Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 174)
Facts:
Jose B. Escueta v. Aquilino Pando, G.R. No. 174, March 12, 1946, Supreme Court Second Division, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.
On February 14, 1933, Eleuteria Magsarile, the wife of plaintiff Jose B. Escueta, purchased three lots in the Pasay Obrero Subdivision from defendant Aquilino Pando under a contract payable in monthly installments over ten years that contained a clause allowing the vendor to rescind and treat prior payments as rents if the buyer defaulted for more than thirty days. On May 28, 1934, Escueta (plaintiff) filed Civil Case No. 5863 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to annul that sale and recover sums paid; on June 19, 1935 the parties submitted and the court approved a stipulation providing (inter alia) that P787.89 paid by Mrs. Magsarile would be credited by Pando to one lot to be selected by the Escuetas, that the plaintiff would select a lot and execute a formal installment contract in the form of Exhibit A, and that the next monthly installment would begin July 15, 1935.
A writ of execution issued August 6, 1936 was not accomplished because the sheriff could not locate the plaintiff; an alias writ of October 9, 1936 notified plaintiff, who chose Lot No. 12, Block No. 2. The sheriff informed the parties that, after crediting P787.89, the balance was P802.11, of which installments from July 15, 1935 to October 15, 1936 amounted to P198.75; the sheriff asked Escueta to deposit that sum but Escueta refused, insisting he need not begin payments until the formal contract was signed and offering instead to pay the balance in cash for a discount. The formal contract required by the June 19, 1935 agreement and judgment was never executed; on July 6, 1937 Pando sold Lot No. 12 to third parties Abundia Romero and Dionisio Bravo.
In 1940 Escueta sought another alias writ to compel delivery or sale of Lot No. 12 or any other unsold lot, but was informed by the sheriff that all lots had been sold. On April 7, 1941 Escueta filed the present action to recover P787.89 with legal interest from April 15, 1940, alleging impossibility of specific performance because Pando disposed of the lots without the plaintiff’s knowledge or court authority. Pando answered that he sold the lots in good faith after plaintiff refused to comply with the judgment and that, under paragraph 7 of the original contract form (Exhibit A), he could rescind and keep the payments as rents.
The Court of First Instance sustained Escueta and ordered Pando to pay P787.89...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the agreement approved by the Court in Civil Case No. 5863 (June 19, 1935) novate and extinguish the original contract of sale between Eleuteria Magsarile and Aquilino Pando, so that the parties’ rights are governed by the June 19, 1935 stipulation?
- Is Jose B. Escueta entitled to recover P787.89 (with legal interest), or could Aquilino Pando legally retain that sum under the forfeiture clause of the original contract or otherwise, absent a signed formal contract, judicial ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)