Title
Ang vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 80058
Decision Date
Feb 13, 1989
Petitioners breached a sale agreement by failing to clear property and unilaterally altering terms, leading to rescission and refund of down payment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 80058)

Factual Background

In November 1979, negotiations commenced between the petitioners and Lee Chuy Realty Corporation for the sale of their properties. On December 4, 1979, a down payment of P50,000 was tendered by the private respondent via a check, accompanied by a receipt outlining the terms of the sale. Petitioners accepted the check but provided a different receipt that modified the terms, notably omitting the total purchase price of P1,600,000.

Sequence of Events

On January 12, 1980, Rosalinda Ang sent a letter demanding the balance of the purchase price to be paid by January 24, 1980, warning of potential cancellation. In response, the private respondent asserted readiness to fulfill its obligations but highlighted that the petitioners had not completed their promise to clear the property. On March 3, 1980, the private respondent formally requested the refund of the down payment, leading to the filing of a legal complaint for recovery of the sum and damages due to petitioners' failure to comply with the agreement.

Initial Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners on June 23, 1983, granting them damages and ordering the private respondent to pay substantial amounts. However, both parties appealed this decision.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated June 22, 1987, reversed the trial court's ruling, determining that the petitioners had breached the contract. The appellate court ordered petitioners to refund the P50,000 with accrued legal interest and additional attorney's fees.

Legal Analysis of the Breach

The paramount issue examined is whether the petitioners or the private respondent committed the breach. The appellate court confirmed the existence of a perfected contract evidenced by the down payment. It was determined that the omission of the sale price in the receipt signed by the petitioners was a material fact leading to ambiguity. Testimonies from both parties surrounding the agreed price led to the conclusion that petitioners were attempting to undervalue the property to reduce capital gains tax liability.

Nature of the Breach

The appellate court held that while the petitioners failed to fulfill key conditions of the contract—namely clearing the property and delivering a deed of sale—these were deemed incidental and not fundamental to the contract’s core obligations. The court established that rescission should only occur in cases of significant breaches.

Resolution of the Contract

The breach by petitioners was further solidified when they attempted to renegotiate the sale price, indicating a serious breach of contract. Gi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.