to not hinder the consideration of pleadings in order that party litigants may

To not hinder the consideration of pleadings in order

This preview shows page 66 - 68 out of 105 pages.

to not hinder the consideration of pleadings in order that party-litigants may exhaustively plead their cases. 85 Galicto, Coca-Cola, Victorio-Aquino , and Reyes are markedly different from the present controversy. They merely concerned formal infractions. In contrast, this case concerns Section 4's definite precondition for the seller's exercise of its option to repudiate a contract. At stake in Galicto, Coca- Cola, Victorio-Aquino , and Reyes was the right to be heard in judicial proceedings, a cognate of due process. What is at stake here is different: the grant of a statutory privilege relating to a civil contract. To be effective, sellers' cancellations under the Maceda Law must strictly comply with the requirements of Sections 3 and 4. This Court clarifies here that with respect to notices of cancellation or demands for rescission by notarial act, an acknowledgement is imperative. Moreover, when these are made through representatives of juridical persons selling real property, the authority of these representatives must be duly demonstrated. For corporations, the representative's authority must have either been granted by a board resolution or existing in the seller's articles of incorporation or by-laws. With the Maceda Law's avowed purpose of extending benefits to disadvantaged buyers and liberating them from onerous and oppressive conditions, it necessarily follows that the Maceda Law's permission for sellers to cancel contracts becomes available only when its conditions are heedfully satisfied. No liberal construction of the Maceda Law can be made in favor of the seller and at the same time burdening the buyer. V There being no valid cancellation, the purchase agreement between petitioner and respondent "remains valid and subsisting." 86 However, respondent has already sold the lot purchased by petitioner to a certain Ruel Ymana. 87 Gatchalian Realty v. Angeles 88 confronted a similar predicament. In determining the most judicious manner of disposing of the controversy, this Court considered the analogous cases of Olympia Housing v. Panasiatic Travel , 89 Pagtalunan v. Vda. de Manzano , 90 Active Realty and Development v. Daroya , 91 and Associated Marine Officers and Seamen's Union of the Philippines PTGWO-ITF v. Decena : 92 In Olympia , this Court dismissed the complaint for recovery of possession for having been prematurely filed without complying with the mandate of R.A. 6552. We ordered the defaulting buyer to pay the developer the balance as of the date of the filing of the complaint plus 18% interest per annum computed from the day after the date of the filing of the complaint, but within 60 days from the receipt of a copy of the decision. Upon payment, the developer shall issue the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the defaulting buyer, If the defaulting buyer fails to pay the full amount, then the defaulting buyer shall vacate the subject property without need of demand and all payments will be charged as rentals to the property. There was no award for damages and attorney's fees, and no
Image of page 66
costs were charged to the parties.
Image of page 67
Image of page 68

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture