8 j acinto v kaparaz

8/12/2019 8 j Acinto v Kaparaz

1/10

8. JACINTO V KAPARAZ

G.R. No. 81158 May 22, 1992

OSCAR A. JACINTO and LIBRADA RANCO!JACINTO, petitioners,vs.ROG"LIO KAPARAZ, RA#L KAPARAZ and ROS" MARI"T KAPARAZ, respondents

DAVID", JR, J.:p

Petitioners urge this Court to review and set aside the decision of the respondeCourt of Appeals of 30 July 198 in C.A.!".#. C$ %o. &93', 1the dispositive portionwhich reads(

)*+#+-#+, the appealed decision is herey #+$+#/+ and /+ A/2and udg4ent is herey rendered as follows(1. he Co4plaint5A4ended Co4plaint is herey dis4issed.6. he agree4ent etween the parties dated 7arch 11, 19&& +hiit :Aalso 4ars!appellees tsu4 of P'00.00 paid y the latter to the evelop4ent ?an< of tPhilippines for the defendants!appellants@ P6,&00.00 loan account.%o pronounce4ent as to costs./- -#+#+. 2

he undisputed antecedent facts are as follows(

-n 11 7arch 19&&, herein petitioners and private respondents entered into agree4ent hereinafter referred to as Agree4ent= under which the priva

respondents agreed to sell and convey to petitioners a portion consisting of shundred &00= suare 4eters of a lot located in 7atiao, 7ati, avao -riental ancovered y ransfer CertiBcate of itle %o. !3&9 for a total consideration P1,800.00 of downpay4ent of P800.00 was paid upon eecution of the Agree4enhe alance of P1,000.00 was to e paid y petitioners on install4ent at the rate P100.00 a 4onth to the evelop4ent ?an< of the Philippines ?P= to e applied private respondents@ loan accounts. Paragraphs ', &, and 8 of the Agree4ent read follows(

hat the PA#D - *+ 2#/ PA# is very 4uch in need of cash to pay t

loan to the +$+E-P7+% ?A%F - *+ P*2E2PP2%+/ hereaove4entioned which is very 4uch in arrears and the PA#D - */+C-% PA# is agreeale to advance the su4 of +2"* *G%#P800.00= P+/-/ as partial pay4ent of the said loan to the evelop4e?an< of the Philippines provided that the PA#D - *+ 2#/ PA#D sshall sell, transfer, cede and convey asolutely to the party of the /+C-%PA# an area of /2H *G%#+ &00= /IGA#+ 7++#/ with a frontage twenty 60= 7++#/ along the present national highway, at the corner the afore4entioned land ordering a proposed Bve!4eter sudivision roadacent to the property of the PA#D - *+ /+C-% PA#;


2/10

hat for and in consideration of the foregoing pre4ises and of the su4 +2"* *G%#+ 800.00= P+/-/ which the PA#D - *+ 2#/ PA#sic= herey ac


3/10

June 19, later a4ended on 19 ece4er 199 as a conseuence of the Bling of ta4ended co4plaint, private respondents alleged that the sale did not 4aterialiecause of the failure of petitioners to fulBll their pro4ise to 4as and against the defendants LL

1= eclaring the plainti>s to e the owners of the propeconsisting of si hundred &00= suare 4eters, 4ore or lesdeno4inated as Eot *!16, Psd!11!000'&, which was for4erlyportion of the property covered y ransfer CertiBcate of it%o. !3&9, and now covered y ransfer CertiBcate of itle %

!'86 in the na4e of defendant #ogelio FaparaK;6= -rdering defendant #ogelio FaparaK to reconvey tproperty to the plainti>s herein;3= -rdering defendants to pay plainti>s reasonale attorneyfees in the a4ount of P3,000.00 and to pay the costs.

/- -#+#+. 5

he facts as found y the trial court are as follows(

he adduced evidence will show that the parties herein aove eecuted

certain agree4ent +h. :A: for the plainti>s; +hiit :1: for tdefendants= dated 7arch 11, 19&&, the pertinent portions of which ahereunder uoted, to wit( ro4 the foregoing provisions of the said agree4ent, the defendants herehave ound the4selves to sell and convey a portion of the propecovered y ransfer CertiBcate of itle %o. !3&9, consisting of /*G%#+ &00= /IGA#+ 7++#/, to the plainti>s for a consideration P1,800.00, P800.00 of which had een received y the defendants upon teecution of the docu4ent and the re4aining alance of P1,000.00 shall

paid y the plainti>s directly to the evelop4ent ?an< of the Philippines :ten 10= eual 4onthly install4ents of -%+ *G%#+ P100.00= P+/-+AC* not later than the 1'th day following the end of each 4oneginning 7ay 10, 19&&:. he defendants, on the other hand, have alound the4selves to eecute the Bnal deed of asolute sale of the portiaove!4entioned in favor of the plainti>s :as soon as the settle4ent partition of the estate of the deceased %A#C2/A #. FAPA#A shall haeen consu44ated and e>ected, ut not later than 7arch 31, 19&.:


4/10

2t appears that plainti>s had paid defendant o4ingo FaparaK the a4ouof P00.00 +h. :?:=, the P600.00 which was paid y plainti>s to tdevelop4ent ?an< of the Philippines for the account of the late o4ingFaparaK and the P600.00 was given to said defendant. Plainti> -sc

Jacinto 4ade another pay4ent to the evelop4ent ?an< of the Philippinfor the account of o4ingo and %arcisa FaparaK covered y -Mcial #ece%o. 1113990, dated %ove4er 69, 19&&, in the a4ount of P600.00 +::=. Another pay4ent was again 4ade to the evelop4ent ?an< of t

Philippines for the sa4e account y plainti> -scar Jacinto covered -Mcial #eceipt %o. 133193, dated ece4er ', 19&8, in the a4ount P300.00 +h. :C:= and another pay4ent also was 4ade on ece4er 19&8 in the a4ount of P600.00 covered y -Mcial #eceipt %o. 1331+h. @@*@@=. All of these pay4ents are certiBed y the evelop4ent ?an< the Philippines +h. :+:= to have een 4ade y plainti> -scar Jacinto aapplied to the accounts of o4ingo and %arcisa FaparaK. or tsudivision survey of the lot of si &00= suare 4eters involved in thcase, plainti>s contriuted the a4ount of P80.00 +h. :J:= and anotha4ount of P3'0.00 was paid also to +ngr. Eadera +h. :2:= plainti>s, all

all, aside fro4 the pay4ents that they 4ade to the /urveyor, have paid tevelop4ent ?an< of the Philippines for the account of the late o4inFaparaK in the total a4ount of P00.00 which in already in ecess of tprice consideration of P1,800.00 after defendants had received the a4ouof P1,600.00. Plainti> -scar Jacinto eplained that the pay4ent was ecess of P100.00 ecause the alance of P&00.00 which was originaintended to e paid for the surveyor was instead paid y hi4 to the aplus P100.00 to cover the accu4ulated interests. hus sic=, 4as dnot co4ply with the ter4s of the agree4ent +h. :A:= y having failed pay the ten 10= eual 4onthly install4ents. or failure of plainti>s to pthe 4onthly install4ents, as agreed sic= in the agree4ent +h. :A: =, decided to pay the evelop4ent ?an< of the Philippines of sic= thaccounts. he partial pay4ent was 4ade on July 3, 19& in the a4ount P3,000.00 covered y -Mcial #eceipt %o. 11&031 +h. :6:= and anothpay4ent for the alance was 4ade on August 1', 19& in the a4ount 3,16.11 covered y -Mcial #eceipt %o. 11&0831 +h. ::=.

2t is li


5/10

property suect of the agree4ent, = ruling that the delay in the pay4ents to th?P is only a slight reach of the agree4ent, c= holding private respondents@ failuto protest petitioners@ delay of pay4ent a4ounted to i4plied waiver to rescind tagree4ent, d= declaring that laches did not operate against petitioners considerithat the prescriptive period has not even epired, e= not holding that the parties ainpari delicto, and f= ordering #ogelio FaparaK to reconvey the property in uestion petitioners.

As earlier adverted to, in its decision of 30 July 198, the respondent Court of Appeareversed the decision of the trial court. he respondent Court was of the opinion thaa= he petitioners had not fully discharged their oligation under the agree4econsidering that their last pay4ents to ?P of P300.00 'and P600.00 8were :seve4onths delayed eyond the date5s agreed upon y the parties,: and that tagricultural loan to which the a4ortiKations of the unpaid alance of P1,000.00 of tpurchase price were to e applied had in fact een fully settled y the privarespondents. he application of these pay4ents y the ?P to another account of tprivate respondents was of no 4o4ent ecause the agree4ent of the partispeciBcally referred to the agricultural loan. = %o evidence supports the .conclusi

of the trial court that private respondents failed to protest the delay in the pay4ent-n the contrary, the evidence discloses that private respondents de4anded fro4 tpetitioners the alance of the oligation after the latter had defaulted; having receivno response, private respondents the4selves paid .the agricultural loan. c= he delin the pay4ents was not a slight reach. he dates of the pay4ents were so essentthat they were speciBcally stipulated upon y the parties. he pri4ary i4portance ti4ely pay4ents sprang fro4 the nature of the suect an< account consisting ofloan secured y a real estate 4ortgage which de4anded up!to!date a4ortiKation prevent foreclosure. d= )hile the trial court was correct in holding that oth partidefaulted in the perfor4ance of their respective oligations, petitioners were the B

to incur in delay. here is, therefore, greater ustiBcation to decree rescissio7oreover, even granting that there was no evidence as to who violated the agree4eBrst, then the contract is dee4ed etinguished pursuant to the second sentence Article 1196 of the Civil Code. his Article provides that(

2n case oth parties have co44itted a reach of the oligation, the liailof the Brst infractor shall e euitaly te4pered y the courts. 2f it canne deter4ined which of the parties Brst violated the contract, the sa4shall e dee4ed etinguished, and each shall ear his own da4age.

Gnale to accept the aove verdict, petitioner co44enced this petition wherein thallege that respondent Court erred in not Bnding that( a= petitioners had fully paid tconsideration for the &00 suare 4eters of Eot *; = private respondents@ failure protest the delay of pay4ents can e considered as estoppel on their part and ai4plied waiver of their right to rescind the sale; c= assu4ing that the last twpay4ents to the ?P were not valid as they were applied to another account, thewas at least sustantial perfor4ance y the petitioners of their oligation; d= threach on the part of petitioners was only slight or casual and would not warrarescission of the sale; e= under the circu4stances, it was necessary for trespondents to 4aerescission of the sale; and Bnally, e= the agree4ent was etinguished.


6/10

After the Bling of the Co44ents y private respondents, the reply thereto petitioners and the reoinder to the latter y private respondents, the Court gave dcourse to the petition and reuired the parties to su4it si4ultaneously threspective 7e4oranda, 9which they suseuently co4plied with. 1(

he petition is i4pressed with 4erit.

$ital to the resolution of the controversy is the deter4ination of the true nature of t

uestioned agree4ent. 2s it a contract of sale or a contract to sellN he two are not, course, the sa4e. 2n the latter case, ownership is retained y the seller and is not pass until full pay4ent of the price. /uch pay4ent is a positive suspensive conditiothe failure of which is not a roach, casual or serious, ut si4ply an event thprevents the oligation of the vendor to convey title fro4 acuiring inding force. such a situation, to argue that there was only a casual reach is to proceed fro4 thassu4ption that the contract is one of asolute sale, where non!pay4ent isresolutory uestion. 11-therwise stated, as capsuliKed in Luzon Brokerage CInc.vs.Maritime Building Co., Inc., 12:there can e no rescission or resolution of oligation as yet non!eistent, ecause the suspensive condition did not happen

+panding on this point, this Court, in said case, 4ade the following disuisitions(

. . . he upshot of all these stipulations is that in see


7/10

even after the epiration of the period, as long as no de4and for rescissiof the contract has een 4ade upon hi4 either udicially or y a notaract. After the de4and, the court 4ay not grant hi4 a new ter4.

his Article applies to instances where no stipulation for auto4atic rescission is 4aecause it says :even though:. 1%

he agree4ent in the instant case has all the ear4arective fro4 the date of teecution of the agree4ent. Private respondents unualiBedly ound the4selves eecute the Bnal deed of sale :as soon as the settle4ent or partition of the estate the deceased %arcisa #. FaparaK shall have een consu44ated and e>ected, ut nlater than 7arch 31, 19&: and only upon full pay4ent of the unpaid portion of tpurchase price. he private respondents did not reserve unto the4selves townership of the property until full pay4ent of the unpaid alance of P1,000.0inally, there is no stipulation giving the private respondents the right to unilaterarescind the contract the 4o4ent the vendee fails to pay within a Bed period.

reality, the agree4ent was an asolute sale which allowed the petitioners to pay tre4aining alance of the purchase price in install4ent. )e agree with the su4issiofpetitioners 15thatignos vs. Court of !ppeals1&applies in this case. 2n said case, thCourt stated(

hus, it has een held that a deed of sale is asolute in nature althoudeno4inated as a :eed of Conditional /ale: where nowhere in tcontract in uestion is a proviso or stipulation to the e>ect that title to tproperty sold is reserved in the vendor until full pay4ent of the purchaprice, nor is there a stipulation giving the vendor the right to unilaterarescind the contract the 4o4ent the vendee fails to pay within a Bperiod agua v. $da. de Eeon, 136 /C#A 66; EuKon ?ro


8/10

he Court shall decree the rescission clai4ed, unless there e ust cauauthoriKing the Bing of a period.

2t is not denied that petitioners 4ade two 6= pay4ents in the su4s of P600.00 anP300.00 at a ti4e when what re4ained unsettled under the agree4ent was onP00.00. here was then an ecess pay4ent of P100.00. hese pay4ents were 4ato the ?P which applied the4 to an outstanding account of the private respondenPrivate respondents neither co4plained of the delay in these pay4ents nor reect

their application to their account. hey were, undoutedly, eneBted y tapplication ecause it either satisBed their account or correspondingly reduced it. clai4 that the account to which it was applied was not the account stipulated in tagree4ent is without 4erit. 2n the Brst place, the agree4ent fails to disclose epress agree4ent that the 4onthly a4ortiKations on the P1,000.00 unpaid alanof the purchase price to e 4ade to the ?P should e applied eclusively to thagricultural loan indicated in the exordiumof the agree4ent. he loan was 4entiononly to lay the asis for private respondents@ need for the downpay4ent. 2n thsecond place, to allow private respondents to reect the pay4ent of P00.00, plus tecess of P100.00 after they eneBted therefro4, would e unust.

hen too, at no ti4e efore the Bling of their Answer did private respondents declatheir intention to rescind the agree4ent, or if they did, co44unicate such intention the petitioners. 2t was necessary for private respondents to have done so. As thCourt held in "niversity of the #hilippines vs. e los !ngeles( 18

-f course, it 4ust e understood that the act of a party in treatingcontract as cancelled or resolved on account of infractions y the othcontracting party 4ust e 4ade


9/10

inally, the delay incurred y petitioners was ut a casual or slight reach of tagree4ent, which did not defeat the oect of the parties in entering into tagree4ent. A 4ere casual reach does not ustify rescission. 19he pro4pt pay4eof the 4onthly a4ortiKations of the unpaid alance of P1,000.00 was not a conditiprecedent to the eecution of the Bnal deed of sale. ?esides, petitioners had alreapaid P1,00.00 of the total consideration of P1,800.00, or eactly . of tpurchase price within the period stipulated. 7oreover, they had in fact overpaid tprivate respondents y P100.00.

Accordingly, )e rule that rescission of the agree4ent was not availale to privarespondents.

)e further rule that the respondent Court erred in declaring the agree4eetinguished pursuant to the second sentence of Article 1196 of the Civil Code. *aviconcluded, although erroneously, that petitioners were the Brst to reach tagree4ent, it should have applied the Brst sentence thereof y euitaly te4peripetitioners@ liaility. he second sentence applies only to cases where it cannot deter4ined which of the parties Brst violated the contract.

he foregoing disuisitions render unnecessary any discussion on the other issuraised y petitioners.

)*+#+-#+, the petition is "#A%+. he challenged decision of the Court of Appeais #+$+#/+ and the udg4ent of the lower court is herey #+2%/A+ aA2#7+. Costs against private respondents./- -#+#+.

O)*a+ Ja*n-o L/+ada Ja*n-o, 0--on+ V) Ro3o Ka0a+a4, - a3, +)0ondn-

ACTS

Jacinto and FaparaK entered into anagree4ent in which FaparaK agreed to selland convey to Jacinto a parcel of land forQ1,800, the down pay4ent is Q800 whichwas paid upon the eecution of theagree4ent. he alance of Q1,000 is goingto e paid y the petitioner Jacinto oninstall4ent asis of Q100 per 4onth directly

to ?P as pay4ent to FaparaKR loan in thesaid an


10/10

or the delay on the loan pay4ent, /upre4eCourt ruled out that the delay was a 4erecasual or slight reach of the agree4entwhich did not defeat the partyRs oect orreason in entering into the agree4ent.

urther4ore, the pro4pt pay4ent of 4onta4ortiKation of the unpaid alance of the lowas not a condition precedent to the eecutof the Bnal deed of sale.

8 j acinto v kaparaz

Documents