Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-32811 March 31, 1980
FELIPE C. ROQUE, petitioner,
vs.
NICANOR LAPU a!" T#E COURT OF APPEALS,
respondents.
Taada, Sanchez, Taada, Taada for petitioner.
N.M. Lapuz for respondent.

GUERRERO, J.:
ppeal b! certiorari fro" the Resolution of the
respondent court
1
dated October #$, #%&' in ()
*.R. No. +),,%%-)R entitled "Felipe C. Roque,
plaintifappellee, !ersus Nicanor Lapuz, defendant
appellant" a"endin. its ori.inal decision of pril $,,
#%&' /hich a0r"ed the decision of the (ourt of
First Instance of Ri1al 23ue1on (it! 4ranch5 in (ivil
(ase No. 3)6%$$ in favor of petitioner, and the
Resolution of the respondent court den!in.
petitioner7s "otion for reconsideration.
The facts of this case are as recited in the decision
of the Trial (ourt /hich /as adopted and a0r"ed
b! the (ourt of ppeals8
So"eti"e in #%96, prior to the approval b!
the National Plannin. (o""ission of the
consolidation and subdivision plan of
plainti:7s propert! ;no/n as the Roc;ville
Subdivision, situated in 4alinta/a;, 3ue1on
(it!, plainti: and defendant entered into an
a.ree"ent of sale coverin. +ots #, $ and %,
4loc; #, of said propert!, /ith an a..re.ate
area of #,$'' s<uare "eters, pa!able in #$'
e<ual "onthl! install"ents at the rate of
P#9.'', P#=.'' per s<uare "eter,
respectivel!. In accordance /ith said
a.ree"ent, defendant paid to plainti: the
su" of P#='.'' as deposit and the further
su" of P&6'.=9 to co"plete the pa!"ent of
four "onthl! install"ents coverin. the
"onths of >ul!, u.ust, Septe"ber, and
October, #%=6. 2?@hs. and 45. Ahen the
docu"ent ?@hibit BB /as e@ecuted on >une
$=, #%=6, the plan coverin. plainti:7s
propert! /as "erel! tentative, and the
plainti: referred to the proposed lots
appearin. in the tentative plan.
fter the approval of the subdivision plan b!
the 4ureau of +ands on >anuar! $6, #%==,
defendant re<uested plainti: that he be
allo/ed to abandon and substitute +ots #, $
and %, the subCect "atter of their previous
a.ree"ent, /ith +ots 6 and #$, 4loc; $ of the
approved subdivision plan, of the Roc;ville
Subdivision, /ith a total area of &$= s<uare
"eters, /hich are corner lots, to /hich
re<uest plainti: .raciousl! acceded.
The evidence discloses that defendant
proposed to plainti: "odiDcation of their
previous contract to sell because he found it
<uite di0cult to pa! the "onthl! install"ents
on the three lots, and besides the t/o lots he
had chosen /ere better lots, bein. corner
lots. In addition, it /as a.reed that the
purchase price of these t/o lots /ould be at
the unifor" rate of P#&.'' per s<uare
2"eter5 pa!able in #$' e<ual "onthl!
install"ents, /ith interest at -E annuall! on
the balance unpaid. Pursuant to this ne/
a.ree"ent, defendant occupied and
possessed +ots 6 and #$, 4loc; $ of the
approved subdivision plan, and enclosed
the", includin. the portion /here his house
no/ stands, /ith barbed /ires and adobe
/alls.
Fo/ever, aside fro" the deposit of P#='.''
and the a"ount of P&6'.=9 /hich /ere paid
under their previous a.ree"ent, defendant
failed to "a;e an! further pa!"ent on
account of the a.reed "onthl! install"ents
for the t/o lots in dispute, under the ne/
contract to sell. Plainti: de"anded upon
defendant not onl! to pa! the stipulated
"onthl! install"ents in arrears, but also to
"a;e up)to)date his pa!"ents, but
defendant, instead of co"pl!in. /ith the
de"ands, ;ept on as;in. for e@tensions,
pro"isin. at Drst that he /ould pa! not onl!
the install"ents in arrears but also "a;e up)
to)date his pa!"ent, but later on refused
alto.ether to co"pl! /ith plainti:7s
de"ands.
Defendant /as li;e/ise re<uested b! the
plainti: to si.n the correspondin. contract to
sell in accordance /ith his previous
co""it"ent. .ain, defendant pro"ised
that he /ould si.n the re<uired contract to
sell /hen he shall have "ade up)to)date the
stipulated "onthl! install"ents on the lots in
<uestion, but subse<uentl! bac;ed out of his
pro"ise and refused to si.n an! contract in
nonco"pliance /ith /hat he had
represented on several occasions. nd
plainti: relied on the .ood faith of defendant
to "a;e .ood his pro"ise because defendant
is a professional and had been rather .ood to
hi" 2plainti:5.
On or about Nove"ber ,, #%=&, in a for"al
letter, plainti: de"anded upon defendant to
vacate the lots in <uestion and to pa! the
reasonable rentals thereon at the rate of
P9'.'' per "onth fro" u.ust, #%==. 2?@h.
B4B5. Not/ithstandin. the receipt of said
letter, defendant did not dee" it /ise nor
proper to ans/er the sa"e.
In reference to the "ode of pa!"ent, the Fonorable
(ourt of ppeals found G
4oth parties are a.reed that the period
/ithin /hich to pa! the lots in <uestion is ten
!ears. The! ho/ever, disa.ree on the "ode
of pa!"ent. Ahile the appellant clai"s that
he could pa! the purchase price at an! ti"e
/ithin a period of ten !ears /ith a .radual
proportionate discount on the price, the
appellee "aintains that the appellant /as
bound to pa! "onthl! install"ents.
On this point, the trial court correctl! held
that G
It is further ar.ued b! defendant that under
the a.ree"ent to sell in <uestion, he has the
ri.ht or option to pa! the purchase price at
an!ti"e /ithin a period of ten !ears fro"
#%=6, he bein. entitled, at the sa"e ti"e, to
a .raduated reduction of the price. The (ourt
is constrained to reCect this version not onl!
because it is contradicted b! the /ei.ht of
evidence but also because it is not consistent
/ith /hat is reasonable, plausible and
credible. It is hi.hl! i"probable to e@pect
plainti:, or an! real estate subdivision o/ner
for that "atter, to a.ree to a sale of his land
/hich /ould be pa!able an!ti"e in ten !ears
at the e@clusive option of the purchaser.
There is no sho/in. that defendant is a
friend, a relative, or so"eone to /ho"
plainti: had to be .rateful, as /ould Custif!
an assu"ption that he /ould have a.reed to
e@tend to defendant such an e@tra) ordinar!
concession. Further"ore, the conte@t of the
docu"ent, ?@hibit B4B, not to "ention the
other evidences on records is indicative that
the real intention of the parties is for the
pa!"ent of the purchase price of the lot in
<uestion on an e<ual "onthl! install"ent
basis for a period of ten !ears 2?@hibits BB,
BIIB, B>B and BHB5.
On >anuar! $$, #%9', petitioner Felipe (, Ro<ue
2plainti: belo/5 Dled the co"plaint a.ainst
defendant Nicanor +apu1 2private respondent
herein5 /ith the (ourt of First Instance of Ri1al,
3ue1on (it! 4ranch, for rescission and cancellation
of the a.ree"ent of sale bet/een the" involvin.
the t/o lots in <uestion and pra!ed that Cud."ent
be rendered orderin. the rescission and cancellation
of the a.ree"ent of sale, the defendant to vacate
the t/o parcels of land and re"ove his house
therefro" and to pa! to the plainti: the reasonable
rental thereof at the rate of P9'.'' a "onth fro"
u.ust #%== until such ti"e as he shall have
vacated the pre"ises, and to pa! the su" of
P$,'''.'' as attorne!7s fees, costs of the suit and
a/ard such other relief or re"ed! as "a! be
dee"ed Cust and e<uitable in the pre"ises.
Defendant Dled a Motion to Dis"iss on the .round
that the co"plaint states no cause of action, /hich
"otion /as denied b! the court. Thereafter,
defendant Dled his ns/er alle.in. that he bou.ht
three lots fro" the plainti: containin. an a..re.ate
area of #,$'' s<. "eters and previousl! ;no/n as
+ots #, $ and % of 4loc; # of Roc;ville Subdivision at
P#9.'', P#=.'' and P#=.'', respectivel!, pa!able at
an! ti"e /ithin ten !ears. Defendant ad"its havin.
occupied the lots in <uestion.
s a0r"ative and special defenses, defendant
alle.es that the co"plaint states no cause of actionI
that the present action for rescission has prescribedI
that no de"and for pa!"ent of the balance /as
ever "adeI and that the action bein. based on
reciprocal obli.ations, before one part! "a! co"pel
perfor"ance, he "ust Drst co"pl! /hat is
incu"bent upon hi".
s counterclai", defendant alle.es that because of
the acts of the plainti:, he lost t/o lots containin.
an area of -'' s<. "eters and as a conse<uence, he
su:ered "oral da"a.es in the a"ount of
P$''.'''.''I that due to the Dlin. of the present
action, he su:ered "oral da"a.es a"ountin. to
P#'','''.'' and incurred e@penses for attorne!7s
fees in the su" of P=,'''.''.
Plainti: Dled his ns/er to the (ounterclai" and
denied the "aterial aver"ents thereof.
fter due hearin., the trial court rendered Cud."ent,
the dispositive portion of /hich reads8
AF?R?FOR?, the (ourt renders Cud."ent in
favor of plain. plainti: and a.ainst the
defendant, as follo/s8
2a5 Declarin. the a.ree"ent of sale bet/een
plainti: and defendant involvin. the lots in
<uestion 2+ots 6 and #$, 4loc; $ of the
approved subdivision plan of the Roc;ville
Subdivision5 rescinded, resolved and
cancelledI
2b5 Orderin. defendant to vacate the said
lots and to re"ove his house therefro" and
also to pa! plainti: the reasonable rental
thereof at the rate of P9'.'' per "onth fro"
u.ust, #%== until he shall have actuall!
vacated the pre"isesI and
2c5 (onde"nin. defendant to pa! plainti:
the su" of P$,'''.'' as attorne!7s fees, as
/ell as the costs of the suit. 2Record on
ppeal, p. ##-5
2a5 Declarin. the a.ree"ent of sale bet/een
plainti: and defendant involvin. the lots in
<uestion 2+ots 6 and #$, 4loc; $ of the
approved subdivision plan of the Roc;ville
Subdivision5 rescinded, resolved and
cancelledI
2b5 Orderin. defendant to vacate the said
lots and to re"ove his house therefro" and
also to pa! plainti: the reasonable rental
thereof at the rate of P9'.'' per "onth fro"
u.ust, #%== until he shall have actuall!
vacated pre"isesI and
2c5 (onde"nin. defendant to pa! plainti:
the su" of P$,'''.'' as attorne!7s fees, as
/ell as the costs of the suit. 2Record on
ppeal. p. ##-5
Not satisDed /ith the decision of the trial court,
defendant appealed to the (ourt of ppeals. The
latter court, Dndin. the Cud."ent appealed fro"
bein. in accordance /ith la/ and evidence, a0r"ed
the sa"e.
In its decision, the appellate court, after holdin. that
the Dndin.s of fact of the trial court are full!
supported b! the evidence, found and held that the
real intention of the parties is for the pa!"ent of the
purchase price of the lots in <uestion on an e<ual
"onthl! install"ent basis for the period of ten
!earsI that there /as "odiDcation of the ori.inal
a.ree"ent /hen defendant actuall! occupied +ots
Nos. 6 and #$ of 4loc; $ /hich /ere corner lots that
co""anded a better price instead of the ori.inal
+ots Nos. #, $ and %, 4loc; I of the Roc;ville
SubdivisionI that appellant7s bare assertion that the
a.ree"ent is not rescindable because the appellee
did not co"pl! /ith his obli.ation to put up the
re<uisite facilities in the subdivision /as insu0cient
to overco"e the presu"ption that the la/ has been
obe!ed b! the appelleeI that the present action has
not prescribed since rticle ##%# of the Ne/ (ivil
(ode authori1in. rescission in reciprocal obli.ations
upon nonco"pliance b! one of the obli.ors is the
applicable provision in relation to rticle ##6% of the
Ne/ (ivil (odeI and that the present action /as
Dled /ithin Dve !ears fro" the ti"e the ri.ht of
action accrued.
Defendant Dled a Motion for Reconsideration of the
appellate court7s decision on the follo/in. .rounds8
First G Neither the pleadin.s nor the
evidence, testi"onial, docu"entar! or
circu"stantial, Custif! the conclusion as to
the e@istence of an alle.ed subse<uent
a.ree"ent novator! of the ori.inal contract
ad"ittedl! entered into bet/een the parties8
Second G There is nothin. so unusual or
e@traordinar!, as /ould render i"probable
the D@in. of ten ears as the period /ithin
/hich pa!"ent of the stipulated price /as to
be pa!able b! appellantI
Third G ppellee has no ri.ht, under the
circu"stances on the case at bar, to de"and
and be entitled to the rescission of the
contract had /ith appellantI
Fourth " ssu"in. that an! action for
rescission is availabilit! to appellee, the
sa"e, contrar! to the Dndin.s of the decision
herein, has prescribedI
Fifth G ssu""in. further that appellee7s
action for rescission, if an!, has not !et
prescribed, the sa"e is at least barred b!
lachesI
Si#th G ssu"in. further"ore that a cause
of action for rescission e@ists, appellant
should nevertheless be entitled to tile D@in.
of a period /ithin /hich to co"pl! /ith his
obli.ationI and
Se!enth G t all events, the a0r"ance of
the Cud."ent for the pa!"ent of rentals on
the pre"ises fro" u.ust, #%== and he
ta@in. of attorne!7s fees a.ainst appellant
are not /arranted b the circu"stances at
bar. 2Rollo, pp. -&)--5
ctin. on the Motion for Reconsideration, the (ourt
of ppeals sustained the si@th .round raised b! the
appellant, that assu"in. that a cause of action for
rescission e@ists, he should nevertheless be entitled
to the D@in. of a period /ithin /hich to co"pl! /ith
his obli.ation. The (ourt of ppeals, therefore,
a"ended its ori.inal decision in the follo/in. /ise
and "anner8
AF?R?FOR?, our decision dated pril $,,
#%&' is hereb! a"ended in the sense that
the defendant Nicanor +apu1 is hereb!
.ranted a period of ninet! 2%'5 da!s fro"
entr! hereof /ithin /hich to pa! the balance
of the purchase price in the a"ount of
P##,6,6,66 /ith interest thereon at the rate
of -E per annu" fro" u.ust #&, #%== until
full! paid. In the event that the defendant
fails to co"pl! /ith his obli.ation as above
stated /ithin the period D@ed herein, our
ori.inal Cud."ent stands.
Petitioner Ro<ue, as plainti:)appellee belo/, Dled a
Motion for ReconsiderationI the (ourt of ppeals
denied it. Fe no/ co"es and appeals to this (ourt
on a /rit of certiorari.
The respondent (ourt of ppeals rationali1es its
a"endin. decision b! considerin. that the house
presentl! erected on the land subCect of the contract
is /orth P6=,'''.'', /hich i"prove"ents
introduced b! defendant on the lots subCect of the
contract are ver! substantial, and thus bein. the
case, Bas a "atter of Custice and e<uit!, considerin.
that the re"oval of defendant7s house /ould
a"ount to a virtual forfeiture of the value of the
house, the defendant should be .ranted a period
/ithin /hich to fulDll his obli.ations under the
a.ree"ent.B (ited as authorities are the cases of
$apisanan %anaha& !s. 'e(ar)e and *l!ero, == Phil.
,,-, ,66, /here it is held that the discretionar!
po/er of the court to allo/ a period /ithin /hich a
person in default "a! be per"itted to perfor" the
stipulation upon /hich the clai" for resolution of the
contract is based should be e@ercised /ithout
hesitation in a case /here a virtual forfeiture of
valuable ri.hts is sou.ht to be enforced as an act of
"ere reprisal for a refusal of the debtor to sub"it to
a usurious char.e, and the case of +uerto !s. ,o -e
+in, 6& O.*. $96, holdin. that to oust the defendant
fro" the lots /ithout .ivin. hi" a chance to recover
/hat his father and he hi"self had spent "a!
a"ount to a virtual forfeiture of valuable ri.hts.
s further reasons for allo/in. a period /ithin /hich
defendant could fulDll his obli.ation, the respondent
court held that there e@ists .ood reasons therefor,
havin. in "ind that /hich a:ords .reater reciprocit!
of ri.hts 2Ra"os vs. 4las, =# O.*. #%$'5I that after
appellant had testiDed that plainti: failed to co"pl!
/ith his part of the contract to put up the re<uisite
facilities in the subdivision, plainti: did not
introduce an! evidence to rebut defendant7s
testi"on! but si"pl! relied. upon the presu"ption
that the la/ has been obe!ed, thus said
presu"ption had been successfull! rebutted as
?@hibit B=)DB sho/s that the road therein sho/n is
not paved The (ourt, ho/ever, concedes that
plainti:7s failure to co"pl! /ith his obli.ation to put
up the necessar! facilities in the subdivision /ill not
deter hi" fro" as;in. f r the rescission of the 
a.ree"ent since this obli.ation is not correlative
/ith defendant7s obli.ation to bu! the propert!.
Petitioner assails the decision of the (ourt of
ppeals for the follo/in. alle.ed errors8
I. The Fonorable (ourt of ppeals erred in
appl!in. para.raph ,, rticle ##%# of the
(ivil (ode /hich refers to reciprocal
obli.ations in .eneral and, pursuant thereto,
in .rantin. respondent +apu1 a period of
ninet! 2%'5 da!s fro" entr! of Cud."ent
/ithin /hich to pa! the balance of the
purchase price.
II. The Fonorable (ourt of ppeals erred in
not holdin. that rticle #=%$ of the sa"e
(ode, /hich speciDcall! covers sales of
i""ovable propert! and /hich constitutes
an e@ception to the third para.raph of rticle
##%# of said (ode, is applicable to the
present case.
III. The Fonorable (ourt of ppeals erred in
not holdin. that respondent +apu1 cannot
avail of the provisions of rticle ##%#,
para.raph , of the (ivil (ode aforesaid
because he did not raise in his ans/er or in
an! of the pleadin.s he Dled in the trial court
the <uestion of /hether or not he is entitled,
b! reason of a Cust cause, to a D@in. of a ne/
period.
IV. ssu"in. ar.uendo that the a.ree"ent
entered into b! and bet/een petitioner and
respondent +apu1 /as a "ere pro"ise to sell
or contract to sell, under /hich title to the
lots in <uestion did not pass fro" petitioner
to respondent, still the Fonorable (ourt of
ppeals erred in not holdin. that aforesaid
respondent is not entitled to a ne/ period
/ithin /hich to pa! petitioner the balance of
P##,6,6.66 interest due on the purchase
price of P#$.,$=.'' of the lots.
V. ssu"in. ar.uendo that para.raph ,,
rticle ##%# of the (ivil (ode is applicable
and "a! be availed of b! respondent, the
Fonorable (ourt of ppeals nonetheless
erred in not declarin. that aid respondent
has not sho/n the e@istence of a Cust cause
/hich /ould authori1e said (ourt to D@ a ne/
period /ithin /hich to pa! the balance
aforesaid.
VI. The Fonorable (ourt of ppeals erred in
reconsiderin. its ori.inal decision
pro"ul.ated on pril $,, #%&' /hich
a0r"ed the decision of the trial court.
The above errors "a!, ho/ever, be s!nthesi1ed into
one issue and that is, /hether private respondent is
entitled to the 4eneDts of the third para.raph of
rticle ##%#, Ne/ (ivil (ode, for the D@in. of period
/ithin /hich he should co"pl! /ith /hat is
incu"bent upon hi", and that is to pa! the balance
of P##,6,6,66 /ith interest thereon at the rate of
-E #et annu" fro" u.ust #&, #%== until full! paid
since private respondent had paid onl! P#='.'' as
deposit and 6 "onths intall"ents a"ountin. to
P&6'.69, or a total of P-%'.69, the total price of the
t/o lots a.reed upon bein. P#$,,$=.''.
For his part, petitioner "aintains that respondent is
not entitled to the 4eneDts of para.raph ,, rticle
##%#, N(( and that instead, rticle #=%$ of the Ne/
(ivil (ode /hich speciDcall! covers sales of
i""ovable propert! and /hich constitute an
e@ception to the third para.raph of rt. ##%# of aid
(ode, is the applicable la/ to the case at bar.
In resolvin. petitioner7s assi.n"ent of errors, it is
/ell that Ae la! clo/n the oda provisions and
pertinent rulin.s of the Supre"e (ourt bearin. on
the crucial issue of /hether rt. ##%#, para.raph ,
of the Ne/ (ivil (ode applies to the case at 4ar as
held b! the appellate court and supported b! the
private respondent, or rt. #=%$ of the sa"e (ode
/hich petitioner stron.l! ar.ues in vie/ of the
peculiar facts and circu"stances attendin. this
case. rticle ##%#, Ne/ (ivil (ode, provides8
rt. ##%#. The po/er to rescind obli.ations is
i"plied in reciprocal ones, in case one at the
obli.ors should not co"pl! /ith hat is
incu"bent upon hi"
The inCured partner "a! choose bet/een the
fulDll"ent and the rescission of the
obli.ation, /ith the pa!"ent of da"a.es in
either case. Fe "a! also see; rescission,
even after he has chosen fulDll"ent, if the
latter should beco"e i"possible.
The court shall decree the rescission clai"ed,
unless there be Cust cause authori1in. the
D@in. of a period.
This is understood to be /ithout preCudice to
the ri.hts of third persons /ho have ac<uired
the thin., in accordance /ith articles #,-=
and #,-- and the Mort.a.e +a/.
rticle #=%$ also provides8
rt. #=%$. In the sale of i""ovable propert!,
even thou.h it "a! have been stipulated
that upon failure to pa! the price at the ti"e
a.reed upon the rescission of the contract
shall of ri.ht ta;e place, the vendee "a!
pa!, even after the e@piration of the period,
as lon. as no de"and for rescission of the
contract has been "ade upon hi" either
Cudiciall! or b! a notarial act. fter the
de"and, the court "a! not .rant hi" a ne/
ter".
The controllin. and latest Curisprudence is
established and settled in the celebrated case of
Luzon %ro.era/e Co., 0nc. !s. Mariti)e %uildin/ Co.,
0nc. and M!ers 4uildin. (o., *.R. No. +)$=--=,
>anuar! ,#, #%&$, 6, S(R %,, ori.inall! decided in
#%&$, reiterated in the Resolution on Motion to
Reconsider dated u.ust #-, #%&$, 69 S(R ,-#
and e"phaticall! repeated in the Resolution on
Second Motion for Reconsideration pro"ul.ated
Nove"ber #9, #%&-, -9 S(R ,'%, /hich once "ore
denied Mariti"es Second Motion for Reconsideration
of October &, #%&$. In the ori.inal decision, the
Supre"e (ourt spea;in. thru >ustice >.4.+. Re!es
said8
Jnder the circu"stances, the action of
Mariti"e in suspendin. pa!"ents to M!ers
(orporation /as a breach of contract tainted
/ith fraud or "alice 2dolo5, as distin.uished
fro" "ere ne.li.ence 2culpa5, BdoloB bein.
succinctl! deDned as a Bconscious and
intention desi.n to evade the nor"al
fulDll"ent of e@istin. obli.ationsB
2(apistrano, (ivil (ode of the Philippines, Vol.
,, pa.e ,-5, and therefore inco"patible /ith
.ood faith 2(astan, Derecho (ivil, &th ?d.,
Vol. ,, pa.e #$%I Dia1 Pairo, Teoria de
Obli.aciones, Vol. #, pa.e ##95.
Mariti"e havin. acted in bad faith, it /as not
entitled to as; the court to .ive it further
ti"e to "a;e pa!"ent and thereb! erase the
default or breach that it had deliberatel!
incurred. Thus the lo/er court co""itted no
error in refusin. to e@tend the periods for
pa!"ent. To do other/ise /ould be to
sanction a deliberate and reiterated
infrin.e"ent of the contractual obli.ations
incurred b! Mariti"e, an attitude repu.nant
to the stabilit! and obli.ator! force of
contracts.
The decision reiterated the rule pointed out b! the
Supre"e (ourt in Manuel !s. Rodri/uez, #'% Phil. #,
p. #', that8
In contracts to sell, /here o/nership is
retained b! the seller and is not to pass until
the fun pa!"ent of the price, such pa!"ent,
as /e said is a positive suspensive condition,
the failure of /hich is not a breach, casual or
serious, but si"pl! an event that prevented
the obli.ation of the vendor to conve! title
fro" ac<uirin. bindin. i force in accordance
/ith rticle ###& of the Old (ivil (ode. To
ar.ue that there /as onl! a casual breach is
to proceed fro" the assu"ption that the
contract is one of absolute sale, /here non)
pa!"ent is a resolutor! condition, /hich is
not the case.B (ontinuin., the Supre"e (ourt
declared8
... appellant overloo;s that its contract /ith
appellee M!ers s not the ordinar! sale
envisa.ed b! rticle #=%$, transferrin.
o/nership si"ultaneousl! /ith the deliver!
of the real propert! sold, but one in /hich
the vendor retained o/nership of the
i""ovable obCect of the sale, "erel!
underta;in. to conve! it provided the bu!er
strictl! co"plied /ith the ter"s of the
contract 2see para.raph KdL, ante pa.e =5. In
suin. to recover possession of the buildin.
fro" Mariti"e appellee M!ers is not after the
resolution or settin. aside of the contract
and the restoration of the parties to the
status <uo ante as conte"plated b! rticle
#=%$, but precisel! enforcin. the Provisions
of the a.ree"ent that it is no lon.er
obli.ated to part /ith the o/nership or
possession of the propert! because Mariti"e
failed to co"pl! /ith the speciDc condition
precedent, /hich is to pa! the install"ents
as the! fell due.
The distinction bet/een contracts of sale and
contracts to sell /ith reserved title has been
reco.ni1ed b! this (ourt in repeated
decisions upholdin. the po/er of pro"isors
under contracts to sell in case of failure of
the other part! to co"plete pa!"ent, to
e@traCudiciall! ter"inate the operation of the
contract, refuse conve!ance and retain the
su"s or install"ents alread! received, /here
such ri.hts are e@pressl! provided for, as in
the case at bar.
In the Resolution den!in. the Drst Motion for
Reconsideration, 69 S(R ,-#, the (ourt a.ain
spea;in. thru >ustice >.4.+. Re!es, reiterated the rule
that in a contract to sell, the full pa!"ent of the
price throu.h the punctual perfor"ance of the
"onthl! pa!"ents is a condition precedent to the
e@ecution of the Dnal sale 6nd to the transfer of the
propert! fro" the o/ner to the proposed bu!erI so
that there /ill be no actual sale until and unless full
pa!"ent is "ade.
The (ourt further ruled that in see;in. to oust
Mariti"e for failure to pa! the price as a.reed upon,
M!ers /as not rescindin. 2or "ore properl!,
resolvin.5 the contract but precisel! enforcin. it
accordin. to its e@pressed ter"s. In its suit, M!ers
/as not see;in. restitution to it of the o/nership of
the thin. sold 2since it /as never disposed of5, such
restoration bein. the lo.ical conse<uence of the
fulDll"ent of a resolutor! condition, e@pressed or
i"plied 2rt. ##%'5I neither /as it see;in. a
declaration that its obli.ation to sell /as
e@tin.uished. Ahat is sou.ht /as a Cudicial
declaration that because the suspensive condition
2full and punctual pa!"ent5 had not been fulDlled,
its obli.ation to sell to Mariti"e never arose or
never beca"e e:ective and, therefore, it 2M!ers5
/as entitled to repossess the propert! obCect of the
contract, possession bein. a "ere incident to its
ri.ht of o/nership.
The decision also stressed that Bthere can be no
rescission or resolution of an obli.ation as !et non)
e@istent, because the suspensive condition did not
happen. rticle #=%$ of the Ne/ (ivil (ode 2rt.
#='6 of Old (ivil (ode5 re<uirin. de"and b! suit or
notarial act in case the vendor of realt! /ants to
rescind does not appl! to a contract to sell or
pro"ise to sell, /here title re"ains /ith the vendor
until fulDll"ent to a positive condition, such as full
pa!"ent of the price.B 2Manuel vs, Rodri.ue1, #'%
Phil. %5
Mariti"e7s Second Motion for Reconsideration /as
denied in the Resolution of the (ourt dated
Nove"ber #9, #%&-, -9 S(R ,'=, /here the
.overnin. la/ and precedents /ere brieM!
su""ari1ed in the stron. and e"phatic lan.ua.e of
>ustice Teehan;ee, thus8
2a5 The contract bet/een the parties /as a
contract to sell or conditional sale /ith title
e@pressl! reserved in the vendor M!ers
4uildin. (o., Inc. M!ers until the suspensive
condition of full and punctual pa!"ent of the
full price shall have been "et on pain of
auto"atic cancellation of the contract upon
failure to pa! an! of the "onthl! install"ents
/hen due and retention of the su"s
theretofore paid as rentals. Ahen the
vendee, appellant Mariti"e, /illfull! and in
bad faith failed since March, #%9# to pa! the
P=,'''. G "onthl! install"ents
not/ithstandin. that it /as punctuall!
collectin. P#','''. G "onthl! rentals fro"
the lessee +u1on 4ro;era.e (o., M!ers /as
entitled, as it did in la/ and fact, to enforce
the ter"s of the contract to sell and to
declare the sa"e ter"inated and cancelled.
2b5 rticle #=%$ 2for"erl! rticle #='65 of the
ne/ (ivil (ode is not applicable to such
contracts to self or conditional sales and no
error /as co""itted b! the trial court in
refusin. to e@tend the periods for pa!"ent.
2c5 s stressed in the (ourt7s decision, Bit is
irrelevant /hether appellant Mariti"e7s
infrin.e"ent of its contract /as casual or
seriousB for as pointed out in Manuel vs.
Rodri.ue1, 72I5n contracts to self. /hether
o/nership is retained b! the seller and is not
to pass until the full pa!"ent of the price,
such pa!"ent, as /e said, is a positive
suspensive condition, the failure of /hich is
not a breach, casual or serious, but si"pl! an
event that prevented the obli.ation of the
vendor to conve! title fro" ac<uirin. bindin.
force ...
2d5 It should be noted, ho/ever, that
Mariti"es breach /as far fro" casual but a
"ost serious breach of contract ...
2e5 ?ven if the contract /ere considered an
unconditional sale so that rticle #=%$ of the
(ivil (ode could be dee"ed applicable,
M!ers7 ans/er to the co"plaint for
interpleaded in the court belo/ constituted a
Cudicial de"and for rescission of the contract
and b! the ver! provision of the cited codal
article, 7after the de"and, the court "a! not
.rant hi" a ne/ ter" for pa!"entI and
2f5 ssu""in. further that rticle ##%# of
the ne/ (ivil (ode .overnin. rescission of
reciprocal obli.ations could be applied
2althou.h rticle #=%$ of the sa"e (ode is
controllin. since it deals speciDcall! /ith
sales of real propert!5, said article provides
that 72T5he court shall decree the rescission
clai"ed, unless there be Cust cause
authori1in. the D@in. of a period7 and there
e@ists to BCust causeB as sho/n above for the
D@in. of a further period. ...
Jnder the Drst and second assi.n"ents of error
/hich petitioner Cointl! discusses, he ar.ues that the
a.ree"ent entered into bet/een hi" and the
respondent is a perfected contract of purchase and
sale /ithin the "eanin. of rticle #6&= of the Ne/
(ivil (ode /hich provides that Bthe contract of sale
is perfected at the "o"ent there is a "eetin. of
"inds upon the thin. /hich is the obCect of the
contract and upon the price. Fro" that "o"ent, the
parties "a! reciprocall! de"and perfor"ance,
subCect to the provisions of the la/ .overnin. the
for" of contract.B
Petitioner contends that B2n5othin. in the decision of
the courts belo/ /ould sho/ that o/nership of the
propert! re"ained /ith plainti: for so lon. as the
install"ents have not been full! paid. Ahich !ields
the conclusion that, b! the deliver! of the lots to
defendant, o/nership li;e/ise /as transferred to
the latter.B 24rief for the Petitioner, p. #=5 nd he
concludes that the sale /as consu""ated b! the
deliver! of the t/o lots, the subCect thereof, b! hi"
to the respondent.
Jnder the Dndin.s of facts b! the appellate court, it
appears that the t/o lots subCect of the a.ree"ent
bet/een the parties herein /ere delivered b! the
petitioner to the private respondent /ho too;
possession thereof and occupied the sa"e and
thereafter built his house thereon, enclosin. the lots
/ith adobe stone /alls and barbed /ires. 4ut the
propert! bein. re.istered under the +and
Re.istration ct, it is the act of re.istration of the
Deed of Sale /hich could le.all! e:ect the transfer
of title of o/nership to the transferee, pursuant to
Section =' of ct 6%9. 2Manuel vs. Rodri.ue1, et al.,
#'% Phil. #I 4u1on vs. +ichauco, #, Phil. ,=6I Tua1on
vs. Ra!"undo, $- Phil. 9,=8 Aorcestor vs. Oca"po,
,6 Phil. 9695. Fence, Ae hold that the contract
bet/een the petitioner and the respondent /as a
contract to sell /here the o/nership or title is
retained b! the seller and is not to pass until the full
pa!"ent of the price, such pa!"ent bein. a positive
suspensive condition and failure of /hich is not a
breach, casual or serious, but si"pl! an event that
prevented the obli.ation of the vendor to conve!
title fro" ac<uirin. bindin. force.
In the case at bar, there is no /ritin. or docu"ent
evidencin. the a.ree"ent ori.inall! entered into
bet/een petitioner and private respondent e@cept
the receipt sho/in. the initial deposit of P#='.'' as
sho/n in ?@h. BB and the pa!"ent of the 6) "onths
install"ent "ade b! respondent correspondin. to
>ul!, #%=6 to October, #%=6 in the su" of P&6'.=9
as sho/n in ?@h. B4B. Neither is there an! /ritin. or
docu"ent evidencin. the "odiDed a.ree"ent /hen
the , lots /ere chan.ed to +ots 6 and #$ /ith a
reduced area of &$= s<. "eters, /hich are corner
lots. This absence of a for"al deed of conve!ance is
a ver! stron. indication that the parties did not
intend i""ediate transfer of o/nership and title,
but onl! a transfer after full pa!"ent of the price.
Parentheticall!, Ae "ust sa! that the standard
printed contracts for the sale of the lots in the
Roc;ville Subdivision on a "onthl! install"ent basis
sho/in. the ter"s and conditions thereof are
i""aterial to the case at bar since the! have not
been si.ned b! either of the parties to this case.
Jpon the la/ and Curisprudence hereinabove cited
and considerin. the nature of the transaction or
a.ree"ent bet/een petitioner and respondent
/hich Ae a0r" and sustain to be a contract to sell,
the follo/in. resolutions of petitioner7s assi.n"ent
of errors necessaril! arise, and so Ae hold that8
#. The Drst and second assi.n"ents
of errors are /ithout "erit.
The over/hel"in. /ei.ht of authorit! cul"inatin.
in the Luzon %ro.era/e !s. Mariti)e cases has laid
do/n the rule that rticle #=%$ of the Ne/ (ivil
(ode does not appl! to a contract to sell /here title
re"ains /ith the vendor until full pa!"ent of the
price as in the case at bar. This is the rulin. in
Caridad 1states !s. Santero, &# Phil. #$'I ldea vs.
In<ui"bo! -9 Phil. #9'#I 2ocon !s. Capitol
Su3di!ision, 0nc., +)9=&,, Feb. $-, #%==I Miranda !s.
Caridad 1states, +)$'&& and *spuria !s. Caridad
1states, +)$#$# Oct. ,, #%=', all reiterated in
Manuel !s. Rodri/uez, et al. #'% Phil. #, +)#,6,=,
>ul! $&, #%9'. Ae a.ree /ith the respondent (ourt
of ppeals that rt, ##%# of the Ne/ (ivil (ode is
the applicable provision /here the obli.ee, li;e
petitioner herein, elects to rescind or cancel his
obli.ation to deliver the o/nership of the t/o lots in
<uestion for failure of the respondent to pa! in fun
the purchase price on the basis of #$' "onthl!
e<ual install"ents, pro"ptl! and punctuall! for a
period of #' !ears.
$. Ae hold that respondent as obli.or is not entitled
to the beneDts of para.raph , of rt. ##%#, N((
Favin. been in default, he is not entitled to the ne/
period of %' da!s fro" entr! of Cud."ent /ithin
/hich to pa! petitioner the balance of P##,6,6.66
/ith interest due on the purchase price of
P#$,,$=.'' for the t/o lots.
Respondent a paid P#='.'' as deposit under ?@h.
BB and P&6'.=9 for the 6)"onths install"ents
correspondin. to the "onths of >ul! to October,
#%=6. The Cud."ent of the lo/er court and the
(ourt of ppeals held that respondent /as under
the obli.ation to pa! the purchase price of the lots
" <uestion on an e<ual "onthl! install"ent basis
for a period of ten !ears, or #$' e<ual "onthl!
install"ents. 4e.innin. Nove"ber, #%=6,
respondent be.an to default in co"pl!in. /ith his
obli.ation and continued to do so for the re"ainin.
##9 "onthl! interest. Fis refusal to pa! further
install"ents on the purchase price, his insistence
that he had the option to pa! the purchase price an!
ti"e in ten !ears inspire of the clearness and
certaint! of his a.ree"ent /ith the petitioner as
evidenced further b! the receipt, ?@h. B4B, his
dilator! tactic of refusin. to si.n the necessar!
contract of sale on the prete@t that he /ill si.n later
/hen he shall have updated his "onthl! pa!"ents
in arrears but /hich he never atte"pted to update,
and his failure to deposit or "a;e available an!
a"ount since the e@ecution of ?@h B4B on >une $-,
#%=6 up to the present or a period of $9 !ears, are
all unreasonable and unCustiDed /hich alto.ether
"anifest clear bad faith and "alice on the part of
respondent pu11le "a;in. inapplicable and
un/arranted the beneDts of para.raph ,, rt. ##%#,
N.(.(. To allo/ and .rant respondent an additional
period for hi" to pa! the balance of the purchase
price, /hich balance is about %$E of the a.reed
price, /ould be tanta"ount to e@cusin. his bad faith
and sanctionin. the deliberate infrin.e"ent of a
contractual obli.ation that is repu.nant and
contrar! to the stabilit!, securit! and obli.ator!
force of contracts. Moreover, respondent7s failure to
pa! the succeedin. ##9 "onthl! install"ents after
pa!in. onl! 6 "onthl! install"ents is a substantial
and "aterial breach on his part, not "erel! casual,
/hich ta;es the case out of the application of the
beneDts of pa para.raph ,, rt. ##%#, N.(.(.
t an! rate, the fact that respondent failed to
co"pl! /ith the suspensive condition /hich is the
full pa!"ent of the price throu.h the punctual
perfor"ance of the "onthl! pa!"ents rendered
petitioner7s obli.ation to sell ine:ective and,
therefore, petitioner /as entitled to repossess the
propert! obCect of the contract, possession bein. a
"ere incident to his ri.ht of o/nership 2+u1on
4ro;era.e (o., Inc. vs. Mariti"e 4uildin. (o., Inc., et
al. 69 S(R ,-#5.
,. Ae further rule that there e@ists no Cust cause
authori1in. the D@in. of a ne/ period /ithin /hich
private respondent "a! pa! the balance of the
purchase price. The e<uitable .rounds or
considerations /hich are the basis of the
respondent court in the D@in. of an additional period
because respondent had constructed valuable
i"prove"ents on the land, that he has built his
house on the propert! /orth P6=,'''.'' and placed
adobe stone /alls /ith barbed /ires around, do not
/arrant the D@in. of an additional period. Ae cannot
sanction this clai" for e<uit! of the respondent for
to .rant the sa"e /ould place the vendor at the
"erc! of the vendee /ho can easil! construct
substantial i"prove"ents on the land but be!ond
the capacit! of the vendor to rei"burse in case he
elects to rescind the contract b! reason of the
vendee7s default or deliberate refusal to pa! or
continue pa!in. the purchase price of the land.
Jnder this desi.n, strate.e" or sche"e, the vendee
can cleverl! and easil! Bi"prove outB the vendor of
his land.
More than that, respondent has not been honest,
fair and reciprocal /ith the petitioner, hence it
/ould not be fair and reasonable to the petitioner to
appl! a solution that a:ords .reater reciprocit! of
ri.hts /hich the appealed decision tried to e:ect
bet/een the parties. s "atters stand, respondent
has been enCo!in. the possession and occupanc! of
the land /ithout pa!in. the other ##9 "onthl!
install"ents as the! fall due. The scales of Custice
are alread! tipped in respondent,s favor under the
a"ended decision of the respondent court. It is onl!
ri.ht that Ae strive and search for the application of
the la/ /hereb! ever! person "ust, in the e@ercise
of his ri.hts and in the perfor"ance of his duties,
act /ith Custice, .ive ever!one his due, and observe
honest! and .ood faith 2rt. #%, Ne/ (ivil (ode5
In the case at bar, respondent has not acted in .ood
faith. Aith "alice and deliberate intent, he has
t/isted the clear i"port of his a.ree"ent /ith the
petitioner in order to suit his ends and dela! the
fulDll"ent of his obli.ation to pa! the land he had
enCo!ed for the last $9 !ears, "ore than t/ice the
period of ten !ears that he obli.ed hi"self to
co"plete pa!"ent of the price.
6. Respondent7s contention that petitioner has not
co"plied /ith his obli.ation to put up the necessar!
facilities in the Roc;ville Subdivision is not su0cient
nor does it constitute .ood reason to Custif! the
.rant of an additional period of %' da!s fro" entr!
of Cud."ent /ithin /hich respondent "a! pa! the
balance of the purchase price a.reed upon. The
>ud."ent of the appellate court concedes that
petitioner7s failure to co"pl! /ith his obli.ation to
put up the necessar! facilities in the subdivision /ill
not deter hi" fro" as;in. for the rescission of the
a.ree"ent since his obli.ation is not correlative
/ith respondent7s obli.ation to bu! the propert!.
Since this is so conceded, then the ri.ht of the
petitioner to rescind the a.ree"ent upon the
happenin. or in the event that respondent fails or
defaults in an! of the "onthl! install"ents /ould be
rendered nu.ator! and ine:ective. The ri.ht of
rescission /ould then depend upon an e@traneous
consideration /hich the la/ does not conte"plate.
4esides, at the rate the t/o lots /ere sold to
respondent /ith a co"bined area of &$= s<. "eters
at the unifor" price of P#&.'' per s<. "eter "a;in.
a total price of P#$,,$=.'', it is hi.hl! doubtful if not
i"probable that aside fro" his obli.ation to deliver
title and transfer o/nership to the respondent as a
reciprocal obli.ation to that of the respondent in
pa!in. the price in full and pro"ptl! as the
install"ents fall due, petitioner /ould have
assu"ed the additional obli.ation Bto provide the
subdivision /ith streets ... provide said streets /ith
street pave"ents concrete curbs and .utters,
Dllin.s as re<uired b! re.ulations, ade<uate
draina.e facilities, tree plantin.s, ade<uate /ater
facilitiesB as re<uired under Ordinance No. $%9% of
3ue1on (it! approved on Ma4 55, 5678 2ns/er of
Defendant, Record on ppeal, pp. ,=),95 /hich /as
t/o !ears after the a.ree"ent in <uestion /as
entered into 2une, 5479.
The fact re"ains, ho/ever, that respondent has not
protested to the petitioner nor to the authorities
concerned the alle.ed failure of petitioner to put up
and provide such facilities in the subdivision
because he ;ne/ too /ell that he has paid onl! the
a..re.ate su" of P-%'.=9 /hich represents "ore or
less &E of the a.reed price of P#$,,$=.'' and that
he has not paid the real estate ta@es assessed b!
the .overn"ent on his house erected on the
propert! under liti.ation. Neither has respondent
"ade an! alle.ation in his ns/er and in all his
pleadin.s before the court up to the pro"ul.ation of
the Resolution dated October #$, #%&' b! the (ourt
of ppeals, to the e:ect that he /as entitled to a
ne/ period /ithin /hich to co"pl! /ith his
obli.ation, hence the (ourt could not proceed to do
so unless the ns/er is Drst a"ended. 2*re.orio
raneta, Inc. vs. Philippine Su.ar ?states
Develop"ent (o., +td., *.R. No. +)$$==-, Ma! ,#,
#%9&, $' S(R ,,', ,,=5. It is <uite clear that it is
alread! too late in the da! for respondent to clai"
an additional period /ithin /hich to co"pl! /ith his
obli.ation.
Precedents there are in Philippine Curisprudence
/here the Supre"e (ourt .ranted the bu!er of real
propert! additional period /ithin /hich to co"plete
pa!"ent of the purchase price on .rounds of e<uit!
and Custice as in 2#5 2.M. Tuazon Co., 0nc. !s. 2a!ier,
,# S(R -$% /here the vendee reli.iousl! satisDed
the "onthl! install"ents for ei.ht !ears and paid a
total of P6,#,6.'- includin. interests on the
principal obli.ation of onl! P,,9%#.$', the price of
the landI after default, the vendee /as /illin. to pa!
all arrears, in fact o:ered the sa"e to the vendorI
the court .ranted an additional period of 9' da!s
)fro" receipt of Cud."ent for the vendee to "a;e all
install"ent in arrears plus interestI 2$5 in Le/arda
:er)anos !s. Saldaa, == S(R ,$6, the (ourt
ruled that /here one purchase, fro" a subdivision
o/ner t/o lots and has paid "ore than the value of
one lot, the for"er is entitled to a certiDcate of title
to one lot in case of default.
On the other hand there are also cases /here
rescission /as not .ranted and no ne/ or additional
period /as authori1ed. Thus, in Caridad 1states !s.
Santero, &# Phil. ##6, the vendee paid, totallin.
P&,=%'.'' or about $=E of the purchase price of
P,','''.'' for the three lots involved and /hen the
vendor de"anded revocation upon the vendee7s
default t/o !ears after, the vendee o:ered to pa!
the arears in chec; /hich the vendor refusedI and
the (ourt sustained the revocation and ordered the
vendee ousted fro" the possession of the land. In
*4ala 4 Cia !s. *rcache, %- Phil. $&,, the total price
of the land /as P6=&,6'6.'' pa!able in
install"entsI the bu!er initiall! paid P#'','''.'' or
about $=E of the a.reed priceI the (ourt ordered
rescission in vie/ of the substantial breach and
.ranted no e@tension to the vendee to co"pl! /ith
his obli.ation.
The doctrinal rulin.s that Ba sli.ht or casual breach
of contract is not a .round for rescission. It "ust be
so substantial and funda"ental to defeat the obCect
of the partiesB 2*re.orio raneta Inc. vs. Tua1on de
Paterno, +)$--9, u.ust $$, #%9$I Villanueva vs.
Nulo, +)#$%-=, Dec. $%,#%=%5I that B/here ti"e is
not of the essence of t a.ree"ent, a sli.ht dela! on
the part of one part! in the perfor"ance of his
obli.ation is not a su0cient .round for the
rescission of the a.ree"entB2 4iando vs. ?"bestro
+)##%#%, >ul! $&, #%=%I cases cited in Notes
appended to Jniversal Foods (orporation vs. (ourt
of ppeals, ,, S(R #5, convince and persuade Js
that in the case at bar /here the breach, dela! or
default /as co""itted as earl! as in the pa!"ent of
the Dfth "onthl! install"ent for Nove"ber, #%=6,
that such failure continued and persisted the ne@t
"onth and ever! "onth thereafter in #%==, #%=9,
#%=& and !ear after !ear to the end of the ten)!ear
period in #%96 2#' !ears is respondent7s contention5
and even to this ti"e, no/ "ore than t/ice as lon.
a ti"e as the ori.inal period /ithout respondent
addin., or even o:erin. to add a sin.le centavo to
the su" he had ori.inall! paid in #%=6 /hich
represents a "ere &E of the total price a.reed
upon, e<uit! and Custice "a! not be invo;ed and
applied. One /ho see;s e<uit! and Custice "ust
co"e to court /ith clean hands, /hich can hardl! be
said of the private respondent.
One Dnal point, on the supposed substantial
i"prove"ents erected on the land, respondent7s
house. To .rant the period to the respondent
because of the substantial value of his house is to
"a;e the land an accessor! to the house. This is
unCust and unconscionable since it is a rule in Our
+a/ that buildin.s and constructions are re.arded
as "ere accessories to the land /hich is the
principal, follo/in. the Ro"an "a@i" Bo"ne <uod
solo inadeDcatur solo ceditB 2?ver!thin. that is built
on the soil !ields to the soil5.
Pursuant to rt. ##%#, Ne/ (ivil (ode, petitioner is
entitled to rescission /ith pa!"ent of da"a.es
/hich the trial court and the appellate court, in the
latter7s ori.inal decision, .ranted in the for" of
rental at the rate of P9'.'' per "onth fro" u.ust,
#%== until respondent shall have actuall! vacated
the pre"ises, plus P$,'''.'' as attorne!7s fees. Ae
a0r" the sa"e to be fair and reasonable. Ae also
sustain the ri.ht of the petitioner to the possession
of the land, orderin. thereb! respondent to vacate
the sa"e and re"ove his house therefro".
AF?R?FOR?, IN VI?A OF TF? FOR?*OIN*, the
Resolution appealed fro" dated October #$, #%&' is
hereb! R?V?RS?D. The decision of the respondent
court dated pril $,, #%&' is hereb! R?INSTT?D
and FFIRM?D, /ith costs a.ainst private
respondent.
SO ORD?R?D.
Teehan.ee, Ma.asiar, Fernandez, 'e Castro and
Melencio:errera, 22., concur.

Foo$!o$%&
# Special ?i.ht Division, lvendia, >.,
ponente, Pal"a and . Re!es, >>.,
concurrin..