G.R. No. 218778 - RODOLFO N. PADRIGON, VS. BENJAMIN E. PALMERO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that this judgment be rendered to wit: Declaring the Deed of Sale dated May 11, 2001 executed by [respondent] in favor of [petitioner] rescinded or canceled; Ordering the [petitioner] to return or deliver to [respondent] the Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38111; Ordering [petitioner] to pay moral and exemplary damages as the Court may determine after trial, and; Ordering the [petitioner] to pay Acceptance Fee of PhP 50,000.00 PhP 2,000.00 for every Court Hearing, and the costs of suit. Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. [40] Without prejudging the merits of the Complaint for Rescission, the Court finds that petitioner failed to establish that respondent abandoned the Complaint for Sum of Money with Damages by filing the Complaint for Rescission. Specifically, a reading of the Complaint for Rescission shows that while respondent sought the rescission or cancellation of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 11, 2001, it appears that what respondent intends to be rescinded by the RTC Daet is only the sale of the lot and not the sale of the building, ice plant, and machinery. This can be gathered from respondent's premise as stated in his Complaint for Rescission that the sale of the lot is separate from the sale of the building, ice plant, and machinery. In the mind of respondent, there are two transactions; first , for the sale of the lot; and second , for the sale of the building, ice plant, and machinery. Further, the consideration for the purchase of the building, ice plant, and the machinery is separate from the consideration for the purchase of the lot where the ice plant and the machinery stand. Notably, while the complaint is one for rescission, respondent only discussed therein petitioner's failure to deliver the titles of the land with TCT Nos. T-42380 and T-42381 or pay the sum of P1,000,000.00. Respondent did not raise petitioner's failure to replace the two dishonored checks amounting to a total of P800,000.00 which, undoubtedly, is a breach of the agreement which may give rise to rescission under Article 1191 [41] of the Civil Code. However, respondent omitted any discussion as to the postdated checks. In fact, in his Comment, respondent averred that the sale of the ice plant building and machinery was already consummated upon turn over of the same. [42] Thus, regardless of whether respondent's appreciation of his agreement with petitioner as elucidated in the Complaint for Rescission is correct, the Court finds that the filing of the Complaint for Rescission by respondent is not sufficient to establish respondent's abandonment of the Complaint for Sum of Money and Damages which is the subject of this petition, and consequently, its dismissal. The Court notes petitioner's argument that there would be unjust enrichment on the part of the respondent if the Court is to affirm petitioner's liability for P800,000.00