Pilar V Degusman

PILAR DE GUZMAN v. CA, GR No.
52733, 1985-07-23
Facts:
On February 17, 1971, the petitioners, as SELLER, and the private respondent, as BUYER, executed a Contract to
Sell covering two (2) parcels of land owned by the petitioners located at Cementina Street, Pasay City, and covered
by TCT Nos. 11326 and 11327 of the RD of Pasay City. It was stipulated therein that the private respondent should
pay the balance of the purchase price of P133,640.00 on or before February 17, 1975.
On February 15, 1975, the private respondent asked the petitioners to furnish her with a statement of account of the
balance due; copies of the certificates of title covering the two parcels of land subject of the sale; and a copy of the
power of attorney executed by Rolando Gestuvo in favor of Pilar de Guzman. But, the petitioners denied the request.
As a result, the private respondent filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against the petitioners
before the CFI of Rizal. The case, however, was dismissed for failure to prosecute. But, the private respondent
subsequently refiled the case.
PRIVATE RESPONDENT: The petitioners, by refusing to furnish her with copies of the documents requested,
deliberately intended not to comply with their obligations under the contract to sell, as a result of which the said
petitioners committed a breach of contract, and had also acted unfairly and in manifest bad faith for which they should
be held liable for damages.
PETITIONER: that the complaint failed to state a cause of action; that the balance due was already predetermined in
the contract; that the petitioners have no obligation to furnish the private respondent with copies of the documents
requested; and that the private respondent's failure to pay the balance of the purchase price on the date specified
had caused the contract to expire and become ineffective without necessity of notice or of any judicial declaration to
that effect.
On November 29, 1977, the trial court rendered a decision approving the compromise agreement submitted by the
parties.
On January 28, 1978, the petitioners filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, claiming that the private
respondent had failed to abide by the terms of the compromise agreement and pay the amount specified in their
compromise agreement within the period... stipulated.
The private respondent opposed the motion, saying that she had complied with the terms and conditions of the
compromise agreement and asked the court to direct the petitioners to comply with the court's decision and execute
the necessary documents to effect the transfer of ownership of the two parcels of land in question to her.
Acting upon the motions, the respondent judge issued an order on March 27, 1978, denying the petitioners' motion
for execution, and instead, directed the petitioners to immediately execute the necessary documents transferring to
private respondent the title to the properties.
He also ordered the Clerk of Court to release to the petitioners the amount of P250,000.00, which had been
deposited by the private respondent, upon proper receipt therefor.
The petitioners filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order,[6] but the trial court denied the same. The
petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the respondent Court of Appeals to nullify the order of the trial court which
dismissed their appeal. On February 5, 1980, the said appellate court rendered judgment sustaining the decision of
the trial court.
Issues:
WON trial court erred in ruling that the private respondent had complied with the terms of the compromise agreement.
Ruling:
We agree with the findings of the trial court that the private respondent had substantially complied with the terms and
conditions of the compromise agreement. Her failure to deliver to the petitioners the full amount on January 27,
1978 was not her fault. The blame lies with the petitioners. The record shows that the private respondent went to
the sala of Judge Bautista on the appointed day to make payment, as agreed upon in their compromise agreement.
But, the petitioners were not there to receive it. Only the petitioners' counsel appeared later, but, he informed the
private respondent that he had no authority to receive and accept payment.
Instead, he invited the private respondent and her companions to the house of the petitioners to effect payment. But,
the petitioners were not there either. They were informed that the petitioner Pilar de Guzman would arrive late in the
afternoon, possibly at around 4:00 o'clock. The private respondent was assured, however, that she would be
informed as soon as the petitioners arrived. The private respondent, in her eagerness to settle her obligation,
consented and waited for the call which did not come and unwittingly let the period lapse. The next day, January 28,
1978, the private respondent went to the office of the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City
Branch, to deposit the balance of the purchase price. But, it being a Saturday, the cashier was not there to
receive it. So, on the next working day, Monday, January 30, 1978, the private respondent deposited the amount of
P30,000.00 with the cashier of the Office of the COC of CFI of Rizal, Pasay City Branch, to complete the payment of
the purchase price of P250,000.00. Since the deposit of the balance of the purchase price was made in good faith
and that the failure of the private respondent to deposit the purchase price on the date specified was due to the
petitioners who also make no claim that they had sustained damages because of the two days delay, there was
substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement.
WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued
is LIFTED and SET ASIDE. With costs against the petitioners.

Pilar V Degusman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pilar V Degusman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pilar V Degusman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PILAR DE GUZMAN v. CA, GR No.

You might also like