This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2006-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Rescission will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach of the contract. Rescission may be had only for such breaches that are substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties in making the agreement.[36] The question of whether a breach of contract is substantial depends upon the attending circumstances[37] and not merely on the percentage of the amount not paid. | |||||
|
2006-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As a consequence of the rescission or, more accurately, resolution of the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage, it is the duty of the court to require the parties to surrender whatever they may have received from the other. The parties should be restored to their original situation.[51] | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Rescission will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach of the contract. Rescission may be had only for such breaches that are substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties in making the agreement.[36] The question of whether a breach of contract is substantial depends upon the attending circumstances[37] and not merely on the percentage of the amount not paid. | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As a consequence of the rescission or, more accurately, resolution of the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage, it is the duty of the court to require the parties to surrender whatever they may have received from the other. The parties should be restored to their original situation.[51] | |||||
|
2004-11-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Notably, petitioner was the one who caused the preparation of Purchase Orders No. 13839 and No. 14011 yet it utterly failed to adduce any justification as to why said documents contained terms which are at variance with those stated in the quotation provided by respondent. The only plausible reason for such failure on the part of petitioner is that the parties had, in fact, renegotiated the proposed terms of the contract of sale. Moreover, as the obscurity in the terms of the contract between respondent and petitioner was caused by the latter when it omitted the date of delivery of the cylinder liners in the purchase orders and varied the term with respect to the due date of the down payment,[41] said obscurity must be resolved against it.[42] | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Thus, as adverted to in Song Fo & Co. v. Hawaiian Philippine Co.,[15] we ruled that a delay in the payment for a small quantity of molasses for some twenty (20) days is not such a violation of an essential condition of the contract that warrants rescission due to non-performance. In Philippine Amusement Enterprise, Inc. v. Natividad,[16] we declined rescission for "the occasional failure of the phonograph to operate, not frequent enough to render it unsuitable and unserviceable." In Laforteza v. Machuca,[17] we said that the delay of one month in payment was a mere casual breach that would not entitle the respondents to rescind the contract. In Ang v. Court of Appeals,[18] we held that the failure to remove and clear the subject property of all occupants and obstructions and deliver all the pertinent papers to the vendees for the registration and issuance of a certificate of title in their name were not essential conditions but merely incidental undertakings which will not permit rescission. In Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[19] we went a step further and considered the failure of the vendor to eject the occupants of a lot sold as a "usual warranty against eviction," and not a condition that was not met, and thus, rescission was not allowed. And, in Del Castillo v. Nanguiat,[20] we ruled that the failure to pay in full the purchase price stipulated in a deed of sale does not ipso facto grant the seller the right to rescind the agreement. In all these cases, we were consistent in holding that rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only such substantial and fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement. | |||||