Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    Angeles V Calasanz

    Uploaded by

    shannon
    Ursula and Tomas Calasanz sold land to Buenaventura Angeles through a contract to sell, which Angeles had been paying monthly installments on for almost nine years, with only a few payments remaining. Calasanz attempted to cancel the contract when Angeles was five months late on payments. The court ruled that the contract was not validly canceled because (1) cancellation must be communicated to the other party and subject to court review, and (2) the breach was slight given Angeles had substantially performed by paying installments for nine years and only a short time remained to fulfill the full obligation. The contract remained valid and Calasanz was ordered to execute the final deed of sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Angeles V Calasanz

    Uploaded by

    shannon
    77 views2 pages
    Ursula and Tomas Calasanz sold land to Buenaventura Angeles through a contract to sell, which Angeles had been paying monthly installments on for almost nine years, with only a few payments remaining. Calasanz attempted to cancel the contract when Angeles was five months late on payments. The court ruled that the contract was not validly canceled because (1) cancellation must be communicated to the other party and subject to court review, and (2) the breach was slight given Angeles had substantially performed by paying installments for nine years and only a short time remained to fulfill the full obligation. The contract remained valid and Calasanz was ordered to execute the final deed of sale.

    Original Title

    Angeles v Calasanz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ursula and Tomas Calasanz sold land to Buenaventura Angeles through a contract to sell, which Angeles had been paying monthly installments on for almost nine years, with only a few payments remaining. Calasanz attempted to cancel the contract when Angeles was five months late on payments. The court ruled that the contract was not validly canceled because (1) cancellation must be communicated to the other party and subject to court review, and (2) the breach was slight given Angeles had substantially performed by paying installments for nine years and only a short time remained to fulfill the full obligation. The contract remained valid and Calasanz was ordered to execute the final deed of sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Angeles V Calasanz

    Uploaded by

    shannon
    Ursula and Tomas Calasanz sold land to Buenaventura Angeles through a contract to sell, which Angeles had been paying monthly installments on for almost nine years, with only a few payments remaining. Calasanz attempted to cancel the contract when Angeles was five months late on payments. The court ruled that the contract was not validly canceled because (1) cancellation must be communicated to the other party and subject to court review, and (2) the breach was slight given Angeles had substantially performed by paying installments for nine years and only a short time remained to fulfill the full obligation. The contract remained valid and Calasanz was ordered to execute the final deed of sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Angeles v.

    Calasanz
    G.R. No. L-42283, March 18, 1985, 135 SCRA 323

    FACTS:

    Ursula and Tomas Calasanz sold a piece of land to Buenaventura Angeles and
    Teofila Juani covered by a contract to sell. Angeles paid a down payment upon
    the execution of the contract and started paying the balance in monthly
    installments for nine years with only a few remaining installments left to pay.
    Although Calasanz accepted late payments before, Angeles was now five
    months late. Calasanz demanded payment of past due accounts, but did not
    receive any. Eventually, Calansanz canceled the said contract and Angeles
    asked for reconsideration, but was denied.

    A provision in the contract to sell gave Calasanz the right to cancel the contract
    and consider the amounts paid as rent for the property. However, the lower court
    ruled that the contract was not validly canceled and ordered Calasanz to execute
    a final Deed of Sale in favor of Angeles.

    ISSUE:

    Was the contract to sell validly canceled?

    RULING:

    No. The act of a party in treating a contract as canceled or resolved on account


    of infractions by the other must be made known to the other and is always
    provisional, being ever subject to scrutiny and review by the proper court. If the
    other party denies that rescission is justified, it is free to bring the matter to court.
    Then, should the court decide that the resolution of the contract was not
    warranted, the responsible party will be sentenced to damages; in the contrary
    case, the resolution will be affirmed and indemnity awarded to the party
    prejudiced.

    The right to rescind the contract for non-performance of one of its stipulations is
    not absolute. The general rule is that rescission of a contract will not be permitted
    for a slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and fundamental
    breach as would defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement.
    The question of whether a breach of a contract is substantial depends upon the
    attendant circumstances.

    The breach of the contract alleged by Calasanz is so slight considering that


    Angeles had already paid monthly installments for almost nine years. In only a
    short time, the entire obligation would have been paid.

    To mitigate the unilateral act of Calasanz in cancelling the contract, Article 1234
    of the Civil Code provides that: If the obligation has been substantially performed
    in good faith, the obligor may recover as though there had been a strict and
    complete fulfillment, less damages suffered by the obligee.

    You might also like