Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30056)
Facts:
Marcelo Agcaoili v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. L-30056, August 30, 1988, Supreme Court First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arose from an application by Marcelo Agcaoili to purchase a house and lot in the GSIS housing project at Nangka, Marikina. GSIS accepted Agcaoili’s application by a letter dated October 5, 1965, allocating Lot No. 26, Block No. (48) 2 and advising him to “occupy the said house immediately” with a three‑day condition that failure to occupy would result in automatic disapproval and award to another applicant. Agcaoili took possession immediately but left the next day because the unit was essentially an uncompleted shell lacking ceilings, stairs, lighting, water, bathroom, kitchen and drainage. He left a homeless friend as a caretaker and complained to GSIS, which did not finish the house.
GSIS demanded monthly amortizations; Agcaoili paid a first installment and incidental fees but refused further payments until GSIS made the unit habitable. GSIS cancelled the award and demanded vacation of the premises. Agcaoili filed Civil Case No. 69417 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila for specific performance and damages. Other awardees later lodged a written protest about similar uncompleted houses.
At trial the CFI (Branch VIII, presided by Hon. Manuel P. Barcelona) rendered judgment in favor of Agcaoili, declaring GSIS’s cancellation illegal, ordering GSIS to respect the award, to complete the house before collecting amortizations, and awarding P100 damages and P300 attor...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a buyer validly suspend amortization payments where the seller fails to deliver the thing sold in a condition reasonably fit for its intended use?
- Did Agcaoili’s failure to occupy the house within three days (or having another person stay as caretaker) prevent perfection of the contract or justify GSIS’s cancellation?
- Did Agcaoili’s placing of a homeless friend in the house without GSIS’s consent constitute repudiation or forfeiture of the award?
- Was specific performance in specie appropriate, or should the Court adjust the parties’ rights in equity (e.g., require payment only for land a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)