This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-05-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Another exception to the establishment of an implied resulting trust under Article 1448 is when its enforcement contravenes public policy. We have already ruled that the transfer of rights by Eusebio to respondent was null and void ab initio for being contrary to public policy. As we held in Ramos v. Court of Appeals:[29] | |||||
|
2003-07-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| xxx Given such circumstances, the Court feels and so holds that the above-quoted stipulation should not be strictly enforced, to justify the rescission of the contract. To make her forfeit the payments already made by her and at the same time return the property to the private respondents for standing up to what she considered her right would, in our view, be unfair and unconscionable. Justice demands that we moderate the harsh effects of the stipulation. Accordingly, in the exercise of our equity jurisdiction, we hereby rule that the Contract of Conditional Sale shall be maintained between the parties except that the petitioner shall not return the house to the private respondents. However, she will have to pay them the balance of the purchase price in the sum of P52,500.00, with 12% annual interest from July 1, 1972, until full payment. Also, in Ramos, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[28] it was held that although the contract of sale between Herminio Ramos and Lydia Celestino should be voided for being contrary to public policy, we deemed it equitable to allow private respondent therein to recover what she had paid for the land with legal interest thereon commencing from the date of the filing of the complaint. | |||||