This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-09-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Although the complaint is labeled as an action for specific performance thereby giving the impression that it is based on contract, the allegations therein reveal that the action is based on law, i.e., Rep. Act No. 6758. We have ruled that the cause of action is determined from the allegations of a complaint, not from its caption.[18] Moreover, the focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations. The determination is confined to the four corners of the complaint and nowhere else.[19] | |||||
|
2005-06-23 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that in a contract of sale, the non-payment of the price is a resolutory condition which extinguishes the transaction that, for a time, existed and discharges the obligation created under the transaction.[36] A seller cannot unilaterally and extrajudicially rescind a contract of sale unless there is an express stipulation authorizing it. In such case, the vendor may file an action for specific performance or judicial rescission.[37] | |||||
|
2003-03-04 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.[48] In the case at bar, Julieta only realized the defect in the foreclosure sale upon conferring with her counsel who discovered the irregularity.[49] Thus, on March 25, 1983, Julieta filed her adverse claim with the Registrar of Deeds.[50] Three days after, she sent demand letters to PNB and petitioner.[51] Soon after they replied on April 6 and 7, 1983,[52] she promptly sued to nullify the foreclosure sale in the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City on April 20, 1983.[53] She likewise filed a suit for forcible entry against petitioner in the Municipal Trial Court of Mandaue City.[54] Considering all these, we find the delay of almost two years not unreasonable. Julieta cannot be guilty of laches. Her prompt actions upon discovering her cause of action negate the claim that she has abandoned her right to claim the properties. Besides, this defense lacks merit in light of the Civil Code stating that an action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.[55] | |||||