Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17254)
Facts:
Crispulo Villaruel v. Tan King, G.R. No. 17254, March 29, 1922, the Supreme Court En Banc, Romualdez, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellee, Crispulo Villaruel, and the defendant-appellant, Tan King, executed a written contract of sale on April 14, 1918, by which Villaruel purported to sell to Tan two contiguous sublots (11‑C and 11‑F) in Block 32 of the San Lazaro Estate (with two structures on Calle Bambang Nos. 216–220, Manila) for P2,700. The purchaser paid P1,700 upon execution and agreed to pay the P1,000 balance within one year (extendable another year by agreement). To secure payment the contract declared a special and voluntary mortgage of the property in favor of Villaruel; Villaruel was to occupy house No. 216 rent‑free until the debt was paid, while the purchaser could collect P4 monthly for an annex. The instrument was translated into Tagalog for the Chinaman purchaser and acknowledged before a notary.
When Tan King failed to pay the P1,000 balance within the agreed time, Villaruel filed suit asking that the sale be resolved (rescinded) and that Tan be refunded the P1,700 already paid, plus P100 damages and costs. Tan denied the allegations, asserted ownership in fee simple, and pleaded that before the suit he had deposited the balance due (P1,000, less certain deductions) in the Court of First Instance of Manila at Villaruel’s disposal; the deposit, he said, was refused by Villaruel. Tan counterclaimed that Villaruel, though occupying the house under the contract, had refused a demand to vacate after May 21, 1920, and sought monthly damages of P30 and recovery of merchandise valued at P47.77 taken by Villaruel.
The Court of First Instance rendered judgment resolving the sale in favor of Villaruel and ordering Villaruel to return the P1,700 to Tan, denying the P100 damages. Tan ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the contractual arrangement constitute a sale subject to pacto comisorio permitting the vendor to resolve the sale for nonpayment of the price?
- Did the mortgage and the parties’ stipulations operate as a waiver of the pacto comisorio and/or show the sale was consummated so that the vendor’s proper remedy was foreclosure rather than resolution?
- Did the plaintiff-vendor effect an adequate demand or notice to exercise the option to resolve under Article 1504 of the Civil Code, and if not, did the purchaser’s deposit in court preclude resolution?
- What remedies and monetary adjustments (acceptance of deposit, payment of balance, rents, va...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)