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 Petitioner, then, rescinded the contract based on the stipulation of the contract that payments made by respondent shall be considered as rentals and any improvements made shall be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

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

legal ethics

A.C. No. 3523 January 17, 2005 RASMUS G. ANDERSON, JR., petitioner, vs. ATTY. REYNALDO A. CARDEÑO, respondent. Administrative case against Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeño for malpractice and neglect of duty, stemming from his alleged neglect or deliberate mishandling of a case. Held: SUSPENDED (6) months and WARNED that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely. Thus, respondent’s defenses that the complainant was "uncooperative" as a client, that the voluminous records turned over to him were in disarray, and that the complainant did not disclose to him certain particulars of the case, are all unavailing. Thus, in view of the fact that he remained counsel of record for the complainant, it was highly irregular for him to entrust the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration to other people who did not lawfully appear interested in the subject litigation. As a lawyer representing the cause of his client, he should have taken more control over th...
5 comments
Read more