Case Digest (G.R. No. 81158)
Facts:
Oscar A. Jacinto and Librada Franco-Jacinto v. Rogelio Kaparaz, Raul Kaparaz and Rose Mariet Kaparaz, G.R. No. 81158, May 22, 1992, the Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the buyers) and private respondents (the sellers) executed an agreement dated 11 March 1966 for the sale of a 600-square-meter portion of land in Mati, Davao Oriental, for P1,800.00; a downpayment of P800.00 was made and petitioners were placed in possession. The unpaid balance of P1,000.00 was to be paid by monthly installments of P100.00 to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), and the parties agreed the sellers would execute the final deed of absolute sale upon settlement/partition of the estate of the deceased Narcisa R. Kaparaz, but not later than 31 March 1967.
Petitioners made several payments and expenditures: downpayment and other sums to family members and to DBP (official receipts were produced), payments toward subdivision survey, and the trial court found that petitioners had paid amounts which, taken together with sums already received by respondents, exceeded the P1,800.00 purchase price (including an alleged excess of P100.00). Respondents claimed petitioners defaulted in timely bank payments; they later paid off the agricultural loan themselves and refused to execute the final deed, prompting petitioners to file a complaint for specific performance in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 586), amended 23 January 1979.
The trial court (Court of First Instance, later Regional Trial Court) rendered judgment on 19 November 1981 in favor of petitioners, declaring them owners of the 600 sq. m. portion and ordering reconveyance and attorneys’ fees. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. CV No. 69357). On 30 July 1987 the Court of Appeals reversed, dismissed the complaint, declared the agreement extinguished, and ordered reimbursement of P500.00 to plaintiffs to prevent unjust enrichment, reasoning that petitioners had not fully discharged their obligation, their last payments were delayed and applied by DBP to accounts other than the agricultural loan specified, respondents had demanded payment and then paid the loan themselves, and the delay was not a slight breach warranting rescission....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the disputed agreement a contract of sale (absolute sale) or a contract to sell (sale conditional upon full payment)?
- Could private respondents validly rescind the agreement for petitioners’ delayed payments without prior judicial or notarial demand and despite respondents’ acceptance/benefit of subsequent payments?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly declare the contract extinguished under the second sentence of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)