St. Dominic Corporation vs IAC, GR No. 67207, August 26, 1985
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
Constantino B. Acosta and Eva Acosta entered
into a Land Purchase Agreement with St. Dominic Corporation on February 27,
1967. The agreement involved the sale of Lot No. 1-A, S-2, Block 8, covered by
T.C.T. No. 842,00 in Quezon City for a total price of P15,400. The Acostas made
an initial payment of P4,000 upon signing the contract, and the remaining balance
of P11,400 was to be paid in 120 equal monthly installments of P150.75. The
contract stated that if the payments were in arrears for more than 60 days or
if the purchaser violated any conditions, the entire balance would become due
and demandable. It also stipulated that if the purchaser failed to comply with
the conditions or failed to make payments, they would be granted a grace period
of up to 60 days. After that, the contract would be automatically cancelled and
rescinded.
From March 24, 1967, to April 8, 1969, the
Acostas made total monthly payments of P2,458.25, covering approximately 17
months. However, they were about 7 months behind on their payments when they
sent P300.00 in two separate money orders to St. Dominic Corporation on April
8, 1969. The corporation rejected these payments, claiming that the contract
had been cancelled on March 24, 1969. They informed the Acostas through a
letter sent by their Corporate Secretary that the contract had been cancelled
on July 15, 1968, and the Acostas' payments were considered "rents paid
for the use and occupation" of the property.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents made a timely
consignation as ordered by the Court of Appeals of the remaining balance of the
purchase price for the disputed lot.
RULING
Yes.
The petitioner argues that the 60-day period
given by the Court of Appeals should be counted from the receipt of the
decision, not from the date of entry of judgment. The petitioner also contends
that even if the 60-day period is counted from the finality of the decision,
the respondents' consignation was made out of time.
These contentions have merit. It is undisputed
that the respondents received a copy of the decision on October 30, 1981.
Therefore, they had until December 29, 1981, to make the payment. If the
petitioner refused to accept the payment, the proper procedure for the
respondents would have been to consign the amount with the court within the
60-day period or within a reasonable time thereafter. The fact that
negotiations were attempted by the petitioner after the decision was rendered
did not affect the finality of the judgment, as emphasized in the appellate
court's order on May 6, 1982.
No comments:
Post a Comment