7/25/2019 Goldenrod v CA

1/2

GOLDENROD, INC.,petitioner vs.COURT OF APPEALS,

PIO BARRETTO & SONS, INC., PIO BARRETTO REALTY

DEVELOPMENT, INC., and ANTHONY

QUE, respondents.

Facts

Respondents owned 43 parcel of lands located at Quiapo, Manila, which were

mortgaged with UCPB. In !"", the o#ligation of the respondents with UCP remain

unpaid ma$ing foreclosure of the mortgage imminent.

Petitioner, %oldenrod, o&ered to #u' the properties from respondent who in turn

paid earnest mone' of million which shall form part of the purchase price to

respondents. (he remaining #alance would #e paid once respondents consolidated

the land titles. )owe*er, petitioner failed to pa' UCPB the loan o#ligation ofrespondents on the deadline set for pa'ment. Petitioners then as$ed for an

e+tension from UCPB which was granted to them #ut still failed to pa'. (hen again

as$ed for another e+tension of 3 da's #ut was not an'more granted #' UCPB.

)ence, petitioner rescinded the contract and demands return of the earnest mone'.

Iss!"

-hether the respondents should return the earnest mone' paid #' the petitioner.

R!#$n%

es. /rt. 3"0 of the Ci*il Code pro*ides that rescission creates the o#ligation toreturn the things which were the o#1ect of the contract together with their fruits and

interest. Pri*ate respondents did not interpose an' o#1ection to the rescission #'

petitioner to the agreement. If the part' does not oppose the declaration of

rescission of the other part', specif'ing the grounds therefor, and it fails to repl' or

protest against it, its silence thereon suggests an admission of the *eracit' and

*alidit' of the rescinding part'2s claim.

(he *endor is therefore o#liged to return the purchase price paid to him #' the

#u'er if the latter rescinds the sale, or when the transaction was called o& and the

su#1ect propert' had alread' #een sold to a third person, as what o#tained in this

case. (herefore, #' *irtue of the e+tra1udicial rescission of the contract to sell #'

petitioner without opposition from pri*ate respondents who, in turn, sold the

propert' to other persons, pri*ate respondent B/RR(( R/5(, as the *endor,

had the o#ligation to return the earnest mone' of P,,. plus legal interest

from the date it recei*ed notice of rescission from petitioner, i.e., 3 /ugust !"",

up to the date of the return or pa'ment. It would #e most ine6uita#le if respondent

B/RR(( R/5( would #e allowed to retain petitioner7s pa'ment

of P,,. and at the same time appropriate the proceeds of the second sale

made to another.

7/25/2019 Goldenrod v CA

2/2