Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
For the Plaintiffs, the following are what they submit as the
narration of facts:
ISSUES
III. Whether or not all the payments made by the defendants should
be forfeited in favor of the Plaintiffs or be treated as rentals?
VI. Which of the parties are entitled to their respective claims and
counter-claims for damages and attorneys fees?
DISCUSSION
There is already
meeting of the minds
upon the object of the
contract and upon the
price
2013.
7
Analyzing the facts of the case at hand, it was the Plaintiffs who
initially made the offer through Maximo Tenedero, Jr., husband of the
late Estrella C. Tenedero, to wit:
x x x
COURT:
Wait. Clarification.
Q: She agreed that that is the price of her siblings?
A: The Php2,000,000.00 price is the price of the property
for sale, Your Honor.
Q: And she agreed that that will be the price that you
will be paying for her lot?
A: For the entire property maam.
Okay, continue.13
x x x
x x x
A: Yes maam.26
22 Ibid., p. 18.
23 Ortega v. Leonardo; G.R. No. L-11311; May 28, 1958.
24 Judicial Affidavit of Benedicto Lacanaria, pp. 6.
25 Ibid., p. 10.
A: Yes, Sir.27
This falls squarely with the case at hand since the Defendants-
spouses, while being in possession of the property, also made
improvements thereon.
x x x
Q: Now, you said that when you found out that the
spouses Lacanaria were already inside that property
or occupying that property, you just allowed them
to stay there, right?
A: Yes sir.32
We hold that the facts of the present case rule out the finding
of possession by mere tolerance. Petitioners were able to
establish that respondents had invited them to occupy the
subject lots in order that they could all live near one other and
help in resolving family problems. By occupying those lots,
petitioners demonstrated their acceptance of the invitation.
Hence, there was a meeting of minds, and an agreement
regarding possession of the lots impliedly arose between the
parties.34
Similar to the case above, the case between the Lacanarias and
Caoilis with regard the possession of the subject property is not by
mere tolerance. Here, as in the case above, there was also an invitation
by Joseph.
In fact, it was even the truck of Joseph which was used in hauling
the belongings of the family of the Defendants-spouses.
Q: But you also said that the tenants did not go to you
to inform what has been done by Mr. Lacanaria?
35 Judicial Affidavit of Benedicto Lacanaria, p. 5.
36 TSN; Joseph Caoili; June 25, 2015; p. 17.
37
18
Q: Did Mr. Rafael Agbuya also tell you that it was Mr.
Lacanaria who drove away your tenants?
A: The information that they were driven away by
Lacanaria came from the tenants who informed
Rafael Agbuya and Rafael Agbuya told me.
51. Q: So, what did you do when you received the letter
from Letty?
A: We made long distance calls to clarify with Letty
the purchase price since the Php2,500,000.00 that she
stated was not the agreed price. However, she was
very insistent about the new price of
Php2,500,000.00.40
Under Article 1308 of the Civil Code, which provides that the
contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance
cannot be left to the will of one of them.41 Thus, what Letty did,
unilaterally changing the selling price of the subject property, cannot
be considered as valid.
40
Ibid., p. 9.
41 Philippine Savings Bank v. Sps. Castillo; G.R. No. 193178; May 30, 2011.
20
Thus, rescission being the proper action of the Plaintiffs, such has
already prescribed. It is well-settled that an action for rescission should
be filed within a period of 4 years from the time the cause of action
accrues.42 Since the failure of the Defendants-spouses to fulfil their
obligation in the contract of sale accrued on April 2003 when they
stopped making partial payments, the prescriptive period must start
to run from that time. Clearly, the action has already prescribed.
42
Article 1191 in relation to Article 1146(1), Civil Code of the Philippines.
21
The only action to be done now is for the parties to fulfil their
reciprocal obligations. The Plaintiffs, to execute the necessary Deed of
Conveyance in favour of the Defendants-spouses transferring the title
over the subject property and the Defendants-spouses to pay the
remaining balance of the purchase price. In reciprocal obligations,
before a party can demand the performance of the obligation of the
other, the former must also perform its own obligation.43
43
Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Alabang Medical Center; G.R. No. 181983; November 13, 2013.