Case Digest (G.R. No. L-39378)
Facts:
Generosa Ayson‑Simon v. Nicolas Adamos and Vicenta Feria, G.R. No. L-39378, August 28, 1984, the Supreme Court First Division, Melencio‑Herrera, J., writing for the Court. The appeal arrived by certification from the Court of Appeals after an appeal from the Court of First Instance of Manila.On December 13, 1943, Nicolas Adamos and Vicenta Feria (defendants‑appellants) purchased two lots forming part of the Piedad Estate in Quezon City from Juan Porciuncula. These lots were later the subject of Civil Case No. 174 in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, filed by Porciuncula’s successors‑in‑interest seeking annulment of the sale and cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 69475. On December 18, 1963 the CFI rendered judgment annulling that sale and cancelling TCT No. 69475; that judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court and became final.
Meanwhile, on May 29, 1946, during the pendency of Civil Case No. 174, defendants‑appellants sold the same two lots to Generosa Ayson‑Simon (plaintiff‑appellee) for P3,800.00 each; she later paid an additional P800.00 to facilitate issuance of titles. Because defendants failed to obtain approval of a subdivision plan and did not deliver titles and possession, Generosa filed a suit for specific performance in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q‑7275) on September 4, 1963. On January 20, 1964 that court declared plaintiff entitled to summary judgment ordering defendants to have the lots resurveyed/subdivided and to deliver titles and possession, but execution of that order proved impossible due to the earlier decision in Civil Case No. 174.
Because fulfillment had become impossible, Generosa filed a second suit on August 16, 1968 in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 73942) for rescission of the sale with damages. On June 7, 1969 the CFI rendered judgment ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to refund P7,600.00 (the purchase price) with legal interest from May 29, 1946, to pay P800.00 with legal interest from August 1, 1966, attorney’s fees of P1,000.00, and costs. Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals on grounds that (1...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does plaintiff’s prior suit for specific performance bar her later action for rescission (i.e., did her election of fulfillment preclude rescission)?
- If not barred by election, has plaintiff’s action to rescin...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)