G.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

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: "1. As the complaint has been prematurely filed without complying with the mandate of Republic Act No. 6552, the complaint is hereby dismissed; 2. That the obligation of defendant Maria Nelida Galvez Ycasiano has now become due and demandable, said defendant is hereby ordered to pay the sum of P4,007,473.49 as of November 30, 1994 plus 18% interest per annum, computed from 1 December 1994, but within sixty days from receipt of a copy of this decision; 3. Upon payment thereof, for plaintiff to issue the corresponding certificate of title in favor of defendant; 4. In the event that said amount in full is not paid including the current amount due including the interest sans penalties, then immediately thereafter, without necessity of demand, the defendants must vacate the premises and all payments will be charged as rentals to the property. No award of damages and attorneys fees for any parties is being adjudged. No costs. [2] Thereupon, respondents tendered the amount of P4,304,026.53 to petitioner via Metrobank Cashiers Check No. CC008857. Petitioner refused to accept the payment, constraining respondents to consign at the disposal of the court a quo the check on 26 April 1995. In an order, dated 05 June 1996, the check was allowed to be substituted by another cashiers check payable to the Clerk of Court of the Makati Regional Trial Court. Complying with yet another court order of 04 January 1996, respondents deposited the amount of P4,304,026.53 with the Land Bank of the Philippines and subsequently submitted to the court the corresponding bank book as well as the banks verification. Meanwhile, both parties appealed the judgment of the trial court. In its now questioned decision of 11 June 1999, the appellate court sustained the trial court. The denial of the motion for reconsideration prompted petitioner to file the instant petition for review on certiorari , raising the following assignment of errors, to wit: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO RULE UPON THE EFFECT OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE NOTARIAL ACT OF RESCISSION ATTACHED THERETO VIS-À-VIS THE REQUIREMENTS OF R.A. 6552. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN REFUSING TO DECREE THE RESCISSION OF THE SUBJECT CONTRACT TO SELL ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PAY THE CASH SURRENDER VALUE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION ALLOWING RESPONDENT YCASIANO TO PAY ON HER ALREADY-DEFAULTED OBLIGATIONS AND, UPON SUCH PAYMENT, ORDERING PETITIONER TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE TO HER. [3] Respondents, upon the other hand, would insist that the petition should be held devoid of merit considering that: first , the issues raised in the pe