REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 90, Quezon City
LIZA SOBERNAKO,
Plaintiff.
- versus -

Civil. Case No. R-QZN-06559

For: Complaint for Breach of
Contract, with alternative
remedies of specific
performance with damages or
rescission with damages

Philippine Active Professional

Patriots Corporation represented by
Money Pakyaw, in his capacity
as Chief Operating Officer
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PRE TRIAL BRIEF
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully submits to this Honorable
Court this Pre-Trial Brief, to wit:
POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR ALTERNATIVE
MODES OF SETTLING DISPUTES
Plaintiff Liza Sobernako is open to negotiations and to enter into
amicable settlement under just and reasonable terms. Plaintiff is also
willing to submit the case to any of the alternative modes of dispute
resolution if only to facilitate the resolution of the case.
I.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

II.

This is an action for rescission and damages for breach of

contract brought by the Plaintiff, who purchased Green Paradise
Island and its improvements (Paraiso Island Resort), from the
Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to deliver all the
improvements agreed upon, hence, breachingin breach of the
contract Deed of Absolute Sale of sale between the two parties.
SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS

III.

FACTS SUBMITTED FOR STIPULATION

The Plaintiff proposes the following facts for stipulation of facts:

1. Plaintiff Liza Sobernako (Sobernako) is a Filipino, of legal age,
single, and residing at 12 Mayaman St., Teachers Village, Quezon
City,
2. Defendant Philippine Professional Active Patriots Corporation
(PPAP) is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the Philippines, with principal address at 20th
Floor, Philamlife Building, Salcedo Village, Makati City.
2.1. Defendant PPAP is represented by its Chief
Operating Officer, Money Pakyaw, pursuant to its
Board Resolution. He is a Filipino, of legal age, and
with office address at 20th Floor, Philamlife Building,
Salcedo Village, Makati City.
2.2. Defendant PPAP may be served with orders,
notices, and processes through its counsel, Tongco
and Cayosa (T&A) Law Office with address at
Suite 1212, Herrera Tower, V. A. Rufino cor. Valero
Sts., Salcedo Village, Makati City
3. Defendant PPAP is a privately owned Philippine corporation,
incorporated in 2000, that owns and manages a collection of hotels
and resorts in various locations around the Philippines.
4. In March 2015, Defendant PPAP offered its property, Green Paradise
Island (ISLAND) and the resort Paraiso Island Resort (PARAISO),
for sale to the general public through its agent, Ms. Agot Cayo
(SELLERS AGENT).
5. In the same month, Sobernako, through her real estate agent Ms.
Mocha Busog (BUYERS AGENT), informed the SELLERS AGENT
of her intention to purchase the property. The SELLERS AGENT
furnished the BUYERS AGENT with a copy of the Islands Original
Certificate of Title in the name of PPAP (attached as Exhibit A) and
Tax Declarations for the years 2012-2014 paid by PPAP (attached as
Exhibit B).
6. The sale was negotiated by the parties agents. An ocular inspection
of the Island was conducted by the BUYERS AGENT on behalf of
Sobernako, as evidenced by photographs attached as Exhibit C.
7. On December 1, 2015, a contract of sale was entered into by the
parties after the terms and conditions were agreed upon. PPAP
agreed to sell the ISLAND and PARAISO to Sobernako for a
2

consideration of twenty eight million seven hundred fifty thousand

pesos (Php 28,750,000.00).
8. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in favor of Sobernako
attached as Exhibit G.
9. On February 14, 2016, Sobernako conducted an ocular inspection of
the ISLAND with potential investors for the development of a world
class resort. Upon reaching the island, she saw that several
improvements of PARAISO included in the sale were no longer there
(cabanas, watersports equipment, kitchen facilities, bathroom
fixtures, furniture, and cottages) as evidenced by photographic
Exhibit D.
10.
Sobernako, through counsel M&A, sent a demand letter to
PPAP on February 17, 2016 clarifying why the improvements were
missing and asking for the immediate delivery of the same as
evidenced by Exhibit H.
11.
PPAP, through counsel, replied through a letter on February 28,
2016 that it had no intention to deliver the said improvements and
that it had already sold the same to 3rd parties.
12.
Sobernako, through M&A, made repeated demands on March
3, March 28, and April 17 (Exhibit J) for the delivery of improvements
or payment of the value of the same, but these were unheeded by
PPAP.
IV. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED
The Plaintiff will present the following documentary evidence:
Exhibit

Description

Purpose

Original Certificate of
Title No. 0-5961 for
Green Paradise Island
in favor of PPAP

To identify the subject

property

Tax Declaration No.

12345 Issued to PPAP

To identify the subject

property

Photographs of Paraiso To prove that there were

Island Resort taken
improvements on the
prior to the sale
subject property prior to
the sale

Photographs of Paraiso To prove that the

Island Resort taken

after the sale

improvements abovementioned were missing

upon inspection of the
Plaintiff after the sale

SPA of Mocha Busog

to enter into contracts
as agent for the
Plaintiff

To establish the authority

of the Plaintiffs agent to
enter into the Contract of
Sale in representation of
the Plaintiff

SPA of Agot Cayo to

enter into contracts as
agent for the
Defendant Corporation

To establish the authority

of the Defendant
Corporations agent to
enter into the Contract of
Sale in representation of
the Corporation

Contract of Sale
executed on December
1, 2015 between the
Plaintiff and Defendant
Corporation, as
represented by their
agents, the latter
conveying Paraiso
Island Resort to the
former

To show that the Sale

included the
improvements on
Paraiso Island Resort

Letter of Plaintiff dated

February 17, 2016
demanding the
Defendant Corporation
to deliver the
improvements

To prove that there was

prior demand to deliver
the improvements on
Paraiso Island Resort to
the Plaintiff

I-1

Photocopies of
Financial Statements of
Paraiso Island Resort
for the years 20102011

To prove that there were

improvements on the
subject island resort prior
to the Sale and to reveal
the motivation of the
Plaintiff in procuring such,
i.e. the resorts economic
viability as shown by the
financial statements of
the Defendant
Corporation

I-2

Photocopies of

To prove that there were

Financial Statements of
Paraiso Island Resort
for the years 20112012

improvements on the
subject island resort prior
to the Sale and to reveal
the motivation of the
Plaintiff in procuring such,
i.e. the resorts economic
viability as shown by the
financial statements of
the Defendant
Corporation

I-3

Photocopies of
Financial Statements of
Paraiso Island Resort
for the years 20122013

To prove that there were

improvements on the
subject island resort prior
to the Sale and to reveal
the motivation of the
Plaintiff in procuring such,
i.e. the resorts economic
viability as shown by the
financial statements of
the Defendant
Corporation

Letters of Plaintiff
dated March 3, March
28, and April 17
demanding the delivery
of the improvements

To prove that repeated

demands were made
upon the Defendant
Corporation for it to
comply with its obligation

Brochure of Paraiso
Island Resort

To prove the existence of

the improvements prior to
the sale

Webpage of Paraiso
Island Resort at
www.Paraiso.com

To prove the existence of

the improvements prior to
the sale

V. WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED
The Plaintiff will present the following witness:
1. Liza Sobernako - To testify about the particular terms of the Contract
of Sale, the true intent of the parties in relation to the terms used in
said contract, and the ocular inspection conducted on the property
before the contract was executed.

2. Mocha Busog - To also testify about the terms of the Contract of Sale,
including the negotiations leading up to its execution, as the agent of
buyer Liza Sobernako. And to testify about the documents she
entered into directly and signed on behalf of the principal. This
witness will also authenticate the photographic evidence to be
presented.

VI. ISSUES
The Plaintiff proposes the following issues to be tried and
resolved by this Honorable Court:
1. Whether or not the defendant has an obligation to deliver the
remaining improvements embodied in the Contract of Sale.
2. Whether or not the defendant is liable for damages due to
non-delivery, in contravention of the tenor of its obligation under the
Contract of Sale.
VII.

RELEVANT LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

1. Article 1170 of the Civil Code which provides: Those who in

the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or
delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are
liable for damages.
2. Article 1191 of the Civil Code which provides: 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. The court shall decree the rescission
claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.
This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third
persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles
1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.
3. Raquel-Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 174986,
175071, and 181415, July 7, 2009: The Court here ruled that failure
to deliver the subject matter of the sale constituted substantial breach
of the contract which gave rise to a right on the buyers part to
rescind the sale.

4. Villamar v. Mangaoil, G.R. No. 188661, April 11, 2012: The

Court held that failure to deliver both the physical possession of the
parcel of land sold and the certificate of title covering the same is a
substantial breach constituting a valid cause to rescind the deed of
sale.
IV.

PROPOSED TRIAL DATES

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the trial dates be agreed
upon in open court at such dates and time convenient to the parties
and the calendar of this Honorable Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
unto this Honorable Court that the foregoing Pre-Trial Brief be duly
noted.
Quezon City, Metro Manila. 7 November 2016.
MARPURI & AMPARADO LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff
1564 One Corporate Center, Julia Vargas,
Ortigas, Pasig City
(Telephone No., Email)
By:
ATTY. LEILA DE QUATRO
PTR No. 17509595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 697195:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Quezon City

Copy furnished:
Tongco & Cayosa Law Offices
Counsel for Defendant
Suite 1212, Herrera Tower,
V.A. Rufino cor. Valero Sts.,
Salcedo Village, Makati City