Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

SPS. BIESTERBOS V. CA, EFREN BARTOLOME his brother for P600k; and the spouses, in turn to reimburse.

for P600k; and the spouses, in turn to reimburse. The parties agreed
G. R. NO. 152529 at the pre-trial conference in the trial court to stipulate on the authenticity of the
September 22, 2003 demand-letter of 1993 sent to the spouses by the counsel of Bartolome. The Supreme
Court would then consider such date, absent any contraty showing, as the demand to
FACTS: Efren Bartolome agrees to sell his house and lot to Spouses Biesterbos. occasion.
In the other letter, likewise included among the stipulation of facts during the
The property was, at the time of agreement, mortgaged to PNB.
pre-trial conference, the spouses, through counsel, informed Bartolome that they had
Bartolome received the downpayment. Pursuant to the agreement,
deposited the amount due in trust for Bartolome at PNB Baguio City. Equity and justice
Bartolome advanced for and in behalf of the spouses P600,000.00 for the demands that such an act should have suspended the running of interest on said
purchase of the adjacent lot owned by his brother. In turn, the couple obligated outstanding amount.
themselves to reimburse respondent for the amount thus advanced.
The spouses failed to pay the amount due under the contract. The Court affirmed the decision with modification.
Nevertheless, Bartolome received from the spouses subsequent payments.
Several demands were made by Bartolome for the full settlement by the spouses..
The spouses informed Bartolome that they had deposited at the PNB
branch and the money could be withdraw by him anytime. Apparently not
satisfied with the arrangement, Bartolome filed a complaint for specific
performance and damages against the spouse before the RTC of Baguio City.
In their answer, the spouses contended that Bartolome failed to comply
with his obligation, among other things, the immediate transfer of possession of
property and the construction of a driveway. The spouses claimed that the
deadline of payment of the balance was novated when Bartolome continued to
received payments even beyond the deadline, and that they, being unaware of the
loan obligation to PNB, they should not be held liable for any alleged bank
The spouses prayed that the consignation of an amount they believe to
be due, be approved by the trial court and respondent be made to transfer to them
the absolute ownership of the property.
The trial court denied the prayer of consignation for lack of merit. But in
time, the RTC rendered its decision wherein it declared the spouses to have
complied with their obligation and ordered Bartolome to deliver the TCT to the
CA affirmed the decision of the RTC except insofar as the RTC ordered
the payment of interest in the balance which Bartolome had advanced for the
spouses, with an interest of 12% per annum from the time they defaulted. CA
granted the motion for reconsideration of Bartolome and ordered the payment of

ISSUE: WON Spouses Biesterbos should pay for the 12% interest.

Both the RTC and CA correctly concluded that the agreement obligated
Bartolome to advance for the Spouses the cost of the adjacent lot belonging to