Title
Cordero vs. F.S. Management and Development Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 167213
Decision Date
Oct 31, 2006
Petitioners entered a contract to sell land to respondent, who defaulted on payments. SC ruled contract ineffective, allowed petitioners to retain payments under Maceda Law, and set aside damages.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 167213)

Facts:

  • Contract to Sell and Parties Involved
    • On or about October 27, 1994, petitioner Belen Cordero, on her own behalf and as attorney-in-fact for co-petitioners Darrel Cordero, Egmedio Bautista, Rosemay Bautista, Marion Bautista, Danny Boy Cordero, and Ladylyn Cordero, entered into a contract to sell with respondent F.S. Management and Development Corporation (through its chairman Roberto P. Tolentino).
    • The contract involved five parcels of land located in Nasugbu, Batangas, covered by TCT Nos. 62692, 62693, 62694, 62695, and 20987.
  • Terms and Conditions of the Contract to Sell
    • The purchaser (buyer) agreed to buy 50 hectares at P25 per square meter, totaling P12,500,000.
    • Earnest money of P500,000 was to be paid on October 27, 1994, entitling the buyer to enter and improve the property.
    • Downpayment of P3,500,000 was to be paid on or before April 30, 1995.
    • The remaining balance was to be paid in six equal quarterly payments (P1,411,000.00 each) within 18 months from the downpayment date.
    • Title would be transferred upon complete payment. Any encumbrances would be settled by either party and deducted from the purchase price.
    • The owner (seller) agreed to transfer title earlier if the buyer provided post-dated checks guaranteed by a reputable bank.
    • The buyer could occupy and improve the properties upon earnest money and downpayment, with the owner guaranteeing no tenants or squatters and cooperating with development efforts.
    • Delay in payment would incur legal interest to the seller.
  • Payment and Breach
    • Respondent paid the earnest money of P500,000 on October 27, 1994.
    • Respondent paid P1,000,000 on June 30, 1995, and another P1,000,000 on July 6, 1995. No further payments were made thereafter.
  • Demand for Cancellation and Filing of Complaint
    • Petitioners sent a demand letter dated November 28, 1996, revoking/canceling the contract due to breach and treating prior payments as damages. They also demanded P10 million as actual damages for loss of income.
    • Respondent ignored the demand.
    • On February 21, 1997, petitioner Belen filed a complaint for rescission of the contract with damages before the RTC of Parañaque, alleging respondent’s failure to pay the downpayment and balance as required.
  • Respondent's Position and Trial Proceedings
    • Respondent alleged petitioners breached first by preventing property access despite payments made.
    • Alleged refusal to execute the final contract unless additional legal interest was paid, motivated by a higher offer from another buyer.
    • Petitioners’ motion for pre-trial was attended only by petitioners, and respondent was declared in default.
    • Evidence presented ex parte included petitioner Belen’s testimony on contract execution, respondent’s failure to pay, and damages sustained, plus testimony of Ma. Cristina Cleofe on a higher offer for the property.
    • Respondent’s motion to set aside the default order was denied.
  • RTC Decision and Appeal
    • RTC rendered a decision on November 18, 1997, rescinding the contract and awarding petitioners damages and attorney’s fees:
      • Actual damages: P5,000,000.00
      • Moral and exemplary damages: P2,000,000.00
      • Less payments made by respondent: P2,500,000.00
      • Attorney's fees: P800,000.00
    • Respondent appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, raising errors regarding the award of damages and attorney’s fees.
  • Court of Appeals Ruling
    • The Court of Appeals set aside the contract to sell on the basis that petitioners' obligation never arose due to respondent’s failure to pay the full purchase price.
    • The CA annulled the damages award for lack of proof and ordered petitioners to return all amounts received from respondent.
    • Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
  • Petition to the Supreme Court
    • Petitioners filed for review, arguing:
      • The CA erred in ruling on the nature of the contract without this being raised.
      • Whether a contract to sell may be rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
      • Whether CA erred in setting aside damages awarded.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling on the nature of the contract to sell despite this issue not being raised on appeal.
  • Whether a contract to sell may be rescinded pursuant to Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the RTC award of damages and attorney’s fees.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.