G.R. No. 195072 - BONIFACIO DANAN, VS. SPOUSES GREGORIO SERRANO AND ADELAIDA REYES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court, in multiple occasions, emphasized the importance of the foregoing provisions of RA No. 6552 and upheld sales of land as valid and subsisting due to the absence and/or impropriety of the requisite notice of cancellation. In Pagtalunan v. Dela Cruz Vda. de Manzano , [32] for instance, the Court ordered the seller to transfer the title to the buyer upon the latter's payment of the balance of the purchase price because of the invalidity of the seller's cancellation of their contract. Contrary to the seller's contention, the letter he sent demanding the buyer to vacate the premises due to the latter's failure to pay did not sufficiently conform to the conditions imposed by law. What is required, the Court explained, is a "notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by notarial act," which is not the same as a demand letter. In another instance, the Court, in Spouses Ramos v. Spouses Heruela , [33] held that in view of the absence of the requisite notice of cancellation, as well as a demand for rescission by notarial act to the buyer, the contract to sell remained effective. Consequently, said buyer had not lost the statutory grace period within which to pay the remaining installments even after the date stipulated in their agreement. The Court added that the action for reconveyance of property filed by the seller cannot be deemed the same as an action for rescission. Thus, when there is failure on the part of the seller to comply with the requirements prescribed by RA No. 6552 insofar as the cancellation of a contract to sell is concerned, the Court shall not hesitate in upholding the sale, albeit being subject to the full payment by the buyer of the purchase price. [34] In fact, in Fabrigas v. San Francisco del Monte, Inc. , [35] the Court even went as far as nullifying a clause in a contract providing for automatic rescission immediately upon default of the buyer notwithstanding the statutory grace periods permitted by the Act. In the instant case, there is no showing that the Spouses Serrano complied with the requirements prescribed by RA No. 6552. As the records reveal, after entering into the sale under the "Agreement in Receipt Form" on June 27, 1976, the Spouses Serrano filed their Complaint for unlawful detainer dated September 10, 1998, attaching therewith the May 1992 document as well as a Notice to Vacate dated April 21, 1998. Jurisprudence dictates, however, that none of these documents constitutes as the requisite "notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by notarial act" mandated by law. [36] In fact, nowhere in the said documents was the sale or its rescission ever mentioned. In their ejectment complaint, the Spouses Serrano merely alleged that on May 6, 1992, they entered into an agreement whereby Bonifacio was to act as caretaker of the subject land and that he shall voluntarily vacate the same within three (3) months from the receipt of a notice to vacate. [37] Notwithstanding the failure by the spo