Case Digest (G.R. No. 157330)
Facts:
Lina Calilap-Asmeron v. Development Bank of the Philippines, Pablo Cruz, Trinidad Cabantog, Eni S.P. Atienza and Emerenciana Cabantog, G.R. No. 157330, November 23, 2011, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Lina Calilap-Asmeron, and her brother mortgaged two parcels of land (TCT Nos. T-160929 and T-164117) to secure a loan from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in 1975; DBP foreclosed and bought the properties when the obligation remained unpaid, and the one-year redemption period expired on September 1, 1981. In 1981–1982 the petitioner repeatedly communicated to DBP her desire to reacquire the foreclosed properties and offered terms; by letter dated August 31, 1982 she offered to buy back both lots for P157,000 with a P55,500 downpayment.
DBP accepted terms that were later embodied in a deed of conditional sale executed January 21, 1983 covering both lots. The deed provided for a P55,500 downpayment, quarterly amortizations, and an express clause permitting the vendor to rescind the contract upon default (including an option to treat sums paid as rentals). The petitioner paid several amortizations (the first timely) but incurred delays and made a last recorded payment of P4,500 on March 12, 1985, leaving multiple quarterly installments unpaid. DBP demanded payment, and after the petitioner failed to remit the required amortizations and despite her communications asking for extensions, DBP rescinded the deed and secured a writ of possession in November 1986.
On January 30, 1987 the petitioner filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan, to annul DBP’s rescission and to set aside subsequent sales — DBP’s sale to Pablo Cruz (November 25, 1987) and Cruz’s transfers to Emerenciana Cabantog and Eni S.P. Atienza. The RTC rendered judgment dismissing the petitioner’s complaint on December 28, 1994, finding that the petitioner’s own written communications showed an intention to reacquire both lots and that the conditional-sale terms were clear.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC on June 21, 2002, holding that the petitioner failed to produce testimonial or documentary evidence corroborating her claim of being misled into signing the deed and that DBP validly exercised its contractual right of rescission after the petitioner ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the petitioner’s Rule 45 petition properly raise only questions of law, or does it impermissibly ask the Court to re-examine factual findings of the Court of Appeals?
- Whether Article 1332 of the Civil Code (protection for those unable to read or who do not understand the contract language) invalidates the deed of conditional sale on the ground that the petitioner did not fully understand its terms?
- Whether DBP validly rescinded the deed of conditional sale for nonpayment and, consequently, whether the subsequent sale to Cru...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)