Title
Abad vs. Goldloop Properties, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 168108
Decision Date
Apr 13, 2007
Petitioners obligated to return buyer's first payment unconditionally after failed land sale, as per clear contract terms; SC affirmed lower courts' rulings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168108)

Applicable Law

The governing law relevant to this case includes Article 1370 and Article 1197 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which guide the interpretation of contracts and obligations when it comes to the existence of conditions precedent and the fixing of periods for obligations.

Contractual Terms of Sale

On August 29, 1997, the respondent entered into a Deed of Conditional Sale for the parcels of land at a total price of P34,815,300.00, with specific payment terms that included an earnest money of P1,000,000.00 and a first payment of P6,765,660.00. The remainder was contingent upon the verification of the land area through a site relocation survey and compliance with conditions outlined in the contract.

Dispute Over Payment Refund

The crux of the case centers upon the interpretation of Paragraph 8 of the Deed. Specifically, it discusses the implications of failing to fulfill payment obligations by the respondent, including conditions under which the first payment could be refunded to the petitioners. The respondent sent letters indicating their inability to proceed with the purchase due to unforeseen economic conditions and subsequently requested the return of the first payment.

Trial Court's Initial Decision

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondent, deeming that the petitioners had an unconditional obligation to return the first payment if the sale did not materialize. The trial court viewed the earnest money as forfeited only under the agreed terms, which did not affect the return of the first payment.

Appeal and Appellate Court's Ruling

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, stressing the clarity of the contractual terms that mandated the return of the first payment irrespective of whether conditions for extension were met. It emphasized that the petitioners had no valid justification to withhold the refund given that no ambiguous language existed in the contract regarding this obligation.

Petition for Review on Certiorari

In the substantive petition for review, the petitioners raised issues regarding the unconditional nature of their obligation to return the first payment and questioned whether a period must be established before demand could be made. Their argument hinged on the assertion that the respondent failed to meet the conditions necessary for such a demand to arise.

Court's Resolution

The Supreme Court concluded tha

...continue reading

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.