Skip to main content

LEGARDA VS. SALDAÑA

G.R. No. L-26578, January 28, 1974

FACTS: Saldaña had entered into two written contracts with Legarda, a subdivision owner, whereby Legarda agreed to sell to him two of his lots for 1,500 per lot, payable over a span of 10 years on 120 monthly installments with 10% interest per annum. Saldaña paid for eight consecutive years but did not make any further payments due to Legarda’s failure to make the necessary improvement on the said lot which was promised by their representative, the said Mr. Cenon. Saldaña already paid a total of Php3,582.06. The statement of account shows that Saldaña paid Php1,682.28 of the principal and Php1,889.78 for the interest. It did not distinguish which of the two said lots was paid. Petitioner, then, rescinded the contract based on the stipulation of the contract that payments made by respondent shall be considered as rentals and any improvements made shall be forfeited in favor of the petitioner. The lower court ruled sustaining
petitioner’s cancellation of contract. So respondent appealed and judgment was reversed in favor of the respondent ordering petitioners to deliver to plaintiff one of the two lots at the choice of the defendant and execute the deed of conveyance. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Was the cancellation of the sale of contract valid?

RULING: No, even though it was stipulated that failure to complete the payment would result to the cancellation of the contract, it was still not valid. As clearly shown in the statement of account, Saldaña was able to pay one of the two said lots. Under Article 1234 of the New Civil Code, “if the obligation has been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may recover as though there had been a strict and complete fulfillment, less damages suffered by the obligee”. Hence, under the authority of Article 1234 of the New Civil Code, Saladaña is entitled to one of the two lots of his choice and the interest paid shall be forfeited in favor of the petitioners

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Art XI, Sec2 Ombudsman vs. Mojica GR 146486 The case had its inception on 29 December 1999, when twenty-two officials and employees of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (OMB) for the Visayas, led by its two directors, filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman requesting an investigation on the basis of allegations that then Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, private respondent Arturo Mojica, committed the following: 1. Sexual harassment against Rayvi Padua-Varona; 2. Mulcting money from confidential employees James Alueta and Eden Kiamco; and 3. Oppression against all employees in not releasing the P7,200.00 benefits of OMB-Visayas employees. The complaints in Criminal Case No. OMB-0-00-0615 and Administrative Case No. OMB-ADM-0-00-0316, were dismissed. Thereupon, on 15 January 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before this Court “a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and alternatively, an original spe...
Post a Comment
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

NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION VS. FEDERATION OF UNITED NAMARCO DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 49 SCRA 238 FACTS: On November 16, 1959, the NAMARCO and the FEDERATION entered into a Contract of Sale stipulating among others that Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) be paid as part payment, and FEDERATION deposits with the NAMARCO upon signing of the items and/or merchandise a cash basis payment upon delivery of the duly indorsed negotiable shipping document covering the same. To insure payment of the goods by the FEDERATION, the NAMARCO accepted three domestic letters of credit which is an accepted draft and duly executed trust receipt approved by the Philippine National Bank. Upon arrival of the goods in Manila in January, 1960, the NAMARCO billed FEDERATION Statement of Account for P277,357.91, covering shipment of the 2,000 cartons of PK Chewing Gums, 1,000 cartons of Juicy Fruit Chewing Gums, and 500 cartons of Adams Chicklets; Statement of Account of P135,891.32, covering shipment of the ...
Post a Comment
Read more