SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205347. April 10, 2013.]
PENTACAPITAL REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO M. SIOJO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 April 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 205347 (PentaCapital Realty Corporation v. Antonio M. Siojo).
RESOLUTION
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the August 31, 2012 Decision 1 and January 23, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 96060 and DENY the instant petition for failure of petitioner PentaCapital Realty Corporation (PCRC) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that PCRC's remaining obligation to Antonio M. Siojo (respondent) in the amount of P4,070,000.00 is already due and demandable.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the June 17, 1994 letter-agreement (Third Agreement) between PCRC and respondent readily shows that the former committed to pay the latter the full amount of P5,770,000.00 within ninety (90) days from June 16, 1994, notwithstanding the seeming obscurity brought upon by the phrase "in the event the sale between Ciudad Real Development Corporation (CRDI) and PCRC has to be rescinded for failure of CRDI to comply with its undertaking." Considering further that it was PCRC's President, Jovencio F. Cinco, who drafted the Third Agreement, any obscurity therein should be resolved against PCRC, pursuant to the contra proferentem rule under Article 1377 3 of the Civil Code which states that any ambiguity in an agreement whose terms are susceptible of different interpretations must be read against the party who drafted it. 4
SO ORDERED. caTESD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-46. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Castillo and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.
2.Id. at 48.
3.Article 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.
4.See Asia Trust Development Bank v. Tuble, G.R. No. 183987, July 25, 2012, 677 SCRA 519, 534 citing Prudential Bank v. Alviar, G.R. No. 150197, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 353, 368-369.