Case Digest (G.R. No. 180665)
Facts:
Heirs of Paulino Atienza v. Domingo P. Espidol, G.R. No. 180665, August 11, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are the Heirs of Paulino Atienza (the Atienzas), owners of a 21,959 sqm agricultural parcel in Valle Cruz, Cabanatuan City, titleable under an Emancipation Patent pursuant to P.D. 27; the respondent is Domingo P. Espidol, the buyer. On August 12, 2002 the parties executed a “Kasunduan sa Pagbibili ng Lupa na may Paunang-Bayad” (contract to sell with down payment) fixing the purchase price at P130.00 per sqm (total P2,854,670.00) payable in three installments: P100,000.00 down upon signing, P1,750,000.00 due December 2002, and P974,670.00 due June 2003. Espidol paid the P100,000.00 down payment and some commission to brokers, but failed to pay the December 2002 installment; he offered a lesser interim payment (variously described as P500,000.00 or P800,000.00) which the Atienzas rejected.
On February 21, 2003 the Atienzas filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cabanatuan City (Civil Case No. 4451), seeking annulment of the agreement with damages for Espidol’s nonpayment. Espidol answered, admitting nonpayment and explaining extraneous legal impediments in the United States, and argued that the agreement was a contract to sell (installment sale) whose nonpayment did not justify rescission but at most excused conveyance until full payment; he also contended the action was premature since the final installment was not yet due.
By decision dated January 24, 2005, the RTC held the contract valid and subsisting, found the action premature, and ordered the parties to comply with the contract, noting that extrajudicial cancellation under R.A. 6552 requires a notarial notice which the Atienzas omitted. The Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. CV 84953) affirmed the RTC in an August 31, 2007 decision and denied recon...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the sale of land covered by an emancipation patent valid and transferable by the Atienzas under P.D. 27 and related law?
- Could the Atienzas validly cancel the contract to sell for Espidol’s failure to pay the second installment when due?
- Did the absence of the notarial notice of cancellation under R.A. 6552 render the Atienzas’ action for cancel...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)