Title
Suria vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 73893
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1987
A dispute over a Deed of Sale with Mortgage led to claims of rescission and damages due to unpaid installments. The Supreme Court ruled foreclosure, not rescission, was the proper remedy, as the contract was consummated and foreclosure was stipulated. Petitioners were ordered to pay the balance or face foreclosure.
dispute
sellers
buyers
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 73893)

Facts:

Suria v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73893, June 30, 1987, Supreme Court Second Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Margarita Suria and Gracia R. Joven; respondents include the Intermediate Appellate Court, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laguna, Branch XXIV, and private respondents Spouses Herminio A. Crispin and Natividad C. Crispin.

On June 20, 1983, the Crispiñes filed a complaint in the RTC, Branch XXIV, Laguna, seeking rescission of a contract and damages arising from a Deed of Sale with Mortgage dated March 31, 1975. The complaint alleged that the buyers (petitioners) defaulted on installment payments (only one late installment was paid) despite repeated demands. The petitioners answered with a counterclaim on November 14, 1983 and later moved to dismiss (filed July 16, 1984), contending that (1) rescission was not available because the deed provided the remedy of foreclosure and (2) even if rescission were proper the plaintiffs failed to comply with legal requirements for rescission.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated November 26, 1984 and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on March 13, 1985. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Intermediate Appellate Court (Court of Appeals), which dismissed the petition for lack of merit in a decision dated November 8, 1985 (with resolutions of December 6, 1985 and February 28, 1986). Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • In a deed of sale coupled with a mortgage to secure payment of the purchase price, may the seller resort to rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code when the deed itself and the law afford the remedy of foreclosure (i.e., is rescission available in the presence of a remedy of foreclosure under Article 1383)?
  • May the seller legally demand rescission of a deed of sale with mortgage without offering to restore what the buyer has paid under Article 1385 or without complying with the requiremen...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms