Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Claims and counterclaims for damages are also dismissed. [19] The trial court stated that the issues before it were: (1) Did petitioner unlawfully evade its obligation to execute the final deed of sale and to eject the squatters/occupants on the properties; (2) Is the case barred by prior judgment; and (3) Does respondent have a cause of action against petitioner.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Claims and counterclaims for damages are also dismissed. [19] The trial court stated that the issues before it were: (1) Did petitioner unlawfully evade its obligation to execute the final deed of sale and to eject the squatters/occupants on the properties; (2) Is the case barred by prior judgment; and (3) Does respondent have a cause of action against petitioner. The trial court said that both conditional deeds of sale clearly provided that ownership x x x shall not pass to the VENDEE until after full payment of the purchase price. Respondent admitted that it has not yet fully paid the purchase price. The trial court held that the conditions in the conditional deeds of sale being suspensive, that is, its fulfillment gives rise to the obligation, the reasons for the inability of respondent to fulfill its own obligations is material, in order that the obligation of petitioner to execute the final deeds of absolute sale will arise. The trial court stated that the evidence showed that petitioner had exercised its right to rescind the contract by a written notice dated March 17, 1978 and notarial acts both dated March 15, 1978. The trial court noted that respondent denied having received the notice and disclaimed knowing the recipient, Wenna Laurenciana. However, on cross-examination, respondent's witness, Gaudencio Juan, who used to be respondent's Personnel Manager and Forester at the same time, admitted knowing Laurenciana because she was the secretary of Mr. Valeriano Bueno, respondent's president at that time, although Laurenciana was not employed by respondent, but she was employed by Mahogany Products Corporation, presumably one of the 14 other companies being controlled by Mr. Bueno. [20] The trial court held that the conditional deeds of sale were executed on November 29, 1973 and were already covered by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6552, otherwise known as the Realty Installment Buyer Act . Under Section 4 of the law, if the buyer fails to pay the installments due at the expiration of the grace period, which is not less than 60 days from the date the installment became due, the seller may cancel the contract after 30 days from receipt of the buyer of the notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the contracts by notarial act. The trial court found no lawful ground to grant the relief prayed for and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Respondent appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, and made these assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in holding that petitioner did not unlawfully evade executing a final deed of sale, since respondent's failure to fulfill its own obligation is material; (2) the trial court erred in holding that it is unbelievable and a self-contradiction that respondent was informed of the mortgage only when it was paying the balance of the properties; and (3) the trial court erred in holding th
G.R. No. 155594 - RHODORA G. BLAS, VS. LINDA ANGELES-HUTALLA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 155594 -
CaseG.R. No. 136308 - ELAINE A. DEL ROSARIO, VS. MELINDA F. BONGA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 136308 -
CaseG.R. No. 140468 - OLYMPIA HOUSING, INC., VS. PANASIATIC TRAVEL CORPORATION AND MA. NELIDA GALVEZ-YCASIANO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 140468 -