This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| We are aware of this Court's previous rulings in Tan v. Court of Appeals,[74] Iringan v. Court of Appeals,[75] and EDS Manufacturing, Inc. v. Healthcheck International, Inc.,[76] for example, wherein we held that extrajudicial rescission of a contract is not possible without an express stipulation to that effect.[77] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In a previous case,[12] this Court has held that Article 1389:applies to rescissible contracts, as enumerated and defined in Articles 1380 and 1381. We must stress however, that the "rescission" in Article 1381 is not akin to the term "rescission" in Article 1191 and Article 1592. In Articles 1191 and 1592, the rescission is a principal action which seeks the resolution or cancellation of the contract while in Article 1381, the action is a subsidiary one limited to cases of rescission for lesion as enumerated in said article. | |||||
|
2006-07-31 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Again, we reject the argument. We held in the case of Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Maritime Building Co., Inc.[23] that even a cross-claim found in the Answer filed in the trial court constitutes judicial demand for rescission that satisfies the requirements of Article 1592. Further, in Iringan v. Court of Appeals,[24] we held that an action for Judicial Confirmation of Rescission and Damages before the Regional Trial Court complied with the requirement of the law for judicial demand of rescission even if the intention of the moving party was to compel the other party to formalize in a public document their extrajudicial mutual agreement to rescind. In this case, the mutual agreement to rescind was forged when the injured party sent to the defaulting party a letter stating that he had considered the contract rescinded and that he would not accept any further payment. The defaulting party replied that he was not opposing the revocation of the sale, save for some reimbursements. We held that though the letter declaring the intention to rescind did not satisfy the "demand" required by the law, the subsequent case filed for a judicial confirmation of the rescission did meet the requirement for a valid demand. | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In countless times there has been confusion between rescission under Articles 1381 and 1191 of the Civil Code. Through this case we again emphasize that rescission of reciprocal obligations under Article 1191 is different from rescissible contracts under Chapter 6 of the law on contracts under the Civil Code.[45] While Article 1191 uses the term rescission, the original term used in Article 1124 of the old Civil Code, from which Article 1191 was based, was resolution.[46] Resolution is a principal action that is based on breach of a party, while rescission under Article 1383 is a subsidiary action limited to cases of rescission for lesion under Article 1381 of the New Civil Code,[47] which expressly enumerates the following rescissible contracts:ART. 1381. The following contracts are rescissible: | |||||