Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Digest: Pilipinas Bank Vs IAC June 30, 1987

    Încărcat de

    Mirabel Vidal
    19 vizualizări1 pagină
    Hacienda Benito, Inc. entered into a contract to sell land to private respondents in installments. The contract included a clause for automatic rescission if respondents failed to pay three consecutive installments on time or comply with other terms. Respondents fell behind on payments but petitioner sent notices requesting payment of balances and granting extensions without mentioning the automatic rescission clause. After more than two years, respondents sought to fully settle their obligation but petitioner rescinded the contract. The lower court found the rescission unjustified, citing waiver of the clause by accepting payments and extensions. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding a clear waiver of the automatic rescission right through the many extensions granted without attention to the clause.

    Descriere originală:

    Titlu original

    Pilipinas Bank v. Iac_digest

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Hacienda Benito, Inc. entered into a contract to sell land to private respondents in installments. The contract included a clause for automatic rescission if respondents failed to pay three consecutive installments on time or comply with other terms. Respondents fell behind on payments but petitioner sent notices requesting payment of balances and granting extensions without mentioning the automatic rescission clause. After more than two years, respondents sought to fully settle their obligation but petitioner rescinded the contract. The lower court found the rescission unjustified, citing waiver of the clause by accepting payments and extensions. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding a clear waiver of the automatic rescission right through the many extensions granted without attention to the clause.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    19 vizualizări1 pagină

    Digest: Pilipinas Bank Vs IAC June 30, 1987

    Încărcat de

    Mirabel Vidal
    Hacienda Benito, Inc. entered into a contract to sell land to private respondents in installments. The contract included a clause for automatic rescission if respondents failed to pay three consecutive installments on time or comply with other terms. Respondents fell behind on payments but petitioner sent notices requesting payment of balances and granting extensions without mentioning the automatic rescission clause. After more than two years, respondents sought to fully settle their obligation but petitioner rescinded the contract. The lower court found the rescission unjustified, citing waiver of the clause by accepting payments and extensions. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding a clear waiver of the automatic rescission right through the many extensions granted without attention to the clause.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 1

    Digest: Pilipinas Bank vs IAC June 30, 1987

    FACTS: Hacienda Benito, Inc. as vendor, and private respondents, as vendees executed Contract to Sell No. over a parcel of land on monthly installments subject to the condition: !he contract shall be considered automatically rescinded and cancelled and of no further force and effect upon failure of the vendee to pay "hen due, three or more consecutive installments as stipulated therein or to comply "ith any of the terms and conditions thereof#$ %urin& the contract, petitioner sent series of notices to private respondents '()* for thei latter+s balances,arreara&es. -rom time to time, () partially complied "ith this and re.uested for extensions. /n 0ay 12, 1234, the petitioner, for the last time, reminded the () to pay their balance. 5fter more than t"o years, () sent a letter expressin& their desire to settle their desire to fully settle their obli&ation. /n 0arch 63, 1237, petitioner "rote a letter to () , informin& them that the contract to sell had been rescinded. () filed Complaint for Specific (erformance "ith %ama&es to compel petitioner to execute a deed of sale. 5fter trial, the lo"er court rendered a decision in ()+s favor, holdin& that petitioner could not rescind the contract to sell, because: 'a* petitioner "aived the automatic rescission clause by acceptin& payment and by sendin& letters advisin& private respondents of the balances due, thus, loo8in& for"ard to receivin& payments thereon. Said decision "as affirmed on appeal. Hence, this (etition -or )evie" on Certiorari, ISS !: "hether or not the Contract to Sell "as rescinded, under the automatic rescission clause contained therein. "!#D: In case the rescission is found unjustified under the circumstances, still in the instant case there is a clear "aiver of the stipulated ri&ht of 9automatic rescission,9 as evidenced by the many extensions &ranted private respondents by the petitioner. In all these extensions, the petitioner never called attention to the proviso on 9automatic rescission.9 !he assailed decision is affirmed.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și