Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32811)
Facts:
In Felipe C. Roque v. Nicanor Lapuz, petitioner Roque, owner of the Rockville Subdivision in Balintawak, Quezon City, and respondent Lapuz entered into a preliminary agreement on June 25, 1954 for the sale of Lots 1, 2, and 9, Block 1, totaling 1,200 sq m, payable in 120 monthly installments at P16.00, P15.00, and P15.00 per sq m respectively. Lapuz paid a P150.00 deposit and P740.56 covering four months’ installments. After the Bureau of Lands approved the subdivision plan on January 24, 1955, Lapuz requested, and Roque consented, to substitute two corner lots (Lots 4 and 12, Block 2), aggregating 725 sq m, at P17.00 per sq m, payable in 120 equal installments with 8% annual interest on the unpaid balance. Lapuz occupied the lots, built a house, and enclosed the property but made no further payments. Roque repeatedly demanded payment and a formal contract; Lapuz promised but refused. On November 3, 1957, Roque formally demanded that Lapuz vacate the premises and pay P60.00 montCase Digest (G.R. No. L-32811)
Facts:
- Original Agreement
- In June 1954, prior to plan approval, petitioner Roque (plaintiff) and respondent Lapuz (defendant) agreed to sell Lots 1, 2, and 9, Block 1 (1,200 sqm) at P16.00, P15.00, P15.00 per sqm respectively, payable in 120 monthly installments.
- Defendant paid a P150 deposit and P740.56 covering four installments (July–October 1954).
- Modification of Sale
- After subdivision plan approval (Jan 24, 1955), parties agreed to substitute Lots 4 and 12, Block 2 (725 sqm corner lots) at P17.00 per sqm, payable in 120 monthly installments with 8% annual interest.
- Defendant took possession, built a house with adobe walls and barbed wire, but made no further payments.
- Demand and Complaint
- Plaintiff repeatedly demanded arrears and execution of a formal contract to sell; defendant defaulted and refused.
- On November 3, 1957, plaintiff demanded defendant vacate and pay P60.00/month rental from August 1955. Defendant did not reply.
- Litigation History
- January 22, 1960: Plaintiff sued for rescission, ejectment, rentals (P60/month), P2,000 attorney’s fees and costs. Defendant answered, alleging cause of action defective, prescription, no demand, and counterclaimed damages.
- 1967: CFI ruled for plaintiff, rescinded contract, ordered vacation, rentals, fees.
- 1970: CA affirmed but on motion granted Lapuz 90 days to pay balance (P11,434.44 + interest). Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration denied.
- Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
Issues:
- Is the contract a conditional sale (“contract to sell”) with title reserved pending full payment or an absolute sale?
- Does Article 1191(3), New Civil Code, permit the CA to grant a new period for compliance in reciprocal obligations?
- Or does Article 1592, New Civil Code, governing sales of immovables, bar any extension after demand?
- Did respondent plead entitlement to a new period in the trial court and appellate pleadings?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)