G.R. No. 107207 - Romero vs. Court of Appeals

Virgilio R. Romero (petitioner) is a civil engineer and exporter who sought a central warehouse site in Metro Manila.
Enriqueta Chua vda. de Ongsiong (respondent) owns a 1,952 sqm lot in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque, with squatters on it.

Alfonso Flores, representing respondent, agreed that if Romero advanced ₱50,000 to eject squatters, the sale price would be ₱800/sqm (total ₱1,561,600).
On June 9, 1988, they executed a “Deed of Conditional Sale” with these key provisions:

Downpayment of ₱50,000 upon signing.
Balance of ₱1,511,600 due 45 days after removal of squatters.
Vendor to evict squatters within 60 days; failure to do so entitled vendee to reimbursement of ₱50,000.
Failure of vendee to pay balance within prescribed period would forfeit the ₱50,000 to vendor.

Respondent filed ejectment suit; judgment issued February 21, 1989, and writ of execution March 30, 1989—both beyond the 60-day period.
By letter of April 7, 1989, respondent offered to return ₱50,000; petitioner refused and proposed to underwrite ejectment expenses.
Government-requested grace period delayed eviction until June 1989; petitioner reiterated willingness to pay and execute sale.
On June 19, 1989, respondent declared contract void for failure to evict and decided to retain property. Petitioner protested, waived the condition, and tendered the balance.
Respondent filed for rescission and consignation of ₱50,000; Regional Trial Court (RTC) held only the vendee could rescind and dismissed respondent’s complaint, ordering eviction and conveyance.
The Court of Appeals reversed, declared contract cancelled, and ordered return of ₱50,000 to petitioner. Romero then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Nature of the contract – absolute or conditional sale subject to eviction of squatters?
Which party may rescind the contract upon the vendor’s failure to evict within the stipulated period?
Whether the downpayment of ₱50,000 is reimbursable or forfeitable given the non-eviction?