The petitioners hired the respondent Lunaria as a real estate agent to help them find a buyer for their property. After a buyer was found, documents were signed indicating the commission due to Lunaria. However, petitioners later claimed there was a subsequent verbal agreement to divide the commission among various parties, including the buyers. Respondent Lunaria argued this was not the case and sued to collect the full commission. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of Lunaria, finding the evidence presented by petitioners was insufficient to prove the existence of the alleged subsequent verbal agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing the petitioners failed to establish the claimed verbal agreement even by a mere preponderance of evidence.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The petitioners hired the respondent Lunaria as a real estate agent to help them find a buyer for their property. After a buyer was found, documents were signed indicating the commission due to Lunaria. However, petitioners later claimed there was a subsequent verbal agreement to divide the commission among various parties, including the buyers. Respondent Lunaria argued this was not the case and sued to collect the full commission. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of Lunaria, finding the evidence presented by petitioners was insufficient to prove the existence of the alleged subsequent verbal agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing the petitioners failed to establish the claimed verbal agreement even by a mere preponderance of evidence.
Original Description:
ADELA G. RAYMUNDO vs. ERNESTO LUNARIA
G.R. No. 171036 - October 17, 2008
The petitioners hired the respondent Lunaria as a real estate agent to help them find a buyer for their property. After a buyer was found, documents were signed indicating the commission due to Lunaria. However, petitioners later claimed there was a subsequent verbal agreement to divide the commission among various parties, including the buyers. Respondent Lunaria argued this was not the case and sued to collect the full commission. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of Lunaria, finding the evidence presented by petitioners was insufficient to prove the existence of the alleged subsequent verbal agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing the petitioners failed to establish the claimed verbal agreement even by a mere preponderance of evidence.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The petitioners hired the respondent Lunaria as a real estate agent to help them find a buyer for their property. After a buyer was found, documents were signed indicating the commission due to Lunaria. However, petitioners later claimed there was a subsequent verbal agreement to divide the commission among various parties, including the buyers. Respondent Lunaria argued this was not the case and sued to collect the full commission. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of Lunaria, finding the evidence presented by petitioners was insufficient to prove the existence of the alleged subsequent verbal agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing the petitioners failed to establish the claimed verbal agreement even by a mere preponderance of evidence.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
ADELA G. RAYMUNDO vs. ERNESTO LUNARIA G.R. No. 171036 October 17, 200 !
"cts# Petitioners approached respondent Lunaria to help them find a buyer for their property situated at Marilao, Bulacan with an area of 12,126 square meters for the amount of P60,630,000 !espondent Lunaria was promised a "# a$ent%s commission in the e&ent that he finds a buyer 'fter respondents found a buyer, (ecilio )ipolito, an *+,clusi&e 'uthority to -ell* was e,ecuted embodyin$ the a$reement made by the parties 'fter the correspondin$ .eed of 'bsolute -ale of !eal Property was re$istered in the !e$istry of .eeds, a copy thereof was $i&en to the /ar +ast Ban0 and 1rust (o , which was then holdin$ in escrow the amount of P"0,000,000 to be disbursed or paid a$ainst the total consideration or price of the property (eferino 2 !aymundo, one of the co3owners, ad&ised respondents to $o to the ban0 to recei&e the amount of P1,146,000 as partial payment of their total commission 'lso, respondents were instructed to return after se&en days to $et the balance of the commission due them !espondents returned to the ban0 )owe&er, the chec0 co&erin$ the balance of their commission was already $i&en by the ban0 mana$er to Lourdes ! !aymundo, the representati&e of the petitioners !espondents tried to $et the chec0 from the petitioners, howe&er, they were told that there is nothin$ more due them by way of commission as they ha&e already di&ided and distributed the balance of the commissions amon$ their nephews and nieces /or their part, petitioners counter that there was a subsequent &erbal a$reement entered into by the parties after the e,ecution of the written a$reement -aid &erbal a$reement pro&ides that the "# a$ent%s commission shall be di&ided as follows5 26" for the a$ents, 26" for Lourdes !aymundo, and 16" for the buyer, )ipolito 1he share $i&en to Lourdes !aymundo shall be in consideration for the help she would e,tend in the processin$ of documents of sale of the property, the payment of the capital $ains ta, to the Bureau of 7nternal !e&enue and in securin$ an order from the court 1he 16" commission $i&en to )ipolito, on the other hand, will be used by him for the payment of realty ta,es )ence, for failure of the respondents to recei&e the balance of their a$ent%s commission, they filed an action for the collection of a sum
of money before the !1( of 8alen9uela (ity 1he trial court rendered a .ecision in fa&or of the respondents (ourt of 'ppeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification that the amount of moral and e,emplary dama$es awarded to respondents shall be reduced Iss$e# :hether or not (' erred in requirin$ petitioners to establish their case by more than a preponderance of e&idence R$%&'(# ;o Petitioners contend that the appellate court erred in requirin$ them to pro&e the e,istence of the subsequent &erbal a$reement by more than a mere preponderance of e&idence since no rule of e&idence requires them to do so 7n support of this alle$ation, petitioners presented petitioner Lourdes !aymundo who testified that she was $i&en 26" share of the commission pursuant to the &erbal sharin$ scheme because she too0 care of the payment of the capital $ains ta,, the preparation of the documents of sale and of securin$ an authority from the court to sell the property /or their part, respondents counter that the appellate court did not require petitioners to pro&e the e,istence of the subsequent oral a$reement by more than a mere preponderance of e&idence :hat the appellate court said is that the petitioners failed to pro&e and establish the alle$ed subsequent &erbal a$reement e&en by mere preponderance of e&idence Petitioners% abo&ecited alle$ation has no merit By preponderance of e&idence is meant that the e&idence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other 7t refers to the wei$ht, credit and &alue of the a$$re$ate e&idence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term *$reater wei$ht of e&idence* or *$reater wei$ht of the credible e&idence* 7t is e&idence which is more con&incin$ to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto Both the appellate court and trial court ruled that the e&idence presented by the petitioners is not sufficient to support their alle$ation that a subsequent &erbal a$reement was entered into by the parties 7n fact, both courts correctly obser&ed that if Lourdes !aymundo was in reality offered the 26" share of the a$ent%s commission for the purpose of assistin$ respondent Lunaria in the documentation requirement, then why did the petitioners not present any written court order on her authority, ta, receipt or sales document to support her self3ser&in$ testimony< Moreo&er,
e&en the wor0sheet alle$edly reflectin$ the commission sharin$ was unilaterally prepared by petitioner Lourdes !aymundo without any showin$ that respondents participated in the preparation thereof or $a&e their assent thereto +&en the alle$ed payment of 16" of the commission to the buyer to be used in the payment of the realty ta,es cannot be $i&en credence since the payment of realty ta,es is the obli$ation of the owners, and not the buyer Lastly, if the said sharin$ a$reement was entered into pursuant to the wishes of the buyer, then he should ha&e been presented as witness to corroborate the claim of the petitioners )owe&er, he was not
