Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    SPS Francisco V Deac

    Uploaded by

    Christian Angelo Onate
    This case involved a dispute between the Spouses Francisco and DEAC Construction over the construction of the Francisco's residential building. DEAC started construction without obtaining the necessary building permit, and forged Mrs. Francisco's signature. The trial court ordered partial rescission since the building was already 70-75% complete. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that DEAC failed to ensure compliance with permit requirements, and that partial rescission of the unfinished portion was equitable given the significant completion of construction.

    Copyright:

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

    SPS Francisco V Deac

    Uploaded by

    Christian Angelo Onate
    109 views1 page
    This case involved a dispute between the Spouses Francisco and DEAC Construction over the construction of the Francisco's residential building. DEAC started construction without obtaining the necessary building permit, and forged Mrs. Francisco's signature. The trial court ordered partial rescission since the building was already 70-75% complete. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that DEAC failed to ensure compliance with permit requirements, and that partial rescission of the unfinished portion was equitable given the significant completion of construction.

    Original Title

    SPS FRANCISCO V DEAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute between the Spouses Francisco and DEAC Construction over the construction of the Francisco's residential building. DEAC started construction without obtaining the necessary building permit, and forged Mrs. Francisco's signature. The trial court ordered partial rescission since the building was already 70-75% complete. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that DEAC failed to ensure compliance with permit requirements, and that partial rescission of the unfinished portion was equitable given the significant completion of construction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    109 views1 page

    SPS Francisco V Deac

    Uploaded by

    Christian Angelo Onate
    This case involved a dispute between the Spouses Francisco and DEAC Construction over the construction of the Francisco's residential building. DEAC started construction without obtaining the necessary building permit, and forged Mrs. Francisco's signature. The trial court ordered partial rescission since the building was already 70-75% complete. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that DEAC failed to ensure compliance with permit requirements, and that partial rescission of the unfinished portion was equitable given the significant completion of construction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    FRANCISCO vs.

    DEAC CONSTRUCTION
    G.R. No. 171312 February 4, 2008

    Facts:

    Spouses Francisco obtained the services of DEAC Construction, Inc. to construct a 3-storey residential
    building on their lot located at Tondo, Manila for a contract price of P3.5M. As agreed upon, a down
    payment of P2,000,000.00 should be paid upon signing of the contract of construction, and the remaining
    balance of P1,500,000.00 was to be paid in two equal installments: the first installment of P750,000.00
    should be paid upon completion of the foundation structure and the ground floor, which amount would
    be used primarily for the construction of the second floor to the roof deck while the final amount of
    P750,000.00 should be paid upon completion of the second floor up to the roof deck structure to defray
    the expenses necessary for finishing and completion of the building.

    The construction of the residential building commenced without the necessary building permit. Because
    of this, the spouses Francisco were criminally charged with the violation of the National Building Code (PD
    1096). To facilitate the approval of the permit, the signatures of Guia Francisco were forged by DEAC’s
    representative.

    The building inspector also observed, after periodic inspections of the construction site, that the
    contractor deviated on some specifications from the approved plans.

    The RTC ordered partial rescission since the subject building was already 70% to 75% completed at the
    time of the proceedings.

    Issue:

    WON partial rescission was properly ordered by the RTC? YES

    Held:

    DEAC, to whom the obligation of securing the building permit pertained, should obviously have ensured
    compliance with the requirements set forth by law. It should have informed the Spouses that the building
    permit had not yet been issued especially that they had already received a substantial amount of money
    from the latter and had already started the construction of the building.

    Respondents’ mistake in identifying the exact location of the property which led to the delay in the
    issuance of a building permit and forgery of petitioner Guia Francisco’s signature on the building plan
    exhibits a proclivity for error and taking the easy way out. The Spouses Francisco should be allowed to
    rescind the contract to the extent that this is possible under the circumstances.

    The filing of a criminal case against respondent Dadula and the subsequent filing of this civil case for
    rescission and damages within a reasonable time after the Spouses Francisco had learned that
    construction of their building commenced without the necessary building permit and discovered that
    there were deviations from the building plan demonstrate the vigilance with which they guarded their
    rights.

    Article 1191 of the Civil Code provides that the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones,
    in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The rescission referred
    to in this article, more appropriately referred to as resolution, is not predicated on injury to economic
    interests on the part of the party plaintiff, but of breach of faith by the defendant which is violative of the
    reciprocity between the parties.19 The right to rescind may be waived, expressly or impliedly.

    Given the fact that the construction in this case is already 75% complete, it is correct to order partial
    rescission only of the undelivered or unfinished portion of the construction. Equitable considerations
    justify rescission of the portion of the obligation which had not been delivered.

    You might also like