This case involved an agreement between Jacinto and Kaparaz where Kaparaz agreed to sell 600 square meters of land to Jacinto for 1,800 pesos, with 800 pesos paid up front and 1,000 pesos to be paid in monthly installments to the Development Bank of the Philippines. Jacinto paid the down payment and installments but Kaparaz refused to execute the deed of sale. The court ruled that Kaparaz was not entitled to rescind the agreement because they did not make a demand for rescission either judicially or through a notarial act as required by law. The delay in payments by Jacinto was also only a slight breach that did not defeat the purpose of the agreement.
This case involved an agreement between Jacinto and Kaparaz where Kaparaz agreed to sell 600 square meters of land to Jacinto for 1,800 pesos, with 800 pesos paid up front and 1,000 pesos to be paid in monthly installments to the Development Bank of the Philippines. Jacinto paid the down payment and installments but Kaparaz refused to execute the deed of sale. The court ruled that Kaparaz was not entitled to rescind the agreement because they did not make a demand for rescission either judicially or through a notarial act as required by law. The delay in payments by Jacinto was also only a slight breach that did not defeat the purpose of the agreement.
This case involved an agreement between Jacinto and Kaparaz where Kaparaz agreed to sell 600 square meters of land to Jacinto for 1,800 pesos, with 800 pesos paid up front and 1,000 pesos to be paid in monthly installments to the Development Bank of the Philippines. Jacinto paid the down payment and installments but Kaparaz refused to execute the deed of sale. The court ruled that Kaparaz was not entitled to rescind the agreement because they did not make a demand for rescission either judicially or through a notarial act as required by law. The delay in payments by Jacinto was also only a slight breach that did not defeat the purpose of the agreement.
This case involved an agreement between Jacinto and Kaparaz where Kaparaz agreed to sell 600 square meters of land to Jacinto for 1,800 pesos, with 800 pesos paid up front and 1,000 pesos to be paid in monthly installments to the Development Bank of the Philippines. Jacinto paid the down payment and installments but Kaparaz refused to execute the deed of sale. The court ruled that Kaparaz was not entitled to rescind the agreement because they did not make a demand for rescission either judicially or through a notarial act as required by law. The delay in payments by Jacinto was also only a slight breach that did not defeat the purpose of the agreement.
FACTS: On 11 March 1966, petitioners and private respondents entered into an agreement under which the private respondents agreed to sell and convey to petitioners a portion consisting of 600 square meters of a lot located in Davao Oriental for a total amount of P1,800.00 with a downpayment of P800.00 upon execution of the Agreement. The balance of P1,000.00 was to be paid by petitioners on installment at the rate of P100.00 a month to the Development Bank of the Philippines to be applied to private respondents' loan accounts. The pertinent portions of the Agreement read as follows: 6. That the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART hereby agrees, promises and binds himself to sell, cede, transfer, and convey absolutely to the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART 600 -square meter portion of the property together with all the improvements thereon 9. That the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART agrees and binds himself to acknowledge receipt of every and all monthly payments remitted to the Development Bank of the Philippines by the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART and further agrees and binds himself to execute the final deed of absolute sale of the 600 square meters herein above referred to in favor of the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART as soon as the settlement or partition of the estate of the deceased Narcisa Kaparaz shall have been consummated and effected, but not later than March 31, 1967. Upon the execution of the agreement, petitioners paid the downpayment of P800.00 and were placed in possession of the portion described therein. As to the P1,000.00 which was to be paid directly to the DBP, petitioners claim that they had even made an excess payment of P100.00.In view of the refusal of private respondents to execute the deed of sale, petitioners filed against them a complaint for specific performance with the Court of First Instance.Private respondents alleged that the sale did not materialize
because of the failure of petitioners to fulfill their promise to make timely
payments on the stipulated price to the DBP; as a result of such failure, they (private respondents) failed to secure the release of the mortgage on the property. They then prayed for the dismissal of the case and a declaration that the agreement is null and void. ISSUE: Are respondents entitled to rescind the agreement? RULING: No. Since in a contract of sale, the non-payment of the price is a resolutory condition, 13 the remedy of the seller under Article 1191 of the Civil Code is to exact fulfillment or to rescind the contract. In respect, however, to the sale of immovable property, this Article must be read together with Article 1592 of the same Code: Art. 1592. In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act. After the demand, the court may not grant him a new term. In the case at bar, there was non-compliance with the requirements prescribed in there provisions. It is not controverted that private respondents had neither filed an action for specific performance nor demand the rescission of the agreement either judicially or by a notarial act before the filing of the complaint. It is only in their Answer that they belatedly raised the defense of resolution of the contract pursuant to Article 1191 by reason of petitioners breach of their obligation. Moreover, the delay incurred by petitioners was but a casual or slight breach of the agreement, which did not defeat the object of the parties in entering in the agreement. A mere casual breach does not justify rescission. Rescission of the agreement was not available to private respondents.