G.R. No. 115966 - JUANA ALMIRA, RENATO GARCIA, ROGELIO GARCIA, RODOLFO GARCIA, ROSITA GARCIA, RHODORA GARCIA, ROSALINDA GARCIA, ROLANDO GARCIA AND RAFAEL GARCIA REPRESENTED IN THIS SUIT BY EDGARDO ALVAREZ, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND FEDERICO BRIONES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant decreeing the rescission of the Kasunduan ng Pagbibilihan dated July 5, 1984 and ordering the defendant to return and restore possession of the property subject of the Kasunduan ng Pagbibilihan to the plaintiffs. For paucity of evidence, no judgment can be rendered on the other reliefs prayed for in the complaint. On the other hand, plaintiffs are hereby ordered to refund to the defendant the downpayment of P65,000.00 and the partial payment of the balance totaling to P58,500.00 plus legal interest. Defendants counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against defendant. [5] In its decision, the trial court noted that proceedings for the issuance of a separate title covering the property subject of sale entail time and the parties could not have intended delivery by petitioners to respondent of a separate title in the name of Julio Garcia as a condition for respondents payment of the full purchase price within six months from the time of the execution of the Kasunduan . Said court observed that even if petitioners were obliged to deliver a separate title in the name of Julio Garcia to respondent, the latter appeared to have insufficient funds to settle his obligation as indicated by the fact that his payments amounting to P58,500.00 were made in trickles, having been given on thirty-nine occasions within a span of two years from the time of the execution of the Kasunduan . It concluded that respondent refused to complete payment of the full purchase price not because of the failure of petitioners to deliver a separate title in the name of Julio Garcia but because respondent simply did not have sufficient funds at hand. The Court of Appeals, however, noting that the Kasunduan made no reference to TCT No. RT-1076, reversed the decision of the trial court, and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court opined that the parties intended to refer to a separate title over the 21,460 square meter lot when the Kasunduan mentioned a kaukulang titulo ng lupang nabanggit since it was the portion which was covered by a separate tax declaration in the name of Julio Garcia and it was the portion that petitioners could sell. The appellate court noted that the actuations of the parties subsequent to the execution of the Kasunduan confirmed respondents claim that a separate title to the property subject of the Kasunduan should be delivered to him. Nevertheless, respondents counterclaim for damages was dismissed on the ground that the filing of the complaint for rescission was not attended by malice, there being an honest difference of opinion between the parties as to the interpretation of the Kasunduan . Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, petitioners filed before us the instant petition for certiorari , raising issues which may essentially be summarized as follows: (1) whether payment of the balance of the purchase price is conditione