HELD: NO. What applies here is Article 1234: If the obligation has been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may recover as though there had been a strict and complete fulfillment, less damages suffered by the obligee. In this connection, it should be noted that, apart from the initial installment of P396.12, paid upon the execution of the contract, on September 7, 1954, the defendant religiously satisfied the monthly installments accruing thereafter, for a period of almost eight (8) years, or up to January 5, 1962; that, although the principal obligation under the contract was P3,691.20, the total payments made by the defendant up to January 5, 1962, including stipulated interest, aggregated P4,134.08; that the defendant has offered to pay all of the installments overdue including the stipulated interest, apart from reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs; and that, accordingly, the trial court sentenced the defendant to pay all such installments, interest, fees and costs. Thus, plaintiff will thereby recover everything due thereto, pursuant to its contract with the defendant, including such damages as the former may have suffered in consequence of the latter’s default. Under these circumstances, we feel that, in the interest of justice and equity, the decision appealed from may be upheld upon the authority of Art. 1234 of the Civil Code.1 LEGARDA HERMANOS and JOSE LEGARDA VS. FELIPE SALDAÑA [55 SCRA 324] The Court's doctrine in J.M. Tuason vs. Javier is fully applicable to the present case, RE Substantial performance of contract OBLIGATION in GF, Article 1234. FACTS : Contract to Sell between Plaintiff vendee, Felipe Saldaña and Defendant vendor, Legarda Hermanos, a subdivision-owner, on 2 written contracts, payable for 10 yrs, 120 equal monthly installments with 10% interest p.a., from May 1948. Respondent Saldaña faithfully paid for 8-yrs about 95-mos. installments out of 120; he stopped paying from filing of this case with CFI-Manila in 1961; after his 1 st 5 years of paying, respondent called attention of vendors that he wanted to build a house on his lot but they have to start improvements on the subdivision, e.g. roads. Instead, he was informed of cancellation of contract for failure to pay as stipulated, the 120 installments and his payments were to be treated as rents. The Lower Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, upheld the cancellation of the contract. Appellate court reversed, and ordered the conveyance of one of the 2 lots to defendants. At the latter’s choice. It was found that the lots could not be delivered because they were still submerged in water and there were no roads in the subdivision. (for equity and justice ) ISSUE : WON cancellation of contract here was proper? HELD : NO. The Court's doctrine in the analogous case of J.M. Tuason & Co. Inc. vs. Javier is fully applicable to the present case, with the respondent at bar being granted lesser benefits, since no rescission of contract was therein permitted. There, where the therein buyer-appellee identically situated as herein respondent buyer
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 45 pages?
- Winter '17
- Atty. Lopez
- Debt, Debtor