Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 612 views

    Pangilinan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jerik Solas
    Petitioners sought to set aside a Court of Appeals decision reversing a Regional Trial Court decision in their favor. [1] The petitioners had entered into a contract to purchase a lot, paying 85% of the cost, but then defaulted on payments. [2] The contract allowed for automatic rescission for defaulting on three monthly payments. [3] The Court of Appeals found that the petitioners were guilty of laches by failing to promptly assert their rights over the property after defaulting.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pangilinan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jerik Solas
    612 views2 pages
    Petitioners sought to set aside a Court of Appeals decision reversing a Regional Trial Court decision in their favor. [1] The petitioners had entered into a contract to purchase a lot, paying 85% of the cost, but then defaulted on payments. [2] The contract allowed for automatic rescission for defaulting on three monthly payments. [3] The Court of Appeals found that the petitioners were guilty of laches by failing to promptly assert their rights over the property after defaulting.

    Original Description:

    civpro

    Original Title

    Pangilinan vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners sought to set aside a Court of Appeals decision reversing a Regional Trial Court decision in their favor. [1] The petitioners had entered into a contract to purchase a lot, paying 85% of the cost, but then defaulted on payments. [2] The contract allowed for automatic rescission for defaulting on three monthly payments. [3] The Court of Appeals found that the petitioners were guilty of laches by failing to promptly assert their rights over the property after defaulting.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    612 views2 pages

    Pangilinan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Jerik Solas
    Petitioners sought to set aside a Court of Appeals decision reversing a Regional Trial Court decision in their favor. [1] The petitioners had entered into a contract to purchase a lot, paying 85% of the cost, but then defaulted on payments. [2] The contract allowed for automatic rescission for defaulting on three monthly payments. [3] The Court of Appeals found that the petitioners were guilty of laches by failing to promptly assert their rights over the property after defaulting.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PANGILINAN VS CA

    FACTS

    This is a petition for review wherein the petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
    in which reversed the decision of the RTC in the original action filed by the spouses petitioner.

    In this case, petitioners sps. Pangilinan and respondents Canlas entered into a Contract to Buy and To
    Sell a subdivision located in San Fernando Pampanga payable in installment basis for 120 months. The
    petitioners paid 85% of the total cost of the lot, however they defaulted payment after the 85% has been
    paid. Paragraph 5 of the contract provided for automatic extrajudicial rescission upon default in payment
    of three consecutive monthly installments or to comply with any of the terms and conditions with
    forfeitures of installments as rents and as payment for damages. The contract to by and to sell as well as
    the receipts of various payments made by petitioners in favor of private respondents were given by the
    former to Mr. Arcadio S. Mallari wherein the latter equipped with a special power of attorney from
    petitioners.

    Petitioners went to respondents to request them to release the titles of the lot however, Jose Canlas
    (respondent) told him that they were not in a position to release the title to said lot because the same had
    already been disposed of Mr. Mallari discovered that the lot was mortgaged. After the lapse of eight years
    from the last date of payment he instituted a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages and the
    RTC rendered decision in favor of the petitioners, however, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of
    the lower court, hence, this appeal.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not petitioners are guilty of laches.

    RULING

    Petitioners aver that the doctrine of laches is not applicable in this case because (1) petitioners failure to
    pay in full the balance of 15% of the total price of the lot was due to the reneged obligation of the private
    respondents to improve the subdivision and install facilities; (2) the mortgage of the lot to Rural Bank of
    Sta. Rita was done without their consent and knowledge.

    The same has no merit. It must be noted that upon a careful examination of the records of this case, it
    appears that the contention of the petitioners that their failure to pay the balance of 15% of the total
    contract price of the lot was due to the inability of the private respondent to improve the subdivision and
    install facilities which was raised only for the first time on appeal. They did not raise this issue before the
    lower courts. It is settled that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the
    trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Issues of fact and arguments not
    adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be and ordinarily will not be considered by a
    reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Assuming arguendo that it was
    raised before the trial court, the same would be without merit because the failure of the private
    respondents to install facilities would not deter them from asking for the rescission of the agreement if
    petitioners failed to comply with their obligation to pay the monthly installments when they become due,
    otherwise, the right of rescission would be rendered inutile. In the same vein, petitioners by virtue of their
    contract with private respondents should have complied in good faith with its terms and conditions being
    the law between them. From the moment the contract is perfected, the parties are bound not only to the
    fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all consequences which, according to their
    nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. The Contract to Buy and to Sell, specifically
    paragraph 5 thereof, not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, is
    valid and binding between the parties thereto.
    Explicitly, spouses Pangilinan instead of being vigilant and diligent in asserting their rights over the
    subject property had failed to assert their rights when the law requires them to act. Laches or "stale
    demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the
    discouragement of stale claims and unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is
    principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

    You might also like