Case Digest (G.R. No. 239336)
Facts:
In Buenaventura Angeles, et al. vs. Ursula Torres Calasanz, et al., decided on March 18, 1985 under the 1973 Philippine Constitution, plaintiffs-appellees Buenaventura Angeles and Teofila Juani entered on December 19, 1957 into a contract to sell land in Cainta, Rizal with defendants-appellants Ursula Torres Calasanz and Tomas Calasanz for ₱3,920 plus 7% per annum interest. A downpayment of ₱392 was made and monthly installments of ₱41.20 were due every 19th. The buyers paid punctual installments until July 1966, amounting to ₱4,533.38, but defaulted on the August payment. On December 7, 1966 the sellers demanded past due accounts and on January 28, 1967 cancelled the contract pursuant to paragraph six’s resolutory clause. After their plea for reconsideration was denied, the buyers filed Civil Case No. 8943 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to compel execution of the final deed of sale and recovery of costs and ₱500 attorneys’ fees, alleging full payment of price, interestCase Digest (G.R. No. 239336)
Facts:
- Contract Formation and Payment Terms
- On December 19, 1957, defendants-appellants Ursula and Tomas Calasanz (“sellers”) and plaintiffs-appellees Buenaventura Angeles and Teofila Juani (“buyers”) executed a contract to sell a parcel in Cainta, Rizal for ₱3,920.00 plus 7% annual interest, with a downpayment of ₱392.00 and monthly installments of ₱41.20 due every 19th.
- The buyers paid installments until July 1966, aggregating ₱4,533.38, and on numerous occasions the sellers accepted delayed payments beyond the contractual due dates.
- Cancellation and Judicial Proceedings
- On December 7, 1966, the sellers demanded remittance of past due accounts; on January 28, 1967, they purportedly cancelled the contract for nonpayment of the August 1966 installment and subsequent arrears.
- The buyers filed Civil Case No. 8943 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to compel execution of the final deed of sale, alleging they had paid the full price plus interest, taxes, and registration expenses; the sellers countered that the contract was validly cancelled under paragraph 6 for over five months’ default and that an unpaid balance remained.
Issues:
- Whether the sellers validly cancelled the contract to sell under paragraph 6 and Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
- Whether, assuming cancellation was invalid, the sellers should be compelled to execute the final deed of sale.
- Whether the award of ₱500.00 attorneys’ fees to the buyers was proper.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)