GATCHALIAN REALTY, INC (GRI)., vs.EVELYN M.

ANGELES (2013)
Petition is denied.

1. On 28 December 1994, [Angeles] purchased a house and lot from [GRI] valued at Seven Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Php 750,000.00) and Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 450,000.00),
respectively, with twenty-four percent (24%) interest per annum to be paid by installment within a
period of ten years;
2. The house and lot were delivered to [Angeles] in 1995. under the contracts to sell executed between the
parties, [GRI] retained ownership of the property until full payment of the purchase price;
3. , [Angeles] failed to satisfy her monthly installments with [GRI]. [Angeles] was only able to pay thirty-
five (35) installments for THE HOUSE and forty-eight (48) installments for THE LOT. According to
[GRI], [Angeles] was given at least twelve (12) notices for payment in a span of three (3) years but she
still failed to settle her account despite receipt of said notices and without any valid reason;
4. After giving a total of fifty-one (51) months grace period for both contracts and in consideration of the
continued disregard of the demands of [GRI], [Angeles] was served with a notice of notarial rescission
dated 11 September 2003 by registered mail which she allegedly received on 19 September 2003 as
evidenced by a registry return receipt.
5. Consequently [Angeles] was furnished by [GRI] with a demand letter dated 26 September 2003
demanding her to pay the amount of One Hundred Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Four Pesos and
Forty Two Centavos (Php 112,304.42) as outstanding reasonable rentals for her use and occupation of
the house and lot as of August 2003 and to vacate the same;
6. [Angeles] subsequently sent postal money orders through registered mail to [GRI].
7. [GRI] SAID that the postal money orders will only be accepted if the same will serve as payment of her
outstanding rentals and not as monthly amortization;
8. For her continued failure to satisfy her obligations with [GRI] and her refusal to vacate the house and
lot, [GRI] filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against [Angeles] on 11 November 2003;
9. The MeTC of Branch 79, Las Piñas City ruled in favor of GRI. The MeTC determined that the case was
for an unlawful detainer, and thus assumed jurisdiction. The MeTC further held that the facts show that
GRI was able to establish the validity of the rescission; Although the MeTC agreed with Angeles that
her total payment is already more than the contracted amount, the MeTC found that Angeles did not
pay the monthly amortizations in accordance with the terms of the contract.
10. Angeles’ appeal before Branch 197 of the Las Piñas RTC initially produced a result favorable to
her. The RTC found that the case was one for ejectment. As an ejectment court, the MeTC’s jurisdiction
is limited only to the issue of possession and does not include the title or ownership of the properties in
question.
Issue:
Won that there was no refund of the cash surrender value in favor of [Angeles] pursuant to R.A. No.
6552; and

The court a quo erred in holding that the actual cancellation of the contract between the parties did not
take place.
1. Republic Act No. 6552, also known as the Maceda Law, or the Realty Installment Buyer Protection
Act, has the declared public policy of "protecting buyers of real estate on installment payments against
onerous and oppressive conditions."19 Section 3 of R.A. 6552 provides for the rights of a buyer who
has paid at least two years of installments but defaults in the payment of succeeding installments;
2. it was error for the MeTC to apply Article 1279 as there was nothing in the contracts which provided
for the amount of rentals in case the buyer defaults in her installment payments. The rentals due to GRI
were not liquidated. GRI, in its letter to Angeles dated 26 September 2003, unilaterally imposed the
amount of rentals, as well as an annual 10% increase;
3. . In Pilar, the developer also failed to refund the cash surrender value to the defaulting buyer when it
cancelled the Contract to Sell through a Notice of Cancellation. It was this Court, and not the developer,
that deducted the amount of the cash surrender value from the accrued rentals. Moreover, the developer
in Pilar did not unilaterally impose rentals;

In Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Panasiatic Travel Corp.,we ruled that the notarial act of rescission must be
accompanied by the refund of the cash surrender value.

This Court has been consistent in ruling that a valid and effective cancellation under R.A. 6552 must
comply with the mandatory twin requirements of a notarized notice of cancellation and a refund of the
 cash surrender value. In view of the absence of a valid cancellation, the Contract to Sell between GRI
and Angeles remains valid and subsisting.

PRISCILLA ZAFRA ORBE, Petitioner, v. FILINVEST LAND, INC(2017)

Petition GRANTED

1. in June 2001, Orbe entered into a purchase agreement with respondent Filinvest Land, Inc. (Filinvest) over a
385-square-meter lot identified as Lot 1, Block 10, Phase 1, Highlands Pointe, Taytay, Rizal. The total
contract price was P2,566,795.00, payable on installment basis FOR SEVEN YEARS.
2. From June 17, 2001 to July 14, 2004, Orbe paid a total of P608,648.20. These were mainly through several
Metrobank checks;
3. Orbe was unable to make further payments allegedly on account of financial difficulties.
4. n October 4, 2004, Filinvest sent a notice of cancellation;
5. Noting that "efforts . . . to seek for a reconsideration of said cancellation . . . proved futile," and that the parcel
had since been sold by Filinvest to a certain Ruel Ymana "in evident bad faith,"16 Orbe filed against Filinvest
a Complaint for refund with damages dated November 13, 2007 before the HLURB Field Office.17 Orbe
emphasized that she had made payments "beginning June, 2001 up to October, 2004."18 She further asserted
that the October 4, 2004 Notice did not amount to an "effective cancellation by notarial act."
6. Filinvest asserted that Orbe failed to make 24 monthly amortization payments on her account, and thus, could
not benefit from Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6552. According to Filinvest, the P608,648.20 paid by Orbe
from June 17, 2001 to July 14, 2004 covered only the reservation fee, down payment, and late payment
charges, exclusive of the monthly amortization payments stipulated in the Purchase Agreement;
7. Arbiter Soriano of the HLURB Field Office ruled in favor of Orbe;
8. 26 the HLURB Board of Commissioners affirmed Arbiter Soriano's Decision;
9. Office of the President sustained the conclusion that Orbe was entitled to a 50% refund;
10. the Court of Appeals reversed the prior rulings of the Office of the President, of the HLURB Board of
Commissioners, and of Arbiter Soriano; and dismissed Orbe's Complaint;
11. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the phrase "two years of installments" under Section 3 means that total
payments made should at least be equivalent to two years' worth of installments.39 Considering that Orbe's
total payment of P608,648.20 was short of the required two (2) years' worth of installments, she could not
avail of the benefits of Section 3.40 What applied instead was Section 4, enabling a grace period of 60 days
from the day the installment became due and further enabling the seller to cancel or rescind the contract
through a notarial act, should the buyer still fail to pay within the grace period.41 It found Filinvest to have
sent Orbe a valid, notarized notice of cancellation thereby precluding any further relief;
Issue: whether or not petitioner Priscilla Zafra Orbe is entitled to a refund or to any other benefit under Republic
Act No. 6552
CAfailed to realize that the notice of cancellation made by respondent was an invalid notarial act. Failing to
satisfy all of Section 4's requisites for a valid cancellation, respondent's cancellation was ineffectual. The contract
between petitioner and respondent should then be deemed valid and subsisting.

When Republic Act No. 6552 or the Maceda Law speaks of paying "at least two years of installments" in order
for the benefits under its Section 31 to become available, it refers to the buyer's payment of two (2) years' worth
of the stipulated fractional, periodic payments due to the seller. When the buyer's payments fall short of the
equivalent of two (2) years' worth of installments, the benefits that the buyer may avail of are limited to those
under Section 4.2 Should the buyer still fail to make payments within Section 4's grace period, the seller may
cancel the contract. Any such cancellation is ineffectual, however, unless it is made through a valid notarial act.
THE CANCELLATION IS DONE WITH A JURAT THIS is not, however, the valid notarial act contemplated by
the Maceda Law;
Itmust be an acknowledgement. Even if we allow a jurat, it still wont be teanable because the person did not
comply with proper id rule or witness rule.

There being no valid cancellation, the purchase agreement between petitioner and respondent "remains valid and
subsisting."86 However, respondent has already sold the lot purchased by petitioner to a certain Ruel Ymana.
Hence:

Filinvest Land, Inc. is ordered to refund petitioner Priscilla Zafra Orbe the amount of P608,648.20. This refund
shall earn legal interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from November 17, 2004 to June 30, 2013, and six
percent (6%) per annum, reckoned from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.
This case is REMANDED to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Expanded National Capital Regional
Field Office FOR PROPER EXECUTION

PEOPLES INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS

AND MAR-ICK INVESTMENT CORPORATION (1997)
Ca affirmed
1. Private respondents Mar-ick Investment Corporation is the exclusive and registered owner of Mar-ick
Subdivision in Barrio Buli, Cainta, Rizal. On May 29, 1961, private respondents entered into six (6)
agreements with petitioner Peoples Industrial and Commercial Corporation whereby it agreed to sell to
petitioner six (6) subdivision lots;
2.

Because the contracts to sell had long been cancelled when private respondents filed the accion publiciana de
posesion on July 12, 1984, it was the proper Regional Trial Court that had jurisdiction over the case. By then,
there was no more installment buyer and seller relationship to speak of. It had been recuded to a mere case of an
owner claiming possession of its property that had long been illegally withheld from it by another.

Petitioner alleges that there was a new perfected and enforceable contract of sale" between the parties in October
1983 for two reasons. First, it paid private respondent the down payment or deposit of Contract[30] through the
five checks. Second, the receipt signed by private respondents representatives satisfies the requirement of a note
or memorandum under Article 1403 (2) of the Civil Code because it states the object of the contract (six lots of
Mar-Ick Subdivision measuring 1,453 square meters), the price (P250.00 per square meter with a down payment
of 10% or P 37,542.72), and the receipt itself opens with a statement referring to the purchase of the six lots of
Mar-Ick Subdivision.[31]