Vda de Mistica vs Spouses Naguiat

VDA DE MISTICA VS. NAGUIAT GR. No 137909 December 11, 2003

FACTS: Eulalio Mistica, predecessor-in-interest of herein petitioner, is the owner of a parcel of land. A portion thereof was leased to [Respondent Bernardino a!uiat" so#eti#e in $%&'. (n ) April $%&%, Eulalio Mistica entered into a contract to sell with Respondent a!uiat o*er a portion of the afore#entioned lot containin! an area of +'' suare #eters. ursuant to said a!ree#ent, Respondent Bernardino a!uiat !a*e a downpa#ent of +,'''.''. /e #ade another partial p artial pa#ent of $,'''.'' on & Fe0ruar $% 1'. /e failed to #a2e an pa#ents thereafter. Eulalio Mistica died so#eti#e in (cto0er  $%13. (n 4 5ece#0er $%%$, petitioner p etitioner filed a co#plaint for rescission alle!in! inter alia: that the failure and refusal of respondents to pa the 0alance of the purchase price constitutes a *iolation of the contract which entitles her to rescind the sa#e6 that [respondents" ha*e 0een in possession of the su07ect portion and the should 0e ordered to *acate and surrender possession of the sa#e to petitioner. Respondents contended that the contract cannot 0e rescinded on the !round that it clearl stipulates that in case of failure to pa the 0alance as stipulated, a earl interest of $+8 is to 0e paid. 9i2ewise alle!ed that so#eti#e in (cto0er $%13, durin! the wa2e of the late Eulalio Mistica, he offered to pa the re#ainin! 0alance to petitioner 0ut the latter refused and hence, there is no 0reach or *iolation co##itted 0 the# and no da#a!es could et 0e incurred 0 the late Eulalio Mistica, his heirs or assi!ns pursuant to the said docu#ent. SS;E: plained that the conclusion of the ten-ear period was not a resolutor ter#, 0ecause the Contract had stipulated that pa#ent -- with interest of $+ percent -- could still 0e #ade if respondents failed to pa within the period. Accordin! to the appellate court, petitioner did not dispro*e the alle!ation of respondents that the had tendered pa#ent of the 0alance of the purchase price durin! her hus0and?s funeral, which was well within the ten-ear period. Moreo*er, rescission rescission would 0e un7ust to respondents, 0ecause the h ad alread transferred the land title to their na#es. The prope r recourse, the CA held, was to order the# to pa the 0alance of the purchase price, with $+ percent interest. etitioner clai#s that she is entitled to rescind the Contract under Article $$%$ $$%$ of the Ci*il Code, 0ecause respondents co##itted a su0stantial 0reach when the did not pa the 0alance of the purchase price within the ten-ear period. ed period. The CA further ruled that rescission in this

case would 0e un7ust to respondents, 0ecause a certificate of title had alread 0een issued in their na#es.