Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 328 views

    11 - Taguba V de Leon - PEREZ

    Uploaded by

    Pearl asdf
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that Taguba did not have the right to unilaterally rescind the contract with De Leon. While De Leon did not fully pay by the deadline, she was still willing and able to pay, and Taguba did not formally demand rescission as required by law. Thus, the subsequent sale to the Asuncions was deemed invalid. The Asuncions also could not claim to be buyers in good faith as they were aware of the prior sale to De Leon.

    Copyright:

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

    11 - Taguba V de Leon - PEREZ

    Uploaded by

    Pearl asdf
    328 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that Taguba did not have the right to unilaterally rescind the contract with De Leon. While De Leon did not fully pay by the deadline, she was still willing and able to pay, and Taguba did not formally demand rescission as required by law. Thus, the subsequent sale to the Asuncions was deemed invalid. The Asuncions also could not claim to be buyers in good faith as they were aware of the prior sale to De Leon.

    Original Description:

    Oblicon

    Original Title

    11_Taguba v de Leon_PEREZ

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that Taguba did not have the right to unilaterally rescind the contract with De Leon. While De Leon did not fully pay by the deadline, she was still willing and able to pay, and Taguba did not formally demand rescission as required by law. Thus, the subsequent sale to the Asuncions was deemed invalid. The Asuncions also could not claim to be buyers in good faith as they were aware of the prior sale to De Leon.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    328 views2 pages

    11 - Taguba V de Leon - PEREZ

    Uploaded by

    Pearl asdf
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that Taguba did not have the right to unilaterally rescind the contract with De Leon. While De Leon did not fully pay by the deadline, she was still willing and able to pay, and Taguba did not formally demand rescission as required by law. Thus, the subsequent sale to the Asuncions was deemed invalid. The Asuncions also could not claim to be buyers in good faith as they were aware of the prior sale to De Leon.

    Copyright:

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

    TAGUBA v. VDA DE DE LEON (No.

    L-59980) agreed with the CA by saying Taguba had no right to rescind the
    Promulgated: October 23 1894 contract pursuant to Article 1592 of the Civil Code because he did not
    Petitioners: Berlin Taguba & Sebastiana Domingo (spouses), Pedro & demand for the rescission of contract and because De Leon was able to
    Maring Asuncion (spouses) pay the full amount for the lot and that the Asuncions were not buyers
    Respondents: Maria Peralta Vda. De De Leon, Court of Appeals in good faith because they knew of the previous sale to De Leon.

    Relevant Provisions: Facts:


    Article 1592 of the Civil Code  Taguba has a residential lot in Cauayan, Isabela, portions of which
    In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been he leased to the Asuncions and De Leon.
    stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the  Taguba sold 400 sq m of the lot, which includes the part leased by
    rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, the Asuncions, to De Leon through a Deed of Conditional Sale. This
    even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand for stipulated that De Leon will pay ₱18,000 to Taguba until Dec 3
    rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or 1972, and if unable to fully pay by then, De Leon will be given an
    by a notarial act. xxx extension of 6 months to pay with interest.
     De Leon was able to pay ₱12,500 by Dec 1972. She tried to pay the
    Quick Summary of the Case: balance of ₱5,500 on May 1973 but Taguba refused her payment.
    Portions of Taguba’s lot were leased to the Asuncions and De Leon.  Spouses Taguba and De Leon had a negotiation for settlement. De
    Taguba sold 400 sq m to De Leon through a Deed of Conditional Sale. Leon alleges that this failed. The spouses allege that in this
    De Leon was unable to pay the full amount by the agreed time. She negotiation De Leon proposed that the portion actually occupied by
    tried to pay the balance within the extension given to her but Taguba the Asuncions will be sold to them.
    refused her payment. Allegedly with De Leon’s approval, Taguba sold  Taguba executed a Deed of Sale to the Asuncions which covered the
    the portion of the lot actually occupied by the Asuncions to them. De portion of the lot actually occupied by the spouses.
    Leon filed a complaint with the CFI of Isabela which rendered a  De Leon filed a complaint for a Specific Performance with
    decision that De Leon had to pay only for the portion of the lot she Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with damages against the spouses
    actually owns. The CA reversed this by saying that De Leon had the Taguba in the CFI of Isabela.
    right to the 400 sq m lot and voiding the sale to the Asuncions. The SC
     The Asuncions intervened and alleged that they bought in good faith there was no stipulation in the contract that Taguba could unilaterally
    the portion of the land that they actually occupy. rescind the contract if De Leon is unable to pay.
     The CFI made a decision ordering Taguba to execute a deed of Araneta v. Paterno provides that “where time is not of the essence of
    absolute sale in favor of De Leon only of the portion of the lot she the agreement, a slight delay on the part of one party in the
    actually occupies. performance of his obligation is not a sufficient ground for the
     This was appealed to the CA which reversed the CFI decision by rescission of the agreement”.
    ordering Taguba to execute the deed of sale for the 400 sq m This applies to the case at bar since De Leon had actually tried to
    originally agreed upon and declared that the deed of sale issued to complete the payment thus only making it a delay on her part, and she
    the Asuncions was null and void. did this within the extension period stated in the contract.

     Petitioners filed an MR which was denied and thus filed this Review Even if it was called a Deed of Conditional Sale, a reading of the

    on Certiorari to the SC contract would show that it was absolute in nature. The contract only
    gave Taguba the right to collect interest. This makes the sale to De

    Issue: (Derived) Leon absolute, and the sale to the Asuncions invalid. The Asuncions

    W/N Taguba had the right to rescind the contract? - NO were not buyers in good faith because they were aware of the earlier

    W/N the sale to the Asuncions was valid? - NO sale to De Leon.

    W/N the Asuncions were buyers in good faith - NO


    Ruling

    Held/Ratio: The judgment of CA is affirmed.

    The applicable provision is Article 1592 of the Civil Code. This


    provides that the vendee may pay even after the expiration of the
    period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been
    made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act.
    In the case at bar, Taguba didn’t have the right to rescind the contract
    with De Leon even if she was unable to pay within the fixed period,
    pursuant to Art 1592 because he did not demand for a rescission of the
    contract, and De Leon was willing to pay for the whole amount. Also,

    You might also like