Skip to main content

J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. VS. JAVIER

J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. VS. JAVIER
G.R. NO. L-28569 February 27, 1970

FACTS: On September 7, 1954, petitioner J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. entered a contract to sell with respondent Ligaya Javier a parcel of land known as Lot No. 28, Block No. 356, PSD 30328, of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision for the sum of Php3,691.20 with 10% interest per annum; Php396.12 will be payable upon execution of the contract, and an installment of Php43.92 monthly for a period of ten (10) years. It was further stipulated in the contract, particularly the sixth paragraph, that upon failure of respondent to pay the monthly installment, she is given a one month grace period to pay such installment together with the monthly installment falling on the said grace period. Furthermore, failure to pay both monthly installments, respondent will pay an additional 10% interest. And after 90 days from the end of the grace period, petitioner can rescind the contract, the payments made by respondent will be considered as rentals. Upon the execution of the contract, respondent religiously paid the monthly installment until January 5, 1962. Respondent, however, was unable to the pay the monthly installments within the grace period which petitioner, subsequently, sent a letter to respondent on May 22, 1964 that the contract has been rescinded and asked the respondent to vacate the said land. So, upon failure of respondent to vacate the said land, petitioner filed an action to the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the rescission of the contract. The CFI rendered a decision in favor of respondent in applying Article 1592 of the New Civil Code. Hence, petitioner made an appeal to the Supreme Court alleging that since Article 1592 of the New
Civil applies only to contracts of sale and not in contracts to sell.

ISSUE:
Did the CFI erroneously apply Article 1592 of the New Civil Code?

RULING: Yes. Regardless, however, of the propriety of applying Article 1592, petitioner has not been denied substantial justice under Article 1234 of the New Civil Code. In this connection, respondent religiously satisfied the monthly installments for almost eight (8) years or up to January 5, 1962. It has been shown that respondent had already paid Php4,134.08 as of January 5, 1962 which is beyond the stipulated amount of Php3,691.20. Also, respondent has offered to pay all installments overdue including the stipulated interest, attorney’s fees and the costs which the CFI accordingly sentenced respondent to pay such installment, interest, fees and costs. Thus, petitioner will be able recover everything that was due
thereto. Under these circumstances, the SC feel that, in the interest of justice and equity, the decision appealed from may be upheld upon the authority of Article 1234 of the New Civil Code.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Committee of the Senate issued inv
3 comments
Read more

Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (
Post a Comment
Read more

oblicon digests

MAGDALENA ESTATE VS. MYRICK 71 PHIL. 346 FACTS: Magdalena Estate, Inc. sold to Louis Myrick lots No. 28 and 29 of Block 1, Parcel 9 of the San Juan Subdivision, San Juan, Rizal. Their contract of sale provides that the Price of P7,953 shall be payable in 120 equal monthly installments of P96.39 each on the second day of every month beginning the date of execution of the agreement. In pursuance of said agreement, the vendee made several payments amounting to P2,596.08, the last being due and unpaid was that of May 2, 1930. By reason of this, the vendor, through its president, notified the vendee that, in view of his inability to comply with the terms of their contract, said agreement had been cancelled, relieving him of any further obligation thereunder, and that all amounts paid by him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor. To this communication, the vendee did not reply, and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not require him to make any further disbursements on acc
1 comment
Read more