This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There is solutio indebiti where: (1) payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty to pay, and the person who received the payment; and (2) the payment is made through mistake, and not through liberality or some other cause. x x x The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti is based on the ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.[12] | |||||
|
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. | |||||