Romero vs. CA

G.R. No. 107207, November 23, 1995

FACTS:

Petitioner Virgilio Romero a civil engineer together with his foreign partners wants to put up a Central Warehouse in Metro Manila. Alfonso Flores and his wife accompanied by a broker, offered a parcel of land measuring 1,952 square meters, owned by the private respondent Enriqueta Chua vda. De Ongsiong. The two entered into a “Conditional deed of Sale”. The petitioner paid in advance in the sum of P50,000.00 for the eviction of squatters. Although successful, private respondent sought the return of the advance payment she received because she could not get rid of the squatters.

ISSUE:

1. May the vendor demand the rescission of a contract of sale of a parcel of land for a cause traceable to his own failure to evict the squatters?
2. Is the condition of the contract valid?

RULING:

A perfected contract of sale may either be absolute or conditional depending on whether the agreement is devoid of, or subject to, any condition imposed on the passing of title of the thing to be conveyed or on the obligation of a party thereto. When ownership is retained until the fulfillment of a positive condition the breach of the condition will simply prevent the duty to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. If the condition is imposed upon the obligation of a party thereto when ownership is retained until the fulfillment of a positive condition will simply prevent the duty to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. If the condition is imposed on an obligation of a party which is not complied with the other party may either refuse to proceed or waive said condition. Where, of course, the condition is imposed upon the perfection of the contract itself, the failure of such condition would prevent the juridical relation itself from coming into existence. The right of resolution of a party to an obligation is predicted on a breach of faith by the other party that violates the reciprocity between them. It is private respondent who has failed in her obligation under the contract. Petitioner did not breach the agreement. He has agreed, in fact, to shoulder the expense of the execution of the judgment in the ejectment case and to make arrangements with the sherriff to effect such execution.

 * Case digest by Lea Caipang, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018

By |2018-07-06T03:12:13+00:00June 11th, 2018|Case Digests|0 Comments

Leave A Comment