Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15 Angeles v. Calazanz
15 Angeles v. Calazanz
SYLLABUS
DECISION
The facts being undisputed, the Court of Appeals certified the case to
us since only pure questions of law have been raised for appellate review.
On December 19, 1957, defendants-appellants Ursula Torres Calasanz
and Tomas Calasanz and plaintiffs-appellees Buenaventura Angeles and
Teofila Juani entered into a contract to sell a piece of land located in Cainta,
Rizal for the amount of P3,920.00 plus 7% interest per annum.
The plaintiffs-appellees made a downpayment of P392.00 upon the
execution of the contract. They promised to pay the balance in monthly
installments of P41.20 until fully paid, the installments being due and
payable on the 19th day of each month. The plaintiffs-appellees paid the
monthly installments until July 1966, when their aggregate payment already
amounted to P4,533.38. On numerous occasions, the defendants-appellants
accepted and received delayed installment payments from the plaintiffs-
appellees.
On December 7, 1966, the defendants-appellants wrote the plaintiffs-
appellees a letter requesting the remittance of past due accounts.
On January 28, 1967, the defendants-appellants cancelled the said
contract because the plaintiffs-appellees failed to meet subsequent
payments. The plaintiffs' letter with their plea for reconsideration of the said
cancellation was denied by the defendants-appellants.
The plaintiffs-appellees filed Civil Case No. 8943 with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Seventh Judicial District, Branch X to compel the
defendants-appellants to execute in their favor the final deed of sale alleging
inter alia that after computing all subsequent payments for the land in
question, they found out that they have already paid the total amount of
P4,533.38 including interests, realty taxes and incidental expenses for the
registration and transfer of the land.
The defendants-appellants alleged in their answer that the complaint
states no cause of action and that the plaintiffs-appellees violated paragraph
six (6) of the contract to sell when they failed and refused to pay and/or offer
to pay the monthly installments corresponding to the month of August, 1966
for more than five (5) months, thereby constraining the defendants-
appellants to cancel the said contract. LLphil
"The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the
rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either
case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment,
if the later should become impossible."
xxx xxx xxx
Article 1191 is explicit. In reciprocal obligations, either party has the
right to rescind the contract upon the failure of the other to perform the
obligation assumed thereunder. Moreover, there is nothing in the law that
prohibits the parties from entering into an agreement that violation of the
terms of the contract would cause its cancellation even without court
intervention (Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, Co., et al., 12 SCRA 276) —
"Well settled is, however, the rule that a judicial action for the
rescission of a contract is not necessary where the contract provides
that it may be revoked and cancelled for violation of any of its terms
and conditions' (Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 37 SCRA 327, 334,
and cases cited therein).
The rule that it is not always necessary for the injured party to resort to
court for rescission of the contract when the contract itself provides that it
may be rescinded for violation of its terms and conditions, was qualified by
this Court in University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles, (35 SCRA 102)
where we explained that:
"Of course, it must be understood that the act of a party in
treating a contract as cancelled or resolved on account of infractions
by the other contracting party must be made known to the other and is
always provisional, being ever subject to scrutiny and review by the
proper court. If the other party denies that rescission is justified, it is
free to resort to judicial action in its own behalf, and bring the matter
to court. Then, should the court, after due hearing, decide that the
resolution of the contract was not warranted, the responsible party will
be sentenced to damages; in the contrary case, the resolution will be
affirmed, and the consequent indemnity awarded to the party
prejudiced.
"In other words, the party who deems the contract violated many
consider it resolved or rescinded, and act accordingly, without previous
court action, but it proceeds at its own risk. For it is only the final
judgment of the corresponding court that will conclusively and finally
settle whether the action taken was or was not correct in law . . .
because they failed to pay the August installment, despite demand, for more
than four (4) months.
The breach of the contract adverted to by the defendants-appellants is
so slight and casual when we consider that apart from the initial
downpayment of P392.00 the plaintiffs-appellees had already paid the
monthly installments for a period of almost nine (9) years. In other words, in
only a short time, the entire obligation would have been paid. Furthermore,
although the principal obligation was only P3,920.00 excluding the 7 percent
interests, the plaintiffs-appellees had already paid an aggregate amount of
P4,533.38. To sanction the rescission made by the defendants-appellants will
work injustice to the plaintiffs-appellees. (See J.M. Tuazon and Co., Inc. v.
Javier, 31 SCRA 829) It would unjustly enrich the defendants-appellants.
Article 1234 of the Civil Code which provides that: cdphil