Title
Roman vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-37976
Decision Date
Jul 16, 1985
A 1957 land sale contract dispute where Vendees defaulted, leading to a claim for liquidated damages. Courts ruled Vendees jointly liable, affirming one-third damages with interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-37976)

Contract Obligations and Breach

The contract specified that Sarangaya must obtain the titles within one year; failure to do so would relieve the vendees of their obligation to purchase. Sarangaya acquired the titles on August 5, 1958, and the vendees were notified the following month. The contract provided that notice served to any of the vendees constituted notice to all. Therefore, by October 11, 1958, the vendees were obligated to either pay the purchase price of ₱116,243 or incur liquidated damages of ₱50,000 if they defaulted, which they did.

Legal Action Initiated

Due to the vendees' default, Sarangaya filed a lawsuit against them on January 12, 1959, claiming liquidated damages and other costs. The court considered the complaint a declaration of rescission of the contract. The vendees failed to respond appropriately—one was declared in default for not answering, while another was improperly declared in default after service of summons through publication. Roman answered the complaint but later failed to appear at the trial.

Court Decisions and Proceedings

On March 30, 1960, the trial court ruled against the vendees, ordering them to pay ₱50,000 in liquidated damages and₱1,000 in attorney's fees. Subsequently, Roman filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming he did not receive notice of the title issuance until served with a summons. His motion suggested that he should be granted time to fulfill his obligations under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, which allows for a period to comply if justified.

Settlement Attempts

In hearings that followed, Roman proposed to settle by purchasing the property at the original price, which Sarangaya accepted under specific conditions. However, this offer was never formally accepted as a final settlement, and Roman later became uncooperative. The trial court acknowledged that no agreement had been reached and granted Roman the opportunity to comply with his obligations based on prior offers made.

Critical Judicial Findings

On January 9, 1965, the trial court issued an order allowing Roman to pay at the original price alongside certain costs and fees but made critical errors. It relied on an abandoned settlement proposal and failed to specify a fixed period for compliance as required by law. The court also failed to consider that a substantial amount of time had passed since the original obligation became due.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Sarangaya appealed the trial court's order, leading to the Court of Appeals reversing the previous decision on October 26, 1973. It ordered Roman to pay ₱16,666, representing

...continue reading

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