Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Optimum vs Sps Jovellanos-complied with 3 requisites; applied less than 2 years of payment of instalments
Facts:
PP 1, 015, 000
DP 91, 500
Residential house and lot; Villa Alegria Subdivision Caloocan City
Assigned rights to Optimum Development Bank
Contract to sell
Essentially, the said provision provides for three (3) requisites before the seller may actually cancel the subject contract:
1. the seller shall give the buyer a 60-day grace period to be reckoned from the date the installment became due;
2. the seller must give the buyer a notice of cancellation/demand for rescission by notarial act if the buyer fails
to pay the installments due at the expiration of the said grace period;
3. the seller may actually cancel the contract only after thirty (30) days from the buyer’s receipt of the said
notice of cancellation/demand for rescission by notarial act.
In the present case, the 60-day grace period automatically operated42 in favor of the buyers, Sps. Jovellanos, and took effect
from the time that the maturity dates of the installment payments lapsed. With the said grace period having
expired bereft of any installment payment on the part of Sps. Jovellanos,43 Optimum then issued a notarized Notice of
Delinquency and Cancellation of Contract on April 10, 2006. Finally, in proceeding with the actual cancellation of
the contract to sell, Optimum gave Sps. Jovellanos an additional thirty (30) days within which to settle their arrears
and reinstate the contract, or sell or assign their rights to another.44
It was only after the expiration of the thirty day (30) period did Optimum treat the contract to sell as
effectively cancelled – making as it did a final demand upon Sps. Jovellanos to vacate the subject property only on May 25,
2006. Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there was a valid and effective cancellation of the Contract
to Sell in accordance with Section 4 of RA 6552 and since Sps. Jovellanos had already lost their right to retain
possession of the subject property as a consequence of such cancellation, their refusal to vacate and turn over possession to
Optimum makes out a valid case for unlawful detainer as properly adjudged by the MeTC.
Facts
Contract to sell with BF Homes
Talon Dos, Las Pinas City
BF sold to PDB
Garcia v CA
The trial court erred in applying R.A. 6552,[14] or the Maceda Law, to the present case. The Maceda Law applies
to contracts of sale of real estate on installment payments, including residential condominium apartments but excluding
industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants. The subject lands, comprising five (5) parcels and
aggregating 69,028 square meters, do not comprise residential real estate within the contemplation of the
Maceda Law.[15]
It is undeniable that petitioners failed to pay the balance of the purchase price on the stipulated date of the Contract to
Sell. Thus, Dela Cruz is within her rights to sell the subject lands to Bartolome. Neither Dela Cruz nor
Bartolome can be said to be in bad faith.
Clearly, the demand letter is not the same as the notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by a notarial
act required by R.A No. 6552. Petitioner cannot rely on Layug v. Intermediate Appellate Court[12] to support his contention
that the demand letter was sufficient compliance.
In addition, Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. No. 6552 requires refund of the cash surrender value of the payments on the
property to the buyer before cancellation of the contract. The provision does not provide a different requirement for
contracts to sell which allow possession of the property by the buyer upon execution of the contract like the instant
case. Hence, petitioner cannot insist on compliance with the requirement by assuming that the cash surrender value
payable to the buyer had been applied to rentals of the property after respondent failed to pay the installments due.
Because their maid had received monthly payments in the past,[19] it is futile for petitioners to insist now that
she could not have accepted the aforementioned tender of payment, on the ground that she did not have a special
power of attorney to do so. Clearly, they are estopped from denying that she had such authority. Under Article 1241 of the
Civil Code, payment through a third person is valid [I]f by the creditors conduct, the debtor has been led to believe that the
third person had authority to receive the payment.
Hence, the private respondent was entitled to a one-month grace period for every year of installments paid,
which means that she had a total grace period of three months from December 31, 1990. Indeed, to rule in
favor of petitioner would result in patent injustice and unjust enrichment. This tribunal is not merely a court of law, but also
a court of justice.
Issue- Won petitioner can be compelled to refund the R the value of the lot or deliver a substitutr lot at the option of the
respondent
It was only in the preliminary hearing at the HLURB arbiter that he offered to pay the cash surrender value
Defense: always out of the country
Bereft of evidence that she tried to pay to the last known address
But surprising that even when out of the country, been sending responding notices for payment of arrears through
last known address
If R did not file the case for compelling the execution of the deed, R would not have lifted any finger to give the R
what was due her
Layug does not apply since in that case the R had already filed a case in court for rescission
In the case at bar, the R offered to pay but R refused to accept
Contract to sell is still subsisting so R has the right to pay the balance without interest
But can no loner pay the remaining balance because land had been sold already
So equitable to refund the cash surrender value
Facts
Contract to sell
PP: 915, 815
Down: 183 179
120 monthly installments
House and lot San Jose Del Monte Bulacan
Deed of assignment to UCPB (united coconut planters bank)
Defaulted 9 months
The right to cancel had already been assigned prior to the commencement of the controversy
Granting that the MTCC had erred in ruling that citihomes had no cause of action, the spouses should still not be
disturbed in their possession because Citibank failed to comply with the procedures of the proper cancellation
Spouses failed to pay the 2 years minimum period of amortization(according sa lower court, pero mali diay)
Thus the cancellation of the contract to sell no longer required the payment of cash surrender value
Citihome claims started paying on may 31 2005
But in truth started paying upon the signing of deed Dec 29, 2004(based on prelimin conference
No payment of cash surrender value was made to Spouses
Started defaulting: jan 8 2008—prior to said date was the 3 year amortization