CivRev2: full text of cases

7/25/2019 CivRev2: full text of cases

1/15

G.R. No. 172036 April 23, 2010

SPOUSES FAUSTINO AND JOSEFINA GARCIA, SPOUSES MELITON GALE! AND "ELEN

GALE!, #$% CONSTANCIA ARCAIRA r&pr&'&$(&% )* (+&ir A((or$&*i$F#-( JULIANA O.

MOTAS,Petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, EMERLITA DE LA CRU!, #$% DIOGENES G. ARTOLOME,Respondents.

CARPIO, J.:

G.R. No. 172036 is a petition for review1

assailing the Decision2

pro!lgated on 2" #an!ar$ 2006 aswell as the Resol!tion3pro!lgated on 16 %arch 2006 of the &o!rt of 'ppeals (appellate co!rt) in &'*

G.R. &+ No. 636"1. he appellate co!rt reversed and set aside the decision of -ranch 23 of the

Regional rial &o!rt of rece %artires &it$, &avite (trial co!rt) in &ivil &ase No. %*622. he appellate

co!rt ordered erlita Dela &r!/ (Dela &r!/) to ret!rn to spo!ses a!stino and #osefina Garcia,

spo!ses %eliton and elen Galve/, and &onstancia 'rcaira (collectivel$, petitioners) the ao!nt in

ecess of one*half percent of P1,"00,000. Dela &r!/s co*defendant, Diogenes -artoloe (-artoloe),

did not inc!r an$ lia4ilit$.

he appellate co!rt narrated the facts as follows5

n %a$ 2, 1883, plaintiffs spo!ses a!stino and #osefina Garcia and spo!ses %eliton and elen

Galve/ (herein appellees) and defendant erlita dela &r!/ (herein appellant) entered into a &ontract

to 9ell wherein the latter agreed to sell to the forer, for hree %illion ne !ndred 9event$ ho!sand

wo !ndred went$ (P

3,170,220.00) Pesos, five (") parcels of land sit!ated at an/a, &avite

partic!larl$ :nown as ;ot Nos.


2/15

Defendant is f!rther directed to pa$ plaintiffs the ao!nt of P!ivalent to 12E of the total ao!nt paid.

Bt is here4$ agreed and covenanted that possession shall 4e retained 4$ the +NDR !ntil a Dee'4sol!te 9ale shall 4e eec!ted 4$ her in favor of the +endees. +iolation of this provision shall

a!thori/eepower the +NDR @toA deolish an$ constr!ctioniproveent witho!t need of =!d

action or co!rt order.

hat !pon and after the f!ll pa$ent of the 4alance, a Deed of '4sol!te 9ale shall 4e eec!ted 4$

+endor in favor of the +endees.

hat the d!plicate original of the owners cop$ of the ransfer &ertificate of itle of the a4ove s!4=

parcels of land shall reain in the possession of the +endor !ntil the eec!tion of the Deed of '4s

9ale.8

&ontracts are law 4etween the parties, and the$ are 4o!nd 4$ its stip!lations. Bt is clear fro the

a4ove*>!oted provisions that the parties intended their agreeent to 4e a &ontract to 9ell5 Dela &

retains ownership of the s!4=ect lands and does not have the o4ligation to eec!te a Deed of '4so9ale !ntil petitioners pa$ent of the f!ll p!rchase price. Pa$ent of the price is a positive s!spen

condition, fail!re of which is not a 4reach 4!t an event that prevents the o4ligation of the vendor to

conve$ title fro 4ecoing effective. 9trictl$ spea:ing, there can 4e no rescission or resol!tion of

o4ligation that is still non*eistent d!e to the non*happening of the s!spensive condition. 10Dela &

th!s not o4liged to eec!te a Deed of '4sol!te 9ale in petitioners favor 4eca!se of petitioners fa

to a:e f!ll pa$ent on the stip!lated date.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_172036_2010.html#fnt10


3/15

He r!led th!s in Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals511

'rticle 1"82 of the New &ivil &ode, re>!iring deand 4$ s!it or 4$ notarial act in case the vendor of

realt$ wants to rescind does not appl$ to a contract to sell 4!t onl$ to contract of sale. Bn contracts to

sell, where ownership is retained 4$ the seller and is not to pass !ntil the f!ll pa$ent, s!ch pa$ent,

as we said, is a positive s!spensive condition, the fail!re of which is not a 4reach, cas!al or serio!s,

4!t sipl$ an event that prevented the o4ligation of the vendor to conve$ title fro ac>!iring 4inding

force. o arg!e that there was onl$ a cas!al 4reach is to proceed fro the ass!ption that the contract

is one of a4sol!te sale, where non*pa$ent is a resol!tor$ condition, which is not the case.

he applica4le provision of law in instant case is 'rticle 1181 of the New &ivil &ode which provides as

follows5

'rt. 1181. he power to rescind o4ligations is iplied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the o4ligors

sho!ld not copl$ with what is inc!4ent !pon hi.

he in=!red part$ a$ choose 4etween the f!lfillent and the rescission of the o4ligation, with the

pa$ent of daages in either case. e a$ also see: rescission, even after he has chosen f!lfillent,

if the latter sho!ld 4ecoe ipossi4le.

he &o!rt shall decree the rescission claied, !nless there 4e =!st ca!se a!thori/ing the fiing of a

period.

his is !nderstood to 4e witho!t pre=!dice to the rights of third persons who have ac>!ired the thing, in

accordance with 'rticles 13" and 13 and the %ortgage ;aw. (112


4/15

G.R. No.1762;5 April ;, 2013

MOLDE< REALT:, INC.,Petitioner,vs.FLORA A. SAERON,Respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

he lac: of a license to sell or the fail!re on the part of a s!4division developer to register the contractto sell or deed of conve$ance with the Register of Deeds does not res!lt to the n!llification orinvalidation of the contract to sell it entered into with a 4!$er. he contract to sell reains valid ands!4sisting.

Petitioner %olde Realt$, Bnc. (%olde) coes to this &o!rt via a Petition for Review on &ertiorari1toassail the cto4er 31, 2006 Decision2of the &o!rt of 'ppeals (&') in &'*G.R. 9P No. 786"1, whichdenied d!e co!rse and disissed the Petition for Review 3it filed therewith. 'lso assailed is the #an!ar$23, 2007 Resol!tion!est for ref!nd so that she can get half of all pa$ents she ade.owever, lora never ade a written re>!est for ref!nd.

's of 'pril 1887, %olde cop!ted loras !npaid acco!nt at P"76,"68.8. Bt then sent lora aNotari/ed Notice of &ancellation of Reservation 'pplication andor &ontract to 9ell.8lora, on the other

hand, filed 4efore the o!sing and ;and Cse Reg!lator$ -oard (;CR-) Regional ield ffice B+ a&oplaint10for the ann!lent of the contract to sell, recover$ of all her pa$ents with interests,daages, and the cancellation of %oldes license to sell.

'side fro ip!ting 4ad faith on the part of %olde in 4loating her !npaid 4alance, lora alleged thatthe contract to sell 4etween her and %olde is void fro its inception. 'ccording to lora, %oldeviolated 9ection " of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 8"711when it sold the s!4=ect lot to her on 'pril 11,1882 or 4efore it was iss!ed a license to sell on 9epte4er , 1882. 12lora li:ewise claied that

%olde violated 9ection 17 of the sae law 4eca!se it failed to register the contract to sell in theRegistr$ of Deeds.13

Bn its defense, %olde averred that lora was onl$ a4le to pa$ P22,201.03 and thereafter defa!lther in pa$ent fro 'pril 188< to %a$ 1887. ence, loras s!4se>!ent pa$ents were applied tdelin>!encies. 's regards the alleged 4loating, %olde eplained that the ao!nt reflected in lor9tateent of 'cco!nt incl!ded the arrears and s!rcharges inc!rred d!e to her non*pa$ent of theonthl$ installents. 'nd since lora was not a4le to settle her acco!nt, %olde eercised its righ!nder Rep!4lic 'ct (R') No. 6""2,1!ired license to sell at the tie of the contractsperfection, in violation of 9ection " of PD 8"7, which provides, vi/5

9ection ". ;icense to sell. 9!ch owner or dealer to who has 4een iss!ed a registration certificateshall not, however, 4e a!thori/ed to sell an$ s!4division lot or condoini! !nit in the registeredpro=ect !nless he shall have first o4tained a license to sell the pro=ect within two wee:s fro theregistration of s!ch pro=ect.

he '!thorit$, !pon proper application therefor, shall iss!e to s!ch owner or dealer of a registered

pro=ect a license to sell the pro=ect if, after an eaination of the registration stateent filed 4$ saiowner or dealer and all the pertinent doc!ents attached thereto, he is convinced that the owner odealer is of good rep!te, that his 4!siness is financiall$ sta4le, and that the proposed sale of thes!4division lots or condoini! !nits to the p!4lic wo!ld not 4e fra!d!lent.

ence, %olde was ordered to ref!nd ever$thing lora had paid, pl!s legal interest, and to pa$attorne$s fees. %oreover, %olde was ordered to pa$ a fine for its violation of the a4ove provisionPD 8"7, in accordance with 9ection 3 16of the said law. h!s5

HRR, =!dgent is here4$ rendered declaring the s!4=ect &ontract to 9ell n!ll and void aordering Respondent to5

1. Rei4!rse to &oplainant the ao!nt of R CNDRD 9+N*B+ CH CNDRD NBN*B+ P99 and


5/15

B B9 9 RDRD.17

Ruling of the Board of Co!!issioners of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

Bn its Petition for Review14efore the ;CR- -oard of &oissioners (;CR- -oard), %olde arg!edthat the a4sence of license a t the tie of the contracts perfection does not render it void. therwise, as!4division or condoini! developer a$ !se it as a convenient ec!se if it wants to 4ac: o!t fro acontract.

%olde also asserted that the p!rpose of the law in re>!iring a license is to ens!re that the 4!$ingp!4lic will 4e dealing with ;CR-*recogni/ed s!4division and condoini! developers. ere, %olde

has s!4stantiall$ coplied with the said re>!ireent of the law 4eca!se at the tie the contract to sellwas perfected, its application for a license was alread$ pending and s!4se>!entl$ granted.

%olde li:ewise claied that it was slapped with adinistrative fine witho!t d!e process as it was notgiven the opport!nit$ to defend itself anent its alleged violation of 9ection " of PD 8"7. %oreover, sincethe case was not an adinistrative coplaint, the 'r4iter has no power to ipose an adinistrativefine. inall$, %olde asserted that the award of attorne$s fees in favor of lora lac:ed 4asis.

Re=ecting %olde contentions, the ;CR- -oard, in a Decision18dated #!l$ 28, 1888, disissed thepetition and affired in toto the 'r4iters Decision. Bt held that the law is clear on the prere>!isite of alicense to sell 4efore a developer can sell lots. 9ince %olde did not have a license to sell at the tie itcontracted to sell the s!4=ect lot to lora, the -oard agreed with the 'r4iter in declaring the contractinvalid and in ordering the ref!nd of loras pa$ents. he -oard also fo!nd nothing wrong with the'r4iters iposition of adinistrative fine and award of attorne$s fees.

%olde then appealed to the ffice of the President (P). 20

R!ling of the ffice of the President

Bn its #!ne 30, 2003 Decision21and 9epte4er 22, 2003 rder,22the P affired the finding that thecontract to sell was a n!llit$. &iting 'rticle " of the &ivil &ode, it held that acts eec!ted against theprovisions of andator$ or prohi4itor$ laws, li:e 9ection " of PD 8"7, are void.

's regards the adinistrative fine, the P decreed that 9ection 3 of PD 8"7 does not re>!ire the filingof an adinistrative coplaint 4efore a fine a$ 4e iposed. 'lso, the re>!ireent of notice andhearing is not a condition sine >!a non in the ;CR-s eercise of its adinistrative power. ;astl$, theP agreed with the award of attorne$s fees in f avor of lora as she was copelled to litigate.

%olde th!s so!ght relief with the &' via a Petition for Review.23

R!ling of the &o!rt of 'ppeals

Bn its Decision2!estioned provisions (9ecs. < and the general penalties provided in the law shall 4e applied. he general penalties for the violation oprovisions in P.D. 8"7 are provided for in 9ections 3 and 38. 's can clearl$ 4e seen in theafore>!oted provisions, the sae do not incl!de the n!llification of contracts that are otherwise vaentered.2
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_176289_2013.html#fnt28


6/15

he &o &hien r!ling has 4een reiterated in several cases and reains to 4e the prevailing=!rispr!dence on the atter.28h!s, the contract to sell entered into 4etween lora and %oldereains valid despite the lac: of license to sell on the part of the latter at the tie the contract wasentered into.

%oreover, lora clais that the contract she entered into with %olde is void 4eca!se of the lattersfail!re to register the contract to selldoc!ent of conve$ance with the Register of Deeds, in violationof 9ection 1730of PD 8"7. owever, =!st li:e in 9ection " which did not penali/e the lac: of a license tosell with the n!llification of the contract, 9ection 17 siilarl$ did not ention that the develope rs or%oldes fail!re to register the contract to sell or deed of conve$ance with the Register of Deedsres!lted to the n!llification or invalidit$ of the said contract or deed. trapolating the ratio decidendi in&o &hien, th!s, non*registration of an instr!ent of conve$ance will not affect the validit$ of a contract

to sell. Bt will reain valid and effective 4etween the parties thereto as !nder PD 1"28 or he Propert$Registration Decree, registration erel$ serves as a constr!ctive notice to the whole world to 4ind thirdparties.31

Respondent is nevertheless entitled to a &*+ refund under the ,aceda La-.

Cnder the %aceda ;aw, the defa!lting 4!$er who has paid at least two $ears of installents has theright of either to avail of the grace period to pa$ or, the cash s!rrender val!e of the pa$ents ade5

9ection 3. Bn all transactions or contracts involving the sale or financing of real estate on installentpa$ents, incl!ding residential condoini! apartents 4!t ecl!ding ind!strial lots, coercial4!ildings and sales to tenants !nder Rep!4lic 'ct N!4ered hirt$*eight !ndred ort$*fo!r, asaended 4$ Rep!4lic 'ct N!4ered 9it$*three !ndred ight$*nine, where the 4!$er has paid atleast two $ears of installents, the 4!$er is entitled to the following rights in case he defa!lts in thepa$ent of s!cceeding installents5

(a) o pa$, witho!t additional interest, the !npaid installents d!e within the total grace periodearned 4$ hi which is here4$ fied at the rate of one onth grace period for ever$ one $earof installent pa$ents ade5 Provided, hat this right shall 4e eercised 4$ the 4!$er onl$once in ever$ five $ears of the life of the contract and its etensions, if an$.

(4) Bf the contract is canceled, the seller shall ref!nd to the 4!$er the cash s!rrender val!e ofthe pa$ents on the propert$ e>!ivalent to fift$ per cent of the total pa$ents ade, and,after five $ears of installents, an additional five per cent ever$ $ear 4!t not to eceed ninet$per cent of the total pa$ents ade5 Provided, hat the act!al cancellation of the contractshall ta:e place after thirt$ da$s fro receipt 4$ the 4!$er of the notice of cancellation or thedeand for rescission of the contract 4$ a notarial act and !pon f!ll pa$ent of the cashs!rrender val!e to the 4!$er.

Down pa$ents, deposits or options on the contract shall 4e incl!ded in the cop!ta tion of the totaln!4er of installent pa$ents ade./-phi

Bt is on record that lora had alread$ paid ore than two $ears of installents (fro %arch 11, 1882 to#!l$ 18, 188632)in the aggregate ao!nt of P37",28".


7/15

G.R. No. 2023=; No&4)&r 27, 2013

GATC"ALIAN REALT:, INC.,Petitioner,vs.EEL:N M. ANGELES,Respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

he &ase G.R. No. 2023" is a petition for review 1assailing the Decision2pro!lgated on 11Nove4er 2011 as well as the Resol!tion3pro!lgated on 18 #!ne 2012 4$ the &o!rt of 'ppeals (&')in &'*G.R. 9P No. 10"86!entl$ @'ngelesA was f!rnished 4$ @GRBA with a deand letter dated 26 9epte4er 2003deanding her to pa$ the ao!nt of ne !ndred welve ho!sand hree !ndred o!r Pesos ort$ wo &entavos (Php 112,30


8/15

!rtherore, the %e& fo!nd the onthl$ rentals iposed 4$ GRB reasona4le and within the range ofthe prevailing rental rates in the vicinit$. &opensation 4etween GRB and 'ngeles legall$ too: effect inaccordance with 'rticle 128010of the &ivil &ode. he %e& r!led that GRB is entitled to P1,060,86.384$ wa$ of reasona4le rental fee less P"7!o is %DBBDwit5
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt16


9/15

1. rdering @'ngelesA and all persons claiing rights !nder her to iediatel$vacate the propert$ s!4=ect of this case sit!ated at -l:. 3, ;ot , ;an/ones 9t., Phase3*&, Gatchalian 9!4division, ;as PiJas &it$ and s!rrender possession thereof to@GRBA?

2. rdering the encashent of the Postal %one$ rder (P%) in the total ao!n t ofPhp 120,000.00 in favor of @GRBA?

3. rdering defendant, vel$n %. 'ngeles, to pa$ plaintiff, Gatchalian Realt$ Bnc., theo!tstanding rental ao!nt of fort$ eight tho!sand eight h!ndred fift$ one pesos andsit$ centavos (P!ivalent to fift$ per cent of the totalpa$ents ade, and, after five $ears of installents, an additional five per centever$ $ear 4!t not to eceed ninet$ per cent of the total pa$ents ade5 Providhat the act!al cancellation of the contract shall ta:e place after thirt$ da$s froreceipt 4$ the 4!$er of the notice of cancellation or the deand for rescission ofcontract 4$ a notarial act and !pon f!ll pa$ent of the cash s!rrender val!e to th4!$er.

Down pa$ents, deposits or options on the contract shall 4e incl!ded in the cop!tation of the totn!4er of installent pa$ents ade.

he sith paragraph of the contracts 4etween 'ngeles and GRB siilarl$ provides5

9BL * 9ho!ld the +ND9 fail to pa$ d!e an$ onthl$ installent the +NDR shall have thright to cancel this &ontract and resell the lots s!4=ect atter of this contract to another 4!$er,provided, however, that where the +ND9 hashave alread$ paid at least two $ears of installthe +ND9 will have the right5

a) to pa$ witho!t additional interest, the installents in arrears within the total grperiod earned 4$ hiherthe which is here4$ f ied at the rate of one (1) ontgrace period for ever$ one (1) $ear of installent pa$ent ade, 4!t this right c

4e eercised 4$ the +ND9 onl$ once in ever$ five (") $ears of the life of thicontract and its etension, if an$, and

4) if the contract is cancelled, the +NDR shall ref!nd to the +ND9 the cs!rrender val!e of the pa$ents ade on the lots e>!ivalent to fift$ per cent ("of the total pa$ents ade, and after five (") $ears of installent, an additional per cent ("E) ever$ $ear 4!t not to eceed ninet$ per cent (80E) of the totalpa$ents ade? Provided, that the act!al cancellation of the contract shall ta:e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_202358_2013.html#fnt19


10/15

place after thirt$ (30) da$s fro the receipt 4$ the +ND9 of the notice ofcancellation or the deand for rescission of the contract 4$ a notarial act !pon f!llpa$ent of the cash s!rrender val!e to the +ND9? where, however, the+ND9 hashave paid less than two (2) $ears of installents, the +NDR shallgive the +ND9 @aA grace period of sit$ (60) da$s fro the date the installent4ecae d!e? and if the +ND9 fails to pa$ the installent d!e after theepiration of the grace period, the +NDR a$ cancel the contract after thirt$ (30)da$s fro receipt 4$ the +ND9 of the notice of cancellation or the deand forrescission of the contract 4$ a notarial act? and in case of cancellation andorrescission of this contract, all iproveents on the lots a4ove*descri4ed shall 4eforfeited in favor of the +NDR, and in this connection, the +ND9 o4ligateshiselfherselftheselves to peacef!ll$ vacate the preises entioned a4ove

witho!t necessit$ of notice or deand 4$ the +NDR.20

He eaine GRBs copliance with the re>!ireents of R.'. 6""2, as it insists that it etended to'ngeles considerations that are 4e$ond what the law provides.

Grace Period

Bt sho!ld 4e noted that 9ection 3 of R.'. 6""2 and paragraph si of &ontract Nos. 2271 and 2272,spea: of Ftwo $ears of installents.F he 4asis for cop!tation of the ter refers to the installentsthat correspond to the n!4er of onths of pa$ents, and not to the n!4er of onths that thecontract is in effect as well as an$ grace period that has 4een given. -oth the law and the contractsth!s prevent an$ 4!$er who has not 4een diligent in pa$ing his onthl$ installents fro !nd!l$claiing the rights provided in 9ection 3 of R.'. 6""2.

he %e&, the R&, and the &' all fo!nd that 'ngeles was a4le to pa$ 3" installents for the lot(&ontract No. 2271) and


11/15

(3) hat the two de4ts are d!e?

(!idated and deanda4le?

(") hat over neither of the there 4e an$ retention or controvers$, coenced 4$ thirdpersons and co!nicated in d!e tie to the de4tor.

owever, it was error for the %e& to appl$ 'rticle 1278 as there was nothing in the contracts whichprovided for the ao!nt of rentals in case the 4!$er defa!lts in her installent pa$ents. he rentalsd!e to GRB were not li>!idated. GRB, in its letter to 'ngeles dated 26 9epte4er 2003, !nilaterall$iposed the ao!nt of rentals, as well as an ann!al 10E increase5

PRBD &+RD N. %N9

RN';9PR %N

'%CN DC

#!ne to Dece4er 1888 7 11,000.00 77,000.00

#an!ar$ to Dece4er 2000 12 12,100.00 1!estion fro the tie the respondent spo!ses o4tained possession thereof !p tothe tie that its act!al possession is s!rrendered or restored to the petitioner, the &o!rt finds the sae=!st and e>!ita4le to prevent the respondent spo!ses, who 4reached their contract to sell, fro !n=!stl$

enriching theselves at the epense of the petitioner which, for all legal intents and p!rposes, nevceased to 4e the owner of the sae propert$ 4eca!se of the respondents non*f!lfillent of theindispensa4le condition of f!ll pa$ent of the p!rchase price, as e4odied in the parties contractsell. owever, as earlier eplained, this s! is to 4e red!ced 4$ the cash s!rrender val!e of thepa$ents so far ade 4$ the spo!ses, and the res!lting net ao!nt still owing as accr!ed rentals4e s!4=ect to legal interest fro finalit$ of this Decision !p to the tie of act!al pa$ent thereof. 3

%andator$ win Re>!ireents5 Notari/ed Notice of &ancellation and Ref!nd of &ash 9!rrender +

his &o!rt has 4een consistent in r!ling that a valid and effective cancellation !nder R.'. 6""2 !copl$ with the andator$ twin re>!ireents of a notari/ed notice of cancellation and a ref!nd of cash s!rrender val!e.

Bn l$pia o!sing, Bnc. v. Panasiatic ravel &orp.,38we r!led that the notarial act of rescission 4e accopanied 4$ the ref!nd of the cash s!rrender val!e.

he act!al cancellation of the contract can onl$ 4e deeed to ta:e place !pon the epir$ of ada$ period following the receipt 4$ the 4!$er of the notice of cancellation or deand for rescissionnotarial act and the f!ll pa$ent of the cash s!rrender val!e.

Bn Pagtal!nan v. Dela &r!/ +da. De %an/ano,


12/15

Bn Pagtal!nan, this &o!rt disissed the coplaint for !nlawf!l detainer. He also ordered the defa!lting4!$er to pa$ the developer the 4alance of the p!rchase price pl!s interest at 6E per ann! fro thedate of filing of the coplaint !p to the finalit$ of =!dgent, and thereafter, at the rate of 12E perann!. Cpon pa$ent, the developer shall iss!e a Deed of '4sol!te 9ale of the s!4=ect propert$ anddeliver the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the defa!lting 4!$er. Bf the defa!lting 4!$er failsto pa$ the f!ll ao!nt within 60 da$s fro finalit$ of the decision, then the defa!lting 4!$er sho!ldvacate the s!4=ect propert$ witho!t need of deand and all pa$ents will 4e charged as rentals to thepropert$. No costs were charged to the parties.

Bn 'ctive, this &o!rt held that the &ontract to 9ell 4etween the parties reained valid 4eca!se of thedevelopers fail!re to send a notari/ed notice of cancellation and to ref!nd the cash s!rrender val!e.he defa!lting 4!$er th!s had the right to offer to pa$ the 4alance of the p!rchase price, and the

developer had no choice 4!t to accept pa$ent. owever, the defa!lting 4!$er was !na4le to eercisethis right 4eca!se the developer sold the s!4=ect lot. his &o!rt ordered the developer to ref!nd to thedefa!lting 4!$er the act!al val!e of the lot with 12E interest per ann! cop!ted fro the date of thefiling of the coplaint !ntil f!ll$ paid, or to deliver a s!4stit!te lot at the option of the defa!lting 4!$er.

Bn 'ssociated, this &o!rt disissed the coplaint for !nlawf!l detainer. He held that the &ontract to9ell 4etween the parties reained valid 4eca!se the developer failed to send to the defa!lting 4!$er anotari/ed notice of cancellation and to ref!nd the cash s!rrender val!e. He ordered the %e& tocond!ct a hearing within 30 da$s fro receipt of the decision to deterine the !npaid 4alance of thef!ll val!e of the s!4=ect properties as well as the c!rrent reasona4le ao!nt of rent for the s!4=ectproperties. He ordered the defa!lting 4!$er to pa$, within 60 da$s fro the trial co!rts deterination ofthe ao!nts, the !npaid 4alance of the f!ll val!e of the s!4=ect properties with interest at 6E perann! cop!ted fro the date of sending of the notice of final deand !p to the date of act!alpa$ent. Cpon pa$ent, we ordered the developer to eec!te a Deed of '4sol!te 9ale over thes!4=ect properties and deliver the transfer certificate of title to the defa!lting 4!$er. Bn case of fail!re to

pa$ within the andated 60*da$ period, we ordered the defa!lting 4!$er to iediatel$ vacate thepreises witho!t need for f!rther deand. he developer sho!ld also pa$ the defa!lting 4!$er thecash s!rrender val!e, and the contract sho!ld 4e deeed cancelled 30 da$s after the defa!lting4!$ers receipt of the f!ll pa$ent of the cash s!rrender val!e. Bf the defa!lting 4!$er failed to vacatethe preises, he sho!ld 4e charged reasona4le rental in the ao!nt deterined 4$ the trial co!rt.

He o4serve that this case has, fro the instit!tion of the coplaint, 4een pending with the co!rts for10 $ears. 's 4oth parties pra$ed for the iss!ance of reliefs that are =!st and e>!ita4le !nder thepreises, and in the eercise of o!r discretion, we resolve to dispose of this case in an e>!ita4leanner. &onsidering that GRB did not validl$ rescind &ontracts to 9ell Nos. 2271 and 2272, 'ngeleshas two options5

1. he option to pa$, within 60 da$s fro the %e&s deterination of the proper ao!nts,the !npaid 4alance of the f!ll val!e of the p!rchase price of the s!4=ect properties pl!sinterest at 6E per ann! fro 11 Nove4er 2003, the date of filing of the coplaint, !p to thefinalit$ of this Decision, and thereafter, at the rate of 6E per ann!. !al val!e./-phi'cceptance of the s!ita4ilit$ of the s!4stit!te properties is'ngeles sole prerogative. 9ho!ld 'ngeles ref!se the s!4stit!te properties, GRB shall ref!nd

to 'ngeles the act!al val!e of the s!4=ect properties with 6E interest per ann!


13/15

G.R. No. 1;51>= D&-&4)&r >, 2013

OPTIMUM DEELOPMENT AN?,Petitioner,vs.SPOUSES ENIGNO . JOELLANOS #$% LOURDES R. JOELLANOS,Respondents.

PERLASERNAE,J.:

'ssailed in this petition for review on certiorari1are the Decision2dated %a$ 28, 2008 andResol!tion 3dated '!g!st 10, 2008 of the &o!rt of 'ppeals (&') in &'*G.R. 9P No. 10!ired 9ps. #ovellanos to vacate anddeliver possession of the s!4=ect propert$ within seven (7) da$s which, however, reained !nheeded.ence, pti! filed, on Nove4er 3, 2006, a coplaint for !nlawf!l detainer124efore the %e&,doc:eted as &ivil &ase No. 06*230. Despite having 4een served with s!ons, together with acop$ of the coplaint,139ps. #ovellanos failed to file their answer within the prescri4ed regleentar$period, th!s propting pti! to ove for the rendition of =!dgent.1!estioning the=!risdiction of the co!rt, aong others. !rther, the$ filed a %otion to Reopen and 9et the &ase forPreliinar$ &onference, which the %e& denied.

he %e& R!ling

Bn a Decision1"dated #!ne , 2007, the %e& ordered 9ps. #ovellanos to vacate the s!4=ect propeand pa$ pti! reasona4le copensation in the ao!nt of P",000.00 for its !se and occ!patio!ntil possession has 4een s!rrendered. Bt held that 9ps. #ovellanoss possession of the said propewas 4$ virt!e of a &ontract to 9ell which had alread$ 4een cancelled for non*pa$ent of the stip!lonthl$ installent pa$ents. 's s!ch, their Frights of possession over the s!4=ect propert$necessaril$ terinated or epired and hence, their contin!ed possession thereof constit!te@dA !nladetainer.F16

Dissatisfied, 9ps. #ovellanos appealed to the R&, claiing that pti! co!nsel ade the 4ethat a coproise agreeent was 4eing prepared, th!s their decision not to engage the services co!nsel and their concoitant fail!re to file an answer.17

he$ also assailed the =!risdiction of the %e&, claiing that the case did not erel$ involve the iof ph$sical possession 4!t rather, >!estions arising fro their rights !nder a contract to sell whichatter that is incapa4le of pec!niar$ estiation and, therefore, within the =!risdiction of the R& .1

he R& R!ling

Bn a Decision18dated Dece4er 27, 2007, the R& affired the %e&s =!dgent, holding that thlatter did not err in ref!sing to adit 9ps. #ovellanos s 4elatedl$ filed answer considering theandator$ period for its filing. Bt also affired the %e&s finding that the action does not involve rights of the respective parties !nder the contract 4!t erel$ the recover$ of possession 4$ ptithe s!4=ect propert$ after the spo!ses defa!lt.20

'ggrieved, 9ps. #ovellanos oved for reconsideration which was, however, denied in a

Resol!tion21

dated #!ne 27, 200. ence, the petition 4efore the &' reiterating that the R& erredaffiring the decision of the %e& with respect to5

(a) the non*adission of their answer to the coplaint? and

(4) the =!risdiction of the %e& over the coplaint for !nlawf!l detainer.22

he &' R!ling

Bn an 'ended Decision23dated %a$ 28, 2008, the &' reversed and set aside the R&s decisionr!ling to disiss the coplaint for lac: of =!risdiction. Bt f o!nd that the controvers$ does not onl$ inthe iss!e of possession 4!t also the validit$ of the cancellation of the &ontract to 9ell and thedeterination of the rights of the parties there!nder as well as the governing law, aong others,Rep!4lic 'ct No. (R') 6""2.2!ita4leortgage, the &o!rt affired the propriet$ of the e=ectent co!rts eaination of the ters of the

agreeent in >!estion 4$ holding that, F4eca!se etropolitan trial co!rts are a!thori/ed to loo: intownership of the propert$ in controvers$ in e=ectent cases, it 4ehooved %& -ranch !entl$ clais was violated or eting!ished, terinating the defendants righpossess. He r!led in 9ps. Ref!gia v. &' that where the resol!tion of the iss!e of possession hinon a deterination of the validit$ and interpretation of the doc!ent of title or an$ other contract owhich the clai of possession is preised, the inferior co!rt a$ li:ewise pass !pon these iss!es

he %e&s r!ling on the rights of the parties 4ased on its interpretation of their contract is, of co!not concl!sive, 4!t is erel$ provisional and is 4inding onl$ with respect to the iss!e of possessio(phases s!pplied? citations oitted)

Bn the case at 4ar, the !nlawf!l detainer s!it filed 4$ pti! against 9ps. #ovellanos for illegall$withholding possession of the s!4=ect propert$ is siilarl$ preised !pon the cancellation orterination of the &ontract to 9ell 4etween the. Bndeed, it was well within the =!risdiction of the %to consider the ters of the parties agreeent in order to !ltiatel$ deterine the fact!al 4ases opti!s possessor$ clais over the s!4=ect propert$. Proceeding accordingl$, the %e& held t9ps. #ovellanoss non*pa$ent of the installents d!e had rendered the &ontract to 9ell witho!t fand effect, th!s depriving the latter of their right to possess the propert$ s!4=ect of said contract .36

foregoing disposition aptl$ s>!ares with eisting =!rispr!dence. 's the &o!rt siilarl$ held in the C-an: case, the sellers cancellation of the contract to sell necessaril$ eting!ished the 4!$ers rigpossession over the propert$ that was the s!4=ect of the terinated agreeent. 37

+eril$, in a contract to sell, the prospective seller 4inds hiself to sell the propert$ s!4=ect of theagreeent ecl!sivel$ to the prospective 4!$er !pon f!lfillent of the condition agreed !pon whicthe f!ll pa$ent of the p!rchase price 4!t reserving to hiself the ownership of the s!4=ect prope

despite deliver$ thereof to the prospective 4!$er.3

he f!ll pa$ent of the p!rchase price in a contract to sell is a s!spensive condition, the non*f!lfillof which prevents the prospective sellers o4ligation to conve$ title fro 4ecoing effective,38as icase. !rther, it is significant to note that given that the &ontract to 9ell in this case is one which hfor its o4=ect real propert$ to 4e sold on an installent 4asis, the said contract is especiall$ govern4$ and th!s, !st 4e eained !nder the provisions of R' 6""2, or the FRealt$ Bnstallent -!
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_189145_2013.html#fnt39


15/15

Protection 'ctF, which provides for the rights of the 4!$er in case of his defa!lt in the pa$ent ofs!cceeding installents. -rea:ing down the provisions of the law, the &o!rt, in the case of Rillo v.&',!oted anhighlighted, which is the provision applica4le to 4!$ers who have paid less than two (2) $ears*worinstallents. ssentiall$, the said provision provides for three (3) re>!isites 4efore the seller a$act!all$ cancel the s!4=ect contract5 first0the seller shall give the 4!$er # 60%#* r#-& p&rio%torec:oned fro the date the installent 4ecae d!e? second, the seller !st give the 4!$er a $o(-#$-&ll#(io$@%&4#$% /or r&'-i''io$ )* $o(#ri#l #-( if the 4!$er fails to pa$ the installents d!ethe epiration of the said grace period? and third, the seller a$ act!all$ cancel the contract onl$ a

thirt$ (30) da$s fro the 4!$ers receipt of the said notice of cancellationdeand for rescission 4$notarial act. Bn the present case, the 60*da$ grace period a!toaticall$ operated !ence of s!ch cancellation, their ref!sal to vacate and t!rn over possession to pti! o!t a valid case for !nlawf!l detainer as properl$ ad=!dged 4$ the %e&.

HRR, the petition is GR'ND. he Decision dated %a$ 28, 2008 and Resol!tion dated'!g!st 10, 2008 of the &o!rt of 'ppeals in &'*G.R. 9P No. 10

Documents

CivRev2: full text of cases