurred next?
A - A 2nd notarized Contract of Sale between me and my sister was
perfected on September 20, 2019. I paid my sister PHP 500,000 as
consideration for the whole collection to be delivered on September 27, 2019.
We signed and perfected the 2nd contract on the same day September 20,
2019.
25. Q - What do you have as proof of this?
A - I have the copy of the 2nd Contract of Sale.
For the record your Honor, may I request that the Contract of Sale between
Miguel and Abigail dated September 20, 2019 be marked as EXHIBIT F.
It can be inferred from the Judicial Affidavit of Miguel that the gross
value of the items exceeded PHP 400,000.00. Under the Revised BP.
129 the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction when the gross value
of personal property in a case exceeds PHP 400,000.00 pesos. In the
case at bar the gross value of the items in the 2nd contract was PHP
500,000.00 which is within the jurisdiction of this court.
The claim of Abigail cannot stand.

WEREFORE, the instant Motion to Dismiss by the Defendant on the

ground of lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter is DENIED,
Motion to Dismiss by the Defendant on the ground of
extinguishment is also DENIED. Complaint for Specific Performance
of the Plaintiff against the Defendant is therefore GRANTED,
Defendant to pay cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Makati City, March 1, 2020.

FRANCIS ROLLY PEORO

Presiding Judge
Regional Trial Court
 CITY OF MAKATI
10th Division

Notice and Copy Furnished:

MIGUEL S. MENDOZA
Counsel for Plaintiff
MENDOZA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Defendant
Unit 2904-C, West Tower, PSL Centre,
Exchange Road, QC Center,
Quezon City, 1605
Tel. nos. 433.6113 / 635.9307
Email: mzm@gmail.com

RICHARD YAP
Counsel for Defendant
YAP LAW OFFICE
Unit 808-D, Rye Tower,
Quezon City, 1604
Tel. nos. 837531
Email: YGY@gmail.com

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Court Of Appeals
Branch 56
MAKATI CITY

MIGUEL RAMONKITO MENDOZA,

Plaintiff.
Civil Case No. 4455

-versus- For: Specific performance

of Contract

ABIGAIL SOL IDMILAO MENDOZA,

Defendant.
x------------------------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT, COME

NOW Abigail Sol Idmilao Mendoza, the Defendant in the above
entitled case, through counsel, hereby file this notice and make
known that they are appealing to the Court of Appeals from the
judgment of this Honorable Court dated March 1, 2020 which was
received by them on March 13, 2020, the said decision being contrary
to law and evidence.
Makati City, March 15, 2020.

YAP LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Defendant
Unit 808-D, Rye Tower,
 Quezon City, 1604
Tel. nos. 837531
Email: YGY@gmail.com

By:
RICHARD YAP
Counsel for Defendant
New Capitol Estates, Makati City
Roll of Attorney 54678
IBP No. 1024174/01.11.18/ Manila City
PTR No. 1386593 /01.06.18 / Manila City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0017340
Date of Compliance: 17 April 2018

Notice and Copy Furnished:

MIGUEL S. MENDOZA
Counsel for Plaintiff
MENDOZA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Defendant
Unit 2904-C, West Tower, PSL Centre,
Exchange Road, QC Center,
Quezon City, 1605
Tel. nos. 433.6113 / 635.9307
Email: mzm@gmail.com