Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MARIANO Z. VELARDE AND AVELINA D. VELARDE v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 181426 2015-07-13	GAMES v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The right of rescission of a party to an obligation under Article 1191 of the Civil Code is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party who violates the reciprocity between them.[62] The failure of the spouses Pantaleon to pay the balance of the purchase price for the subject property entitled GGDI to rescind the Deed of Sale. And in view of our finding that Allied Bank was a mortgagee in bad faith, the subsequent transfer in its favor by way of foreclosure on the mortgage and purchase of the subject property at the public auction sale did not and cannot bar rescission.[63]
	GR No. 149322 2008-11-28	JAIME L. YANEZA v. CA NACHURA, J.
Most importantly, rescission of a contract presupposes the existence of a valid and subsisting obligation. The breach contemplated in Article 1191 is the obligor's failure to comply with an existing obligation.[28] It would be useless to rescind a contract that is no longer in existence. Here, we find that the contract of sale sought to be canceled by the petitioner does not exist anymore; hence, the filing of the petition for cancellation was an exercise in futility.
	GR NO. 157318 2006-08-09	GENEROSO V. VILLANUEVA v. STATE OF GERARDO L. GONZAGA PUNO, J.
Moreover, there is no legal basis for the rescission. The remedy of rescission under Art. 1191 of the Civil Code[15] is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party that violates the reciprocity between them.[16] We have held in numerous cases that the remedy does not apply to contracts to sell.[17] We explained the reason in Santos v. Court of Appeals,[18] viz -
	GR No. 148173 2004-12-10	SUPERCARS MANAGEMENT v. LATE FILEMON FLORES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioner's contention that under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, rescission can no longer be availed of as the vehicle was already in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value lacks merit. Rescission is proper if one of the parties to a contract commits a substantial breach of its provisions. It creates an obligation to return the object of the contract. It can be carried out only when the one who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to restore. Rescission abrogates the contract from its inception and requires a mutual restitution of the benefits received.[18] Petitioner is thus mandated by law to give back to respondent the purchase price upon his return of the vehicle. Records show that at the time respondent opted to rescind the contract, the vehicle was still in his possession. He returned it to petitioner who, without objection, accepted it. Accordingly, the 30% down payment equivalent to P63,600.00, plus the premium for the comprehensive insurance amounting to P7,374.80 paid by respondent should be returned by petitioner.
	GR No. 156627 2004-06-04	SPS. MANUEL AND JOCELYN BARREDO v. SPS. EUSTAQUIO AND EMILDA LEAÑO PUNO, J.
If the Barredo Spouses were really protective of their reputation and credit standing, they should have sought the consent, or at least notified the SSS and Apex of the assumption by the Leaño Spouses of their indebtedness. Besides, in ordering rescission, the trial court should have likewise ordered the Barredo Spouses to return the P200,000.00 they received as purchase price plus interests. Art. 1385 of the Civil Code provides that "[r]escission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest."[21] The vendor is therefore obliged to return the purchase price paid to him by the buyer if the latter rescinds the sale.[22] Thus, where a contract is rescinded, it is the duty of the court to require both parties to surrender that which they have respectively received and place each other as far as practicable in his original situation.[23]
	GR No. 133879 2001-11-21	EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER PANGANIBAN, J.
However, Carmelo could no longer be located. Thus, following the order of execution of the trial court, Mayfair deposited with the clerk of court a quo its payment to Carmelo in the sum of P11,300,000 less P847,000 as withholding tax. The lower court issued a Deed of Reconveyance in favor of Carmelo and a Deed of Sale in favor of Mayfair. On the basis of these documents, the Registry of Deeds of Manila cancelled Equatorial's titles and issued new Certificates of Title[7] in the name of Mayfair.