Wednesday, July 5, 2023

Case Digest: Suria vs IAC, G.R. No. 73893

Suria vs IAC, GR No. 73893, January 30, 1987

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Spouses Crispin being the owner of a parcel of land entered into a Deed of Sale with mortgage (which contains the stipulation that grants to the vendors mortgages the right to foreclosure “in the event of the failure of the vendees-mortgagors to comply with any provisions of this mortgage), with herein petitioner.

However, petitioners paid only one installment. All others remained unsettled. And despite repeated demands, petitioners failed to comply.

Spouses Crispin then filed a complaint for rescission of contract and damages.

Meanwhile, petitioners offered to pay all outstanding balance under the Deed of Sale with mortgage. But the spouses Crispin rejected the offer.

Petitioners then moved to dismiss the spouses’ complaint on the ground that spouses Crispin is not entitled to subsidiary remedy to rescission because of the presence of the remedy of foreclosure.

ISSUE

Whether or not it is subsidiary and equitable remedy of rescission available in the presence of a remedy of foreclosure in the light of the express provision of Article 1383 of the Civil Code that: “The action for rescission is subsidiary; it cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same.

RULING

No, the subsidiary and equitable remedy of rescission is not available in this case.

Under the law (Art 1191), the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission even after he has chosen fulfillment. If the latter should become impossible.

In this case, Article 1191 on reciprocal obligation is not applicable under the facts of this case. Moreover, Article 1383 of the Civil Code provides that the action for rescission is subsidiary. It cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage had no other legal means to obtain reparation from the same.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

  General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC,  G.R. No. 178647,  Februa...