Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Communities Cagayan Vs Nanol
Communities Cagayan Vs Nanol
,
vs.
SPOUSES ARSENIO (Deceased) and ANGELES NANOL AND ANYBODY CLAIMING RIGHTS
UNDER THEM
Facts:
Sometime in 1994, respondent-spouses Arsenio and Angeles Nanol entered into a Contract to Sell
with petitioner Communities Cagayan, Inc., (CCI) whereby the latter agreed to sell to respondentspouses a house and Lots 17 and 19 located at Block 16, Camella Homes Subdivision, Cagayan de Oro
City, for the price of P368,000.00 (P368T). They obtained a loan from Capitol Development Bank
(CDB), using the property as collateral. To facilitate the loan, a simulated sale over the property was
executed by petitioner in favor of respondent-spouses. Accordingly, titles (TCT Nos. 105202 and
105203) were transferred in the names of respondent-spouses and submitted to CDB for loan processing.
The bank collapsed and closed before it could release the loan.
On November 30, 1997, respondent-spouses entered into another Contract to Sell with petitioner
over the same property for the same price. This time, they availed of petitioners in-house financing
thus, undertaking to pay the loan over four years, from 1997 to 2001.
Respondent Arsenio demolished the original house and constructed a three-story house allegedly
valued at P3.5 million, more or less. (Respondent Arsenio died, leaving his wife, herein respondent
Angeles, to pay for the monthly amortizations.)
On September 10, 2003, petitioner sent respondent-spouses a notarized Notice of Delinquency and
Cancellation of Contract to Sell due to the latters failure to pay the monthly amortizations. Petitioner
filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, an action for unlawful detainer against respondentspouses.
In her Answer, respondent Angeles averred that the Deed of Absolute Sale is valid.
Issues
1) Whether petitioner is obliged to refund to respondent-spouses all the monthly installments paid; and
2) Whether petitioner is obliged to reimburse respondent-spouses the value of the new house minus the
cost of the original house.
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
Respondent-spouses are entitled to the cash surrender value of the payments
on the property equivalent to 50% of the total payments made under the Maceda Law.
Respondent-spouses are entitled to reimbursement of the improvements