SPS. NAMEAL AND LOURDES BONROSTRO vs. SPS. JUAN AND CONSTACIA LUNA (G.R. No.

172346,
July 24, 2013)

FACTS: Respondent Luna entered into a Contract to Sell with Bliss Development Corporation involving a House and
Lot. A year after, respondent Luna entered into another Contract to Sell with petitioner Bonrostro concerning the
same property. After the execution of the contract, Bonrostro immediately took possession of the property. However,
except for the initial downpayment of P200,000, Bonrostro failed to pay any of the stipulated subsequent
amortization payments. So, Petitioner Luna filed a complaint of rescission of contract with the Bonrostros. In their
answer, the Bonrsotros allege that Luna failed to show up during their agreed date of payment and that they
received no reply in their letter expressing their desire to settle such obligation. Hence they assert that they should
not be assessed any interest subsequent to the date of such tender. Neither should they be ordered to pay interest
which covers the amortizations paid by Spouses Luna to Bliss, because it was Spouses Luna themselves who
prevented such fulfillment by instructing Bliss not to accept amortization payments from anyone.

ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Bonrostro incurred delay in the performance of its obligation, and is therefore
liable to pay damages.

HELD: YES. Since the contract entered into is a Contract to Sell, rescission is not the solution. It is governed by RA
6552 or the Maceda Law, which states that in case where less than two years of installment were paid, the seller
shall give the buyer a grace period of not less than sixty days from the date the installment became due. If the buyer
fails to pay the installments due at the expiration of the grace period, the seller may cancel the contract after thirty
days from the receipt of the buyer of the notice of cancellation or demand for rescission. So, while the Spouses Luna
sent the letters rescinding the contract for non-payment, those are not considered valid and effective since they were
made within the 60-day grace period. The cancellation is invalid, it remains valid and subsisting.

The letter manifesting intent to pay is not a tender of payment. Tender of payment is the manifestation by the
debtor of a desire to pay an obligation. If such tender is refused without just cause, the tender of payment will
discharge a debtor from obligation to pay only after a valid consignation of the amount with the proper court.

Consignation is the deposit of the amount with a judicial authority according to the rules prescribed by law, after
the tender of payment has been refused. In the case, the letter considered as the tender of payment, not
accompanied by the means of payment, and the debtor not taking any immediate step to make a consignation, it
produces no effect, and consequently, the interest is not suspended from the time of such tender. Spouses Bonrostro
are still liable for such interest.

**Regarding the payment of interest on the amount which spouses Luna paid to Bliss as amortizations, spouses
Bonrostro assert that they were prevented by Luna from fulfilling such obligation, invoking the article on the Civil
Code on constructive fulfillment the condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its
fulfillment. However, the Court finds that this provision is inapplicable to the instant case because Luna is the
obligee, not the obligor. There was no showing that any attempt at payment of Bonrostro was refused by Bliss, nor
was there any showing that Bliss actually heeded Lunas’ instruction. Clearly, Bonrostro was remiss in paying such
amortization, so Luna was constrained to pay such to avoid the cancellation of the earlier Contract to Sell between
Luna and Bliss. The reimbursement of the payment to Luna is proper, considering that because of such payment by
Luna, Bonrostro is spared from interests and penalties which Bliss would’ve imposed if such amortizations remained
unpaid. Delay in the performance of an obligation is looked upon with disfavor because when a party to a contract
incurs delay, the other party who performs his part of the contract suffers damages thereby. Spouses Luna suffered
damages brought about by the failure of spouses Bonrostro to comply with their obligation on time. Under the Civil
Code, if the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs delay, the indemnity for
damages shall be the payment of interest agreed upon.