This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| While the contract to sell indeed provided for the ipso facto cancellation of the contract “without need of notification or judicial action,” jurisprudence requires, for cancellation to be effective, that written notice be sent to the defaulter informing him of said cancellation/rescission.[62] In Palay, Inc. v. Clave, we held that the cancellation of the contract to sell was void because of lack of notice, stating thus: Well-settled is the rule, as held in previous jurisprudence, that judicial action for 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. However, even in the cited cases, there was at least a written notice to the defaulter informing him of the rescission. As stressed in University of the Philippines v. Walfrido de los Angeles, the act of the party in treating a contract as cancelled should be made known to the other.[63] | |||||