FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244702. July 8, 2019.]
ROLANDO S. BAGNES, petitioner, vs.MINH TAM AURIN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 8, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244702 (Rolando S. Bagnes v. Minh Tam Aurin). — The petitioner's urgent motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated June 19, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated January 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107317 for failure of Rolando S. Bagnes (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that the contract entered into by the parties is a "Contract of Sale" not a "Contract to Sell." HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, despite being denominated as a "Contract to Sell," what the parties actually entered into is a "Contract of Sale." It found that the stipulations in the contract support a finding that upon its perfection, petitioner conveyed ownership of the subject property to respondent, Minh Tam Aurin's husband, Presquito Aurin. 4 Thus, the CA correctly ordered petitioner to:
(1) Accept from respondent, Minh Tam Aurin, payment of the installments amounting to P35,000.00 plus legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum computed from 08 August 1986, and P15,000.00 plus legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum computed from 15 September 1986;
(2) Cause the registration of the title to the subject property in the name of the buyer, in accordance with the Contract to Sell; and
(3) Accept the balance of P80,000.00 upon the issuance and delivery of the certificate of title in the name of the buyer. 5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated June 19, 2018 and Resolution dated January 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107317 are hereby AFFIRMED.
The petitioner's urgent manifestation with motion, stating that there was a typographical error in the motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari filed on March 6, 2019, particularly the date February 7, 2019 which must be March 7, 2019 and that the petitioner reiterate his prayer for additional time of thirty (30) days from March 7, 2019 within which to file the petition is NOTED; and the Court of Appeals is hereby DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 16-41.
2.Id. at 159-169.
3.Id. at 184-185.
4.Id. at 165.
5.Id. at 168.