Mapa vs.

Arroyo
G.R. No. 78585
July 5, 1989
Regalado, J.
FACTS:

Mapa, the petitioner, bought lots from Labrador Development Corporation (Labrador) to be paid in ten
years. Mapa defaulted to pay the installment dues and continued to do so despite constant reminders by Labrador.
The latter informed Mapa that the contracts to sell the lots were cancelled, but Mapa invoked theprovision of
Clause 20 of the four contracts. Said clause obligates Labrador to complete the development of the lots, except
those requiring the services of a public utility company or the government, within 3 years from the date of the
contract. Petitioner contends that P.D. 957 requires Labrador to provide the “facilities, improvements, and
infrastructures for the lots, and other forms of development” if offered and indicated in the approved subdivision
plans.

ISSUE:

Do the provisions of PD 957 and its implementing rules form part of the contracts to sell executed by
petitioner and respondent’s corporation?

RULING:
No. The complete and applicable rule is ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sentencia.
Relative words refer to the nearest antecedent, unless it be prevented by the context. In the present case, the
employment of the word "and" between "facilities, improvements, infrastructures" and "other forms of
development," far from supporting petitioner's theory, enervates it instead since it is basic in legal hermeneutics
that "and" is not meant to separate words but is a conjunction used to denote a joinder or union. Thus, if ever
there is any valid ground to suspend the monthly installments due from petitioner, it would only be based on non-
performance of the obligations provided in Clause 20 of the contract, particularly the alleged non-construction of
the cul-de-sac.