Title
Supreme Court
Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc. vs. Valbueco, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 179594
Decision Date
Sep 11, 2013
Petitioner validly rescinded conditional deeds of sale due to respondent's non-payment; action for specific performance prescribed, and respondent ineligible for refund under Maceda Law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225050)

Applicable Law

The case falls under the purview of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Republic Act No. 6552, also known as the Realty Installment Buyer Act, which governs transactions involving installment payments for real estate.

Facts of the Case

The two Conditional Deeds of Sale executed on November 29, 1973, outlined the payment structure and conditions for both properties. The total consideration for the properties was stipulated, with specific amounts to be paid upon signing and further installments due within a year, subject to penalties for failure to pay and certain obligations for each party regarding the clearing of the properties of occupants.

Background of Dispute

Respondent Valbueco made partial payments totaling Php275,055.55 but later suspended further payments, claiming dissatisfaction with Petitioner’s compliance concerning clearing the properties and discharging existing mortgages. Subsequently, Petitioner sent a notice of rescission on March 17, 1978, asserting that the conditional deeds were rescinded due to non-payment.

Proceedings in Regional Trial Court

Respondent filed a complaint for specific performance and damages in 1994, which was dismissed without prejudice for lack of interest. In 2001, Respondent refiled the complaint in the RTC of Manila. Petitioner countered by asserting that the action was barred due to prior judgment and that Respondent had not fulfilled its payment obligations.

RTC Decision

The RTC dismissed Respondent's complaint, ruling that Petitioner had indeed validly exercised its right to rescind the agreements, noting that the original deeds stipulated that ownership of the properties would not pass to Respondent until full payment was made. The court determined that Respondent's failure to fulfill its obligations negated any entitlement to compel Petitioner to execute the final deed of sale.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Respondent appealed, claiming the RTC erred on various grounds, primarily focusing on the alleged evasion of Petitioner regarding its obligations and the supposed invalidity of the rescission notice sent to the wrong address.

Court of Appeals Decision

On December 11, 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, reinstating Respondent's complaint and directing Petitioner to execute deeds of absolute sale contingent upon payment of the balance remaining on the purchase price. The Court noted that the notice of rescission to Respondent was invalid, having been sent to a wrong address, which precluded Petitioner from canceling the agreements effectively.

Issues for Supreme Court Review

Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in its findings, particularly concerning (1) the validity of the notice of rescission, (2) the merits of specific performance despite Respondent's admitted non-payment, (3) issues of prescription of the action, and (4) the appropriateness of venue.

Supreme Court Ruling

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reinstated the RTC's dismissal of the case, determining that the notice of rescission was indeed validly served as it had been inclu

...continue reading

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