LCP

SUBJECT: OBLICON
TOPIC: Kinds of conditional obli, suspensive and resolutory
OSCAR A. JACINTO and LIBRADA FRANCO-JACINTO, petitioners,
vs.
ROGELIO KAPARAZ, RAUL KAPARAZ and ROSE MARIET KAPARAZ, respondents.
G.R. No. 81158 May 22, 1992

GENERAL RULE OF LAW/DOCTRINE

FACTS
On 11 March 1966, petitioners and private respondents entered into an agreement under which the private respondents
agreed to sell and convey to petitioners a portion consisting of 600 square meters of a lot located in Davao Oriental for a total
amount of P1,800.00 with a downpayment of P800.00 upon execution of the Agreement. The balance of P1,000.00 was to be
paid by petitioners on installment at the rate of P100.00 a month to the Development Bank of the Philippines to be applied to
private respondents' loan accounts. The pertinent portions of the Agreement read as follows:
6. That the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART hereby agrees, promises and binds himself to sell, cede, transfer, and convey absolutely
to the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART 600 -square meter portion of the property together with all the improvements thereon…
9. That the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART agrees and binds himself to acknowledge receipt of every and all monthly payments
remitted to the Development Bank of the Philippines by the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART and further agrees and binds himself
to execute the final deed of absolute sale of the 600 square meters herein above referred to in favor of the PARTY OF THE
SECOND PART as soon as the settlement or partition of the estate of the deceased Narcisa Kaparaz shall have been
consummated and effected, but not later than March 31, 1967.
Upon the execution of the agreement, petitioners paid the downpayment of P800.00 and were placed in possession of the
portion described therein. As to the P1,000.00 which was to be paid directly to the DBP, petitioners claim that they had even
made an excess payment of P100.00. In view of the refusal of private respondents to execute the deed of sale, petitioners filed
against them a complaint for specific performance with the Court of First Instance. Private respondents alleged that the sale did
not materialize because of the failure of petitioners to fulfill their promise to make timely payments on the stipulated price to
the DBP; as a result of such failure, they (private respondents) failed to secure the release of the mortgage on the property.
They then prayed for the dismissal of the case and a declaration that the agreement is null and void.

ISSUES AND RULINGS

ISSUE

Are respondents entitled to rescind the agreement?

RULINGS

No. Since in a contract of sale, the non-payment of the price is a resolutory condition, the remedy of the seller under Article
1191 of the Civil Code is to exact fulfillment or to rescind the contract. In respect, however, to the sale of immovable property,
this Article must be read together with Article 1592 of the same Code:

Art. 1592. In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the
time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, 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. After
the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.

In the case at bar, there was non-compliance with the requirements prescribed in there provisions. It is not controverted that
private respondents had neither filed an action for specific performance nor demand the rescission of the agreement either
judicially or by a notarial act before the filing of the complaint. It is only in their Answer that they belatedly raised the defense
of resolution of the contract pursuant to Article 1191 by reason of petitioner’s breach of their obligation. Moreover, the delay
incurred by petitioners was but a casual or slight breach of the agreement, which did not defeat the object of the parties in
entering in the agreement. A mere casual breach does not justify rescission. Rescission of the agreement was not available to
private respondents.

RELEVANT LAWS APPLICABLE

Article 1952, Civil Code of the Philippines

OBLICON 1
JACINTO vs KAPARAZ by RENZ MACION