TERESITA DIO versus ST. FERDINAND MEMORIAL PARK, INC.

and
MILDRED F. TANTOCO
FACTS:
On December 11, 1973, Teresita Dio agreed to buy, on instalment basis,
a memorial lot from the St. Ferdinand Memorial ar!, "nc. #SFM"$
in %ucena &ity. The 3'(s)uare(meter memorial lot is *articularly described
as +loc! ,, Section F, %ot 1-. The *urchase .as e/idenced by a re(0eed
urchase 1greement dated December 11, 1973 and denominated as &ontract
0o. 323. She obliged herself to abide by all such rules and regulations
go/erning the SFM" dated May ,-, 197,.
SFM" issued a Deed of Sale and &erti4cate of er*etual
&are dated 1*ril 1, 1973 denominated as &ontract 0o. ,23. The o.nershi* of
Dio o/er the *ro*erty .as made sub5ect to the rules and regulations of SFM",
as .ell as the go/ernment, including all amendments, additions and
modi4cations that may later be ado*ted. 6ule '9 of the 6ules reads7

6ule '9. Mausoleum building and memorials should be
constructed by the ar! ersonnel. %ot O.ners cannot
contract other contractors for the construction of the said
buildings and memorial, ho.e/er, the lot o.ner is free to
gi/e their o.n design for the mausoleum to be constructed,
as long as it is in accordance .ith the *ar! standards. The
construction shall be under the close su*er/ision of the ar!
Su*erintendent.
"n the early *art of October 192', Dio informed SFM", through its
*resident and controlling stoc!holder, Mildred F. Tantoco, that she .as
*lanning to build a mausoleum on her lot and sought the a**ro/al thereof.
On December ,3, 192', Dio 4led a &om*laint for "n5unction .ith
Damages against SFM" and Tantoco before the 6T& of %ucena &ity. She
averred that she was not aware of R!e "# of the SFMPI R!es and
Re$!at%ons& the a'ont of P()), ))).)) as *onstr*t%on *ost of the
'aso!e' was n*ons*%ona+!e and o,,ress%ve. "n addition lainti8 .as
initially sur*rised by Tantoco9s statement because she !ne. that their
contract did not *ro/ide for such sti*ulation.
On 1ugust 3, 199-, the trial court rendered 5udgment in fa/or of
defendants. :*on a**eal the &1 a;rmed the decision of the trial court.
ISS-E:
1. <hether or not *etitioner had !no.ledge of 6ule '9 of SFM" 6ules and
6egulations for memorial .or!s in the mausoleum areas of the *ar!
.hen the re(0eed urchase 1greement and the Deed of Sale .as
e=ecuted.
.ELD:
The su*reme courts declared that >+asic is the *rinci*le that contracts,
once *erfected, bind both contracting *arties. The *arties may establish such
sti*ulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem con/enient,
*ro/ided these are not contrary to la., morals, good customs, *ublic order, or
*ublic *olicy. "t follo.s that obligations arising from contracts ha/e the force
of la. bet.een the contracting *arties and should be com*lied .ith in good
faith.
etitioner is an e=*erienced business.oman. She doubtlessly dealt
.ith numerous documents, and is therefore *resumed to !no. the im*ort
thereof.
<e are not *ersuaded by *etitioner9s claim that 6ule '9 of
res*ondent9s rules and regulations is unreasonable and o**ressi/e because
the *ro/ision unduly restricts her right of o.nershi* o/er the *ro*erty.
The /alidity or enforceability of the im*ugned contracts .ill ha/e to be
determined by the *eculiar circumstances obtaining in each case and the
situation of the *arties concerned. "ndeed, Art%*!e /0 of the New C%v%!
Code ,rov%des that 12%n3 a!! *ontra*ta!, ,ro,ert4 or other re!at%ons,
when one of the ,art%es %s at a d%sadvanta$e on a**ont of h%s 'ora!
de,enden*e, %$noran*e, %nd%$en*e, 'enta! wea5ness, tender a$e, or
other hand%*a,, the *orts 'st +e v%$%!ant for h%s ,rote*t%on.? "n this
case, ho.e/er, there is no reason for the &ourt to a**ly the rule on stringent
treatment to.ards contracts of adhesion. To reiterate, not only is *etitioner
educated, she is li!e.ise a .ell(!no.n and e=*erienced business.oman@ thus,
she cannot claim to be the .ea!er or disad/antaged *arty in the sub5ect
contracts so as to call for a strict inter*retation against
res*ondents. Moreo/er, she e=ecuted the re(0eed urchase 1greement and
Deed of Sale .ithout any com*laint or *rotest. She assailed 6ule '9 of the
6ules and 6egulations of res*ondent SFM" only .hen res*ondents re5ected
her re)uest to cause the construction of the mausoleum.

6.EREFORE, the instant *etition is DENIED. The Decision of the
&ourt of 1**eals in &1(A.6. &B 0o. -,311 dated May 1C, ,CC-, and the
6esolution dated Se*tember ', ,CC-, are AFFIRMED. &osts against
*etitioner.?