Title
Goldenrod, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 126812
Decision Date
Nov 24, 1998
A property sale agreement between BARRETTO REALTY and GOLDENROD collapsed due to GOLDENROD's failure to pay. GOLDENROD rescinded the contract, demanding the return of P1M earnest money. The Supreme Court ruled in GOLDENROD's favor, holding that the earnest money, forming part of the purchase price, must be returned as no forfeiture clause existed, preventing unjust enrichment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137122)

Property Transaction and Initial Agreement

In 1988, Barretto & Sons owned multiple parcels of land in Quiapo, Manila, mortgaged to the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). Following the corporation's financial difficulties, Goldenrod expressed interest in purchasing the properties. On May 25, 1988, Goldenrod sent a letter to Anthony Que, adjusting terms related to payment and property consolidation while enclosing an earnest money deposit of PHP 1 million, which was to be applied towards the total purchase price.

Obligations and Extension Requests

As negotiations progressed, Goldenrod agreed to assume Barretto Realty's obligations to UCPB, which included a PHP 24.5 million payment due by June 30, 1988, and a PHP 20 million balance. Goldenrod failed to meet the initial payment deadline, requesting multiple extensions which UCPB ultimately denied. The property was subsequently reconsolidated into two titles at the request of Goldenrod.

Notification of Non-Compliance and Rescission

On August 30, 1988, Goldenrod, via its agent, communicated that it could not proceed with the acquisition. This decision stemmed largely from UCPB's refusal for further extensions. Following this notice, Goldenrod requested the return of the PHP 1 million earnest money. The property was sold by Barretto Realty to a third party, Asiaworld, shortly thereafter.

Legal Proceedings and Initial Rulings

Goldenrod initiated legal action against the respondents for the return of the earnest money and associated damages. The initial trial court found that there was no agreement for forfeiture of the earnest money upon non-completion of the sale, ultimately ordering respondents to return the deposit, alongside damages.

Appeal and Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Respondents appealed this decision, contending that the earnest money was rightfully withheld under the terms of the agreement for potential losses. The Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s ruling, leading to Goldenrod's petition for review.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Goldenrod, noting the absence of any definitive stipulation for the forfeiture of the earnest money. The Court referred to provisions under Article 1482 of the Civil Code, stipulating that earnest money is part of the purchase price, and emphasized that the lack of an express agreement on forfeiture suggested that retaining the earnest money would constitute unjust enrichment. The Court iterated that the failure of Goldenrod to complete the transaction allowed for the extrajudicial rescission of the contract, which was uncontested by Barretto Realty.

Impli

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.