Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Court of
G.R. 48195 & 48196 | May 1, 1942 | Oblicon | Appeals
Case 1 | Delay G.R 108129 | Sept 23, 1999 | Oblicon | Case 2 |
Facts Delay
circumstances of the Facts
obligation it shall appear that June 27, 1986 – Petitioner purchased sulfuric
the designation of the time at acid from Private Respondent which was made
which the thing was to be in a letter form stating the said agreement
delivered or service rendered between the two parties.
was the principal inducement
o The said agreement was set to begin in
to the creation of the
July 1986 which provides that the
obligation.
Petitioner shall pay its purchases in
equivalent of Philippine Currency five
days prior to the shipment date.
Petitioner is also committed to secure
the means of transport of the said
items from the port of private
respondent located in Basay, Negros
and Sangi, Cebu
Aug 6, 1986 – Private Respondent sent a letter
to petitioner withdrawing the sulfuric acid at
Basay because Private Respondent had been
incurring expense of 2,000 pesos per day for
each day of delay in shipment.
Oct 3, 1986 – Petitioner paid 553,280 for the
500 tons of sulfuric acid which it ordered.
Nov. 19, 1986 – Petitioner chartered a ship, the
ship was assigned to carry the volume of the
sulfuric acid to the loading-port of Private
Respondent from Basay. However, the ship
withdrew only 70 metric tons of the said item
because the ship tilted while carrying the said
cargo
o The ship then underwent repairs.
Dec 12, 1986 – Private Respondent demanded
petitioner through a letter to retrieve the
remaining acid in the Basay Tanks so that it
can be emptied on or before Dec 15, 1986
Respondent states that it would charge
petitioner the storage and costs for the Basay
tanks including all other expenses due to
loading delay if petitioner fails to comply.
Dec 15, 1986 – the ship chartered by petitioner
docked in Cebu but withdrew only 157 tons of
the sulfuric acid. The vessel tilted again, and
loading was aborted.
o After the said incident, the chartered
Ship M/T Sultan Kayumanggi sank with
227.51 Metric tons of sulfuric acid on
board.
Petitioner then chartered another vessel with a
bigger capacity. Then on the dates of Jan 26
and Mar 20, 1987. Melecio Hernandez acting
for the petitioner, addressed letters to private
respondent concerning additional orders of
sulfuric acid to replace its sunken purchases.
With no reply, Petitioner sent another letter on
May 15, 1987.
January 25, 1988 – Petitioner’s Counsel sent a The Prescriptive period to
demand letter to private respondent for the institute action upon written
delivery of sulfuric acid paid by his client or the contract was interrupted by the
return of the purchase price of 307,530 pesos. issuance of an injunctive write.
o Private Respondent replied on March 8, In this case, the court ruled that the appellants
could not have prospered in any suit to compel
1988 and instructed petitioner to lift
performance or payment from the appellees-
the remaining 30 MT of sulfuric acid
buyers, because appellants were in no position to
from Basay or pay maintenance and
perform their own corresponding obligation to
storage expenses commencing August deliver to and maintain said buyers in possession
1, 1986. of the lots.
July 6, 1988 – Petitioner wrote another letter o A party unable to comply with own
insisting on picking up the 272.49 MT and an obligations under a contract cannot
additional 227.51 MT of acid as Petitioner demand rescission thereof. The right to
already paid a chartered vessel for the full rescind a contract can be demanded only
capacity. Debtor delays performance if a party thereto is ready, willing and
able to comply with his own obligations.
o Creditor requires the performance
( Art. 1191 NCC)
judicially or extrajudicially.
IN a contract of sale, the vendor is bound to
Binalbagan Tech Inc v. Court of Appeals
transfer the ownership of and deliver as well as
G.R 100594 | Mar. 10, 1993 | Oblicon | Case 3 | Kinds warrant the thing which is the object of the sale.
of Delay
o Additionally, from the years 1974 to
Facts 1982, Private Respondent’s warranty
May 11, 1967 – Private Respondents through a against eviction given to buyer Petitioner
certain Angelina Echaus in her capacity as was breached though it was not her fault.
administrator of the intestate of Mr. Puetevella Thus, on the period of 1974 to 1982,
private respondent was not in a legal
nd damages. position to demand compliance of the
RTC Decision prestation of petitioner to pay the price of
said subdivision rights. Her right to
The RTC declared that the case had not fraud and
demand payment was suspended during
on top of that, the action on the written contract
1974 to 1982.
had already long prescribed, judgment is
rendered in favor of the defendants and against Lastly, the Court cited the principle against unjust
the plaintiffs, dismissing the complaint. enrichment where a situation of unjust
enrichment would result if petitioner is allowed to
o The counterclaim filed was also dismissed
own the lots without full payment.
for lack of proof.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the
RTC. A new one was made ordering the Petitioner
through any of its officers execute a deed of
conveyance transferring and returning the
Agcaoili v. GSIS
ownership of the lands to Private Respondent.
Issue G.R L-30056 |Aug. 30, 1988 | Oblicon | Case 4 |
Delay
Whether or not Respondent’s cause of action is
barred by prescription. Facts
Balance of 11,500,000.00 to be
paid by means of an
assumption by Private
Respondent of Petitioner’s
mortgage liability to the
Philippine Savings Bank or to
be made in cash.
o According to the Court, a grace period Nov. 24, 1958 – Plaintiffs sold to defendant 20
is a right, not an obligation of the subdivision lots for a sum of 235,036 of which
debtor. When unconditionally conferred only 35,056 had been paid by defendants. The
such as in this case, the grace period is said balance of 200,000 was to be liquidated
effective without further need of within two years from the date of the execution
demand either calling for the payment of the deed of sale with interest until fully paid.
of the obligation or for honoring the
o To secure the payment of the said
right.
balance, defendant executed a deed of
o The grace period must not be likened mortgage in favor of the vendors’
to an obligation, the non-payment of seven parcels of land.
which under Art. 1169 of the Civil Code
The deed of mortgage has
would still require judicial or
certain stipulations which
extrajudicial demand before default
states that if the mortgagor
can arise.
should fail to pay the amount
In the case at bar, the 60-day secured by the mortgage or
grace period in the contract any part of the terms and
became ipso-facto operative conditions, the mortgagee shall
from the moment the due have the right to foreclose the
payments were not met at their mortgage extrajudicially where
stated maturities. Thus, Art. mortgagee is appointed as the
1169 of the Civil Code would attorney-in-fact of the
not apply in this case. mortgagor with full power of
substitution to enter and take
Furthermore, the cancellation of the contracts possession of the properties
to sell by Petitioner accord with the contractual without order of any court or
covenants of the parties, thus the cancellation any authority other than what
must be respected. is granted.
o In a contract to sell, the non-payment In this second case, the plaintiffs state that in
of the purchase price can prevent the pursuance to their agreement made in the first
obligation to convey title from case of L-18077 the defendants violated the
acquiring any obligatory force. terms of their agreement in the following
aspects:
While the court concludes that Petitioner acted
within its legal right to declare the contracts to o Defendant refused to pay the sum of
sell rescinded, the peculiar circumstances 200,000 within the stipulated period
found in this case and confirmed by the C.A, it
o The mortgage on the property in o The effect of the demand retroacts to
Bulacan was not registered the day of the constitution of
defendant’s obligation. It is provided in
o The realty tax for the lots mortgaged Art 1187 that the effects of a
were not paid by defendant. conditional obligation to give, once the
condition has been fulfilled shall
While defendant admits that she has not paid
retroact to the day of the constitution
the realty taxes and has not registered the
of the obligation.
mortgage on the property, defendant argues
that the said matters were only minor ones In this instant case, the
which was explained by her in the first case contracted obligation of
invoking the rule of res judicata. appellee was to pay the
balance of 200,000 within two
o In addition to this, defendant does not
years from the date of the
dispute that she did not pay the sum of
roads in question are
200,000. However, she contends that
completed.
the roads have not yet been completed
in accordance with the ordinance of
Quezon City which states that there
should be water facilities and tree
plantings in the subdivision which
according to defendant are not yet in
the roads, thus, the roads are not yet
completed.
Issue
Ruling
Petitioner’s Reply
RTC Ruling
The Trial Court held that the deep well was not
part of the windmill. This is evidenced by the
proposals submitted by Petitioner to
Respondent. Due to the absence of the
agreement regarding the construction of the
deep well, the trial court concluded that it was
not part of the project of Petitioner.
o The Court adds that Plaintiff is not SPGMI has been established regarding the
liable for the collapse of the windmill as deep well.
it was not proven that the system fell o Proprietor also states that he entered
down because of defect. into a contract with petitioner for the
construction of deep well.
Court of Appeals Ruling Art 1174
o For the second issue, the Court ruled
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ruling. that in order for a party to claim
Stating that the deep well was included in the exemption by reason of fortuitous
agreement of the parties because the term was event under 1174 of the Civil Code.
mentioned in the two proposals. Furthermore, The event should be the sole and
testimony of respondent who is the proprietor proximate cause of the loss or
of SPGMI, the company which installed the destruction of the object of the
deep well stated that Petitioner told him that contract.
the cost of the deep well would be deducted
4 Requisites of Fortuitous Event
from the contract price of 60,000.
o Cause of breach must be independent
Due to this, the Court of Appeals ruled that the
of the will of debtor
payment of 15,000 to SPGMI should be applied
o Event must be unforeseeable or
to his remaining balance.
unavoidable
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals rejects the o Event must render the debtor to fulfill
claim of force majeure, ordering Petitioner to
his obligation in a normal manner
rebuild the windmill in accordance with the one
o Debtor must be free from any
year guarantee.
participation in or aggravation to the
Issue creditor.
Art 1167
Whether or not the payment of 15,000 for the o Petitioner’s argument that Respondent
deep well should be included in the 60,000 for was already in default, hence, he
the windmill assembly. should bear his own loss is untenable.
Whether or not Petitioner is obligated to rebuild This is because in reciprocal
the said windmill obligations, neither party incurs in
delay if the other does not comply or is
Ruling not ready to comply.
o When the windmill failed to function,
The Court modifies the decision ordering Petitioner is supposed to repair it in
Respondent to pay Petitioner the balance accordance with the guaranty. As
of 15,000 with interest at the legal rate. provided in Article 1167, that if a
Petitioner is ordered to reconstruct the person is obliged to do something and
windmill subject to the one-year guaranty fails to do it, the same shall be
and to complete the reconstruction within executed at his cost.
3 months.
The Court took notice that the proposal made
by Petitioner does not mention the installation
of a deep well, even remotely. Vernen Realty v. Court of Appeals
o In addition to this, in the itemization or G.R 101762 | Jul 6, 1993 | Oblicon | Case 10 |
description of the materials to be used. Delay
There is no mention of the two Facts
documents Mar. 2, 1981 – Petitioner and Private
o While there is a mention of deep well Respondent entered into a contract called an
and deep well pump, they do not offsetting agreement. The said contract
indicate that the said object is part of stipulates the different payments and the
the windmill. AS the description only agreement regarding the delivery of
describes that the pump is suitable for construction materials for the purposes of the
the proposed windmill. condominium units that are being built by
Furthermore, it is a rule in the interpretation of Petitioner.
contracts that the intention of then parties
shall be accorded primordial consideration and o Private Respondent had paid Petitioner
in case of doubt, their contemporaneous and the amount of 110,151.75 and at the
subsequent acts shall be considered. same time, delivered construction
The Court ruled that payments made by a third materials worth 219,727. Pending the
person does not apply as there is no creditor – completion of the Phase 2 of the
debtor relationship between Petitioner and Condominiums, Petitioner delivered to
Private Respondent Units 601 and 602
of the Phase 1 of the Condominiums.
1982 – Petitioner repossessed unit 602, as a Agreement prayed by Private Respondent
consequence of the repossession, Private when he instituted the case before the RTC.
Respondent had to rent another unit for their Ruling
use when they went to Baguio.
The Court denies the petition for lack of
May 10, 1982 – Officers of Private Respondent merit, costs against petitioner.
requested for clarification of the petitioner’s
action of preventing them and their families In this case, the court ruled that after a perusal
from occupying condominium unit 602. of the offsetting agreement, it is not a question
that the said agreement is reciprocal in nature.
o Petitioner replied that the room was
leased to another tenant because o Reciprocal obligations are those
Private Respondent had not paid created or established at the same
anything for purchase of the time, out of the same cause and which
condominium unit. results in a mutual relationship of
creditor and debtor between parties.
o Petitioner then demanded payment of
27,848.25 representing the balance of In this type of obligation, the
the purchase price of Room 601. performance of one is
conditioned on the
1983 – the loan application for the construction simultaneous fulfillment of the
of the Phase 2 of the condominiums was other obligation.
denied which resulted into the stoppage of the
construction of the condominium project. Article 1191 of the Civil Code provides the
remedy of a rescission in case of reciprocal
June 21, 1985 – Private Respondent field a obligations where one of the obligors fail to
complaint with the RTC for rescission of the comply with what is incumbent upon him.
Offsetting Agreement with damages. Private
Respondent alleges that petitioner had stopped The general rule is that rescission of a contract
issuing purchase orders of construction will not be permitted for a slight or casual
materials after April 1982 without valid reason breach, but only for such substantial and
which violated the offsetting agreement fundamental breach as would defeat the very
between the two parties. object of the parties in executing the
agreement.
o For its reply, Petitioner alleges that it
was private respondent who could not o However, the question of whether a
deliver the supplies stated in their breach of contract is substantial
agreement according to Petitioner, depends upon the attendant
Respondent stated that the supplies circumstances of the case.
were out of stock. Furthermore, In this case, while petitioner argues that it was
Respondent had given a higher price private respondent who failed to perform the
quote for the materials which resulted obligation in the agreement. It averred that
to Petitioner seeking other suppliers. contrary to the C. A’s ruling, the stoppage of
For the issue of unit 602, petitioner the loan for the phase 2 of the condominiums
states that his was done because should not have any effect on the obligations in
private respondent had not paid the Offsetting agreement.
anything for it.
o On the other hand, private respondent
Dec. 16, 1986 – Private Respondent had paid states that the subject of the offsetting
110,151.75 in cash and made deliveries of agreement is phase 2 of the
construction materials worth 219,727 leaving a condominiums, which means that since
balance of 27,848.25 which represents the the construction of the phase 2 of the
purchase price of unit 601. condominiums failed to start, Private
RTC Decision Respondent had reason to rescind the
contract as it cannot wait forever for
The trial court dismissed the complaint and the delivery of the condominium units.
ordered Private Respondent to pay Petitioner
its counterclaim the balance due on the The Court ruled in this case that Private
purchase price of unit 601. Respondent did not fail to fulfill its obligation in
the offsetting agreement. The discontinuance
Court of Appeals Decision
of the delivery of construction materials was
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s rooted on the failure of petitioner to send
decision. purchase orders to private respondent.
Issue o In this case, Petitioner failed to produce
the purchase orders of Petitioner with
Whether or not the circumstance of the case
Private Respondent, however,
warrants a rescission of the Offsetting
Petitioner failed to produce the same to Apr. 27, 1990 – Parties failed to reach an
the Court. agreement, thus, Private Respondents field a
complaint for specific performance with
The non-fulfillment of the obligation of
damages against Petitioners before the RTC.
Petitioner constitutes a substantial breach of
the offsetting agreement. Since the o According to Petitioners, their father
construction of the Phase 2 of the conveyed to them that he had no
condominiums has stopped, it is impossible to interest to exercise the option because
fulfill the obligation, thus, Private Respondent of insufficiency of funds, they were
was correct to rescind the contract. surprised to learn of private
respondent’s demand, thus, they
requested that private respondent pay
the purchase price in full, but they
refused, and the amount deposited by
Respondent was insufficient.
Furthermore, what was presented by
Private Respondent was a bank
Heirs of Luis Bacus v. Court of Appeals certificate which is not legal tender
G.R 127695 | Dec. 3, 2001 | Oblicon | Case 11 | Delay
Oct 30, 1990 – Private Repsondents manifested
Facts
in court that they caused the issuance of a
Jun. 1, 1984 – Luis Bacus leased to Private cashier’s check in 650,000 payables to
Repsondent Duray a parcel of agricultural land petitioners at any time upon demand.
in Talisay Cebu. The said lease was for 6 years RTC Ruling
which ended on May 31, 1990. In the said
contract, an option to buy clause was provided. RTC Ruled in favor of Private Respondents,
finding that defendants should perform their
o Under the said option to buy, the
obligation in the option to buy and to execute a
lessee had the exclusive and document of sale over the property in issue.
irrevocable right to buy 2,000 square
miles of the property within 5 years C.A Ruling
from a year after the effectivity of the
contract at 200 / sqm. Rate shall be The Court of Appeals denied the appeal of
also adjusted in proportion to the petitioners on the ground that private
exchange rate of Peso and USD. respondents exercised their option to buy the
leased the property before the expiration of the
Oct. 10, 1989 – Luis Bacus died. contract of lease.
RTC Ruling