Title
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 137557
Decision Date
Oct 30, 2000
DBP sold land to spouses De La Peña under a conditional sale. Despite payments and improvements, DBP demanded balance, threatening rescission. Courts upheld injunction, reduced excessive interest, and protected spouses' rights.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 137557)

Facts:

Development Bank of the Philippines was the vendor of a parcel of land in Bulacan (now Lawang Bato, Valenzuela, Metro Manila) as evidenced by TCT No. 13351, and on August 8, 1983 executed a Deed of Conditional Sale with spouses Nilo and Esperanza De La Pena for P207,000, stipulating a down payment of P41,400 and the balance of P165,600 to be paid in six years on a semi‑annual amortization plan at eighteen percent per annum, the first amortization being fixed at P23,126.14 due six months from execution and subsequent amortizations to be due every six months thereafter; the vendees thereafter occupied the lot, made improvements, and paid installments in varying amounts totalling P289,600.00 between June 22, 1983 and August 28, 1989; on January 5, 1989 DBP informed the De La Penas there remained an alleged balance of P221,867.85 and on July 11, 1989 demanded payment of P225,855.86 as of June 30, 1989 or it would rescind the sale, whereupon the De La Penas proposed a settlement by semi‑annual payments for five years but negotiations failed and they filed suit for specific performance and damages with an injunction on January 30, 1990 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela; the trial court on March 30, 1993 dismissed the complaint insofar as specific performance for lack of payment of P54,200.00 as interest but declared the preliminary injunction permanent and awarded attorney’s fees and costs, the Court of Appeals on August 7, 1998 affirmed with modification deleting the attorney’s fees and denied reconsideration on February 11, 1999, and DBP brought this petition for review on certiorari, urging among other contentions that the trial court and the Court of Appeals misconstrued the Deed of Conditional Sale and erred in permanently enjoining DBP from rescinding the sale.

Issues:

Was the provision of the Deed of Conditional Sale ambiguous as to the amount of subsequent semi‑annual amortizations so as to be construed against Development Bank of the Philippines? Did Development Bank of the Philippines lose the right to rescind the sale by unqualifiedly accepting late and varying payments? Were the additional interest and penalty charges imposed under the contract properly applied and, if so, were they excessive requiring judicial reduction? Was the issuance and confirmation of the writ of preliminary injunction against Development Bank of the Philippines proper?

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.