G.R. No. 122088 - GOLD LOOP PROPERTIES, INC. AND EMMANUEL R. ZAPANTA, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, BHAVNA HARILELA SADHWANI AND RAMESH J. SADHWANI, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT PURSHUTAM DIALANI E C I S I O N. - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the balance of the purchase price should now be paid in equal monthly installments until January 1990 pursuant to the aforequoted provision. The schedule of these payments in implementation of this `Co-Terminus Payment Plan' should be as follows: "Date of Payment Amount March 20, 1989 (Covering the period from Nov. 21, 1989 to March 21, 1989) P538,281.25 April 20, 1989 107,626.25 May 20, 1989 107,626.25 June 20, 1989 107,626.25 July 20, 1989 107,626.25 August 20, 1989 107,626.25 September 20, 1989 107,626.25 October 20, 1989 107,626.25 November 20, 1989 107,626.25 December 20, 1989 107,626.25 January 20, 1989 107,626.25 --------------- "TOTAL P1,614,843.80" --------------- By letter [5] dated March 16, 1989, addressed to GLPI, the Sadhwanis offered to resell their rights to the condominium unit they purchased. The letter contained proposals which read: "Per our verbal agreement, this comes to formalize the earnest intention of my clients, Spouses Ramesh and Anita Sadhwani, to sell their rights over Unit R-84 of the Gold Loop Towers, under the following terms and conditions: "ACQUISITION: 198.75 sq. m. @ 12,500 per sq. m = P2,484,375.00 Less: 35% downpayment paid 11-15-88 869,531.25 ---------------- Balance = 1,614,843.75 Monthly amortization payable in = 89,713.54 18 months starting December 1988 until May 1990 @ 3% penalty for = _________3% delayed amortization Penalty per month = P 2,691.41 x 3 months ---------------- Total Penalty = P 8,074.22 "RE-SALE: 198.75 sq. m. @ P14,500.00 per sq. m = P2,881,875.00 Less: Balance = 1,614,843.75 P1,267,031.25 Less: Interest for delayed Amortization = 8,074.22 ---------------- Net cash involved payable in 6 months = P1,258,957.03" Petitioners rejected the offer on the resale of the rights over the condominium unit proposed by private respondents because the offer was unreasonable, unfair and inequitable. On March 19 and April 25, 1989, respondent Ramesh J. Sadhwani demanded a copy of the contract to sell, noting that his wife had no official document to show that she bought a condominium unit from GLPI and there were conditions and/or stipulations in the contract which she could not be expected to comply with, unless a copy of the same be given to her. By letter dated May 22, 1989 to GLPI, respondent Sadhwani's counsel made a formal demand for the delivery to him of a copy of the contract to sell. Spouses Sadhwanis failed to pay any of the monthly amortizations in the payment plan. On August 7, 1989, petitioners sent a letter demanding payment of the balance amounting to P1,614,814.80, and informed the Sadhwanis that GLPI will rescind the Contract to Sell and automatically forfeit their down payment should they fail to pay within five (5) days from receipt of the letter in accordance with section 8 of the contract to sell. [6] On August 14, 1990, spouses Sadhwanis filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (hereinafter referred to as "HLURB"), a complaint for specific performance wit