Title
Hodges vs. Regalado y Maria Gay
Case
G.R. No. 46326
Decision Date
Feb 14, 1940
Hodges sought rescission of a land sale contract after vendees defaulted, then attempted to enforce a mortgage. Courts ruled rescission precluded mortgage enforcement, limiting recovery to actual expenses, rejecting usurious claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205218)

Relevant Legal Framework

The applicable law governing the case includes provisions under the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly regarding contractual obligations, rescission of contracts, and interest on debts. The case is assessed based on events leading to Hodges' claim for rescission of the sale contract and the enforcement of the attached mortgage.

Contractual Agreement

The contract specified that Regalado and Gay would purchase three parcels of land from Hodges for the total price of ₱717,362.80, to be paid over ten years with 1% monthly interest. Immediate possession was granted to the vendees, who also agreed to maintain and insure the properties, pay taxes, and satisfy all conditions outlined in the agreement.

Breach of Contract and Initial Legal Action

Three years post-agreement, after failing to make any payments, Hodges initiated Civil Case No. 9794 before the Iloilo Court to rescind the contract. The court found the respondents in default, rescinding the contract and ordering their restitution of the properties along with rental payments due from December 14, 1931.

Subsequent Proceedings and Claims

On March 14, 1934, Hodges filed a new action against Regalado for non-payment of debts relating to the sale and mortgage agreements, claiming that the amount owed had grown to ₱10,235.16. The claim included unpaid interests, taxes on the mortgaged property, and attorney fees, substantiated by a statement of accounts and other exhibits detailing his asserted financial entitlements.

Defense and Counterarguments

Regalado countered by arguing that the mortgage (Exhibit B) and promissory note (Exhibit A) were void due to the inclusion of fictitious amounts and alleged usury. She claimed that the only amount legitimately owed was the cash advance of ₱480, which was explicitly documented.

Appellate Court Findings

The Appellate Court ruled in favor of Regalado, acknowledging that the amounts claimed by Hodges included exaggerated and unlawful charges. The court reaffirmed that Hodges was entitled, at most, to ₱1,871.48, representing the sum of legitimate expenses incurred, including property taxes paid by him.

Legal Principles Applied

The Appellate Court underscored the principles of equity and fair dealing in contracts, emphasizing that res

...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.