This case has been cited 23 times or more.
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Branch 7[2] ordering petitioner Leaño to pay respondent Hermogenes Fernando the sum of P183,687.70 corresponding to her outstanding obligations under the contract to sell, with interest and surcharges due thereon, attorney's fees and costs. | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "The sum of TEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE (P10,775.00) PESOS, shall be paid at the signing of this contract as DOWN PAYMENT, the balance of NINETY SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE PESOS (P96,975.00) shall be paid within a period of TEN (10) years at a monthly amortization of P1,747.30 to begin from December 7, 1985 with interest at eighteen per cent (18%) per annum based on balances."[4] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The contract also provided for a grace period of one month within which to make payments, together with the one corresponding to the month of grace. Should the month of grace expire without the installments for both months having been satisfied, an interest of 18% per annum will be charged on the unpaid installments.[5] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Should a period of ninety (90) days elapse from the expiration of the grace period without the overdue and unpaid installments having been paid with the corresponding interests up to that date, respondent Fernando, as vendor, was authorized to declare the contract cancelled and to dispose of the parcel of land, as if the contract had not been entered into. The payments made, together with all the improvements made on the premises, shall be considered as rents paid for the use and occupation of the premises and as liquidated damages.[6] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| After the execution of the contract, Carmelita Leaño made several payments in lump sum.[7] Thereafter, she constructed a house on the lot valued at P800,000.00.[8] The last payment that she made was on April 1, 1989. | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| On September 16, 1991, the trial court rendered a decision in an ejectment case[9] earlier filed by respondent Fernando ordering petitioner Leaño to vacate the premises and to pay P250.00 per month by way of compensation for the use and occupation of the property from May 27, 1991 until she vacated the premises, attorney's fees and costs of the suit.[10] On August 24, 1993, the trial court issued a writ of execution which was duly served on petitioner Leaño. | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| On September 27, 1993, petitioner Leaño filed with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan a complaint for specific performance with preliminary injunction.[11] Petitioner Leaño assailed the validity of the judgment of the municipal trial court[12] for being violative of her right to due process and for being contrary to the avowed intentions of Republic Act No. 6552 regarding protection to buyers of lots on installments. Petitioner Leaño deposited P18,000.00 with the clerk of court, Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, to cover the balance of the total cost of Lot 876-B.[13] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| On September 27, 1993, petitioner Leaño filed with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan a complaint for specific performance with preliminary injunction.[11] Petitioner Leaño assailed the validity of the judgment of the municipal trial court[12] for being violative of her right to due process and for being contrary to the avowed intentions of Republic Act No. 6552 regarding protection to buyers of lots on installments. Petitioner Leaño deposited P18,000.00 with the clerk of court, Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, to cover the balance of the total cost of Lot 876-B.[13] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| On November 4, 1993, after petitioner Leaño posted a cash bond of P50,000.00,[14] the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction[15] to stay the enforcement of the decision of the municipal trial court.[16] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| On November 4, 1993, after petitioner Leaño posted a cash bond of P50,000.00,[14] the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction[15] to stay the enforcement of the decision of the municipal trial court.[16] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Judge"[17] On February 21, 1995, respondent Fernando filed a motion for reconsideration[18] and the supplement[19] thereto. The trial court increased the amount of P103,090.70 to P183,687.00 and ordered petitioner Leaño ordered to pay attorney's fees.[20] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Judge"[17] On February 21, 1995, respondent Fernando filed a motion for reconsideration[18] and the supplement[19] thereto. The trial court increased the amount of P103,090.70 to P183,687.00 and ordered petitioner Leaño ordered to pay attorney's fees.[20] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Judge"[17] On February 21, 1995, respondent Fernando filed a motion for reconsideration[18] and the supplement[19] thereto. The trial court increased the amount of P103,090.70 to P183,687.00 and ordered petitioner Leaño ordered to pay attorney's fees.[20] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Judge"[17] On February 21, 1995, respondent Fernando filed a motion for reconsideration[18] and the supplement[19] thereto. The trial court increased the amount of P103,090.70 to P183,687.00 and ordered petitioner Leaño ordered to pay attorney's fees.[20] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "While the said contract provides that the whole purchase price is payable within a ten-year period, yet the same contract clearly specifies that the purchase price shall be payable in monthly installments for which the corresponding penalty shall be imposed in case of default. The plaintiff certainly cannot ignore the binding effect of such stipulation by merely asserting that the ten-year period for payment of the whole purchase price has not yet lapsed. In other words, the plaintiff has clearly defaulted in the payment of the amortizations due under the contract as recited in the statement of account (Exhibit "2") and she should be liable for the payment of interest and penalties in accordance with the stipulations in the contract pertaining thereto."[21] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The trial court relied on the statement of account[22] and the summary[23] prepared by respondent Fernando to determine petitioner Leaño's liability for the payment of interests and penalties. | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The trial court relied on the statement of account[22] and the summary[23] prepared by respondent Fernando to determine petitioner Leaño's liability for the payment of interests and penalties. | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| First, the contract to sell makes the sale, cession and conveyance "subject to conditions" set forth in the contract to sell.[29] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Second, what was transferred was the possession of the property, not ownership. The possession is even limited by the following: (1) that the vendee may continue therewith "as long as the VENDEE complies with all the terms and conditions mentioned," and (2) that the buyer may not sell, cede, assign, transfer or mortgage or in any way encumber any right, interest or equity that she may have or acquire in and to the said parcel of land nor to lease or to sublease it or give possession to another person without the written consent of the seller.[30] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the ownership of the lot was not transferred to Carmelita Leaño. As the land is covered by a torrens title, the act of registration of the deed of sale was the operative act that could transfer ownership over the lot.[31] There is not even a deed that could be registered since the contract provides that the seller will execute such a deed "upon complete payment by the VENDEE of the total purchase price of the property" with the stipulated interest.[32] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Should petitioner Leaño wish to reinstate the contract, she would have to update her accounts with respondent Fernando in accordance with the statement of account[39] which amount was P183,687.00.[40] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Should petitioner Leaño wish to reinstate the contract, she would have to update her accounts with respondent Fernando in accordance with the statement of account[39] which amount was P183,687.00.[40] | |||||