This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| We are aware of this Court's previous rulings in Tan v. Court of Appeals,[74] Iringan v. Court of Appeals,[75] and EDS Manufacturing, Inc. v. Healthcheck International, Inc.,[76] for example, wherein we held that extrajudicial rescission of a contract is not possible without an express stipulation to that effect.[77] | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court, however, has held in Tan v. Court of Appeals,[48] that: [T]he power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him x x x. However, it is equally settled that, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, this power must be invoked judicially; it cannot be exercised solely on a party's own judgment that the other has committed a breach of the obligation. Where there is nothing in the contract empowering [a party] to rescind it without resort to the courts, [such party's] action in unilaterally terminating the contract x x x is unjustified. In the case at bar, there is nothing in the Owner-Contractor Agreement empowering either party to rescind it without resort to the courts. Hence, respondent Bogñalbal's unilateral termination the contract without a court action is unjustified. | |||||
|
2006-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Tan v. Court of Appeals,[50] this court said:. . . [T]he power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him is clear from a reading of the Civil Code provisions. However, it is equally settled that, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, this power must be invoked judicially; it cannot be exercised solely on a party's own judgment that the other has committed a breach of the obligation. Where there is nothing in the contract empowering the petitioner to rescind it without resort to the courts, the petitioner's action in unilaterally terminating the contract in this case is unjustified. | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Tan v. Court of Appeals,[50] this court said:. . . [T]he power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him is clear from a reading of the Civil Code provisions. However, it is equally settled that, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, this power must be invoked judicially; it cannot be exercised solely on a party's own judgment that the other has committed a breach of the obligation. Where there is nothing in the contract empowering the petitioner to rescind it without resort to the courts, the petitioner's action in unilaterally terminating the contract in this case is unjustified.1 | |||||