Scribd
Upload
27 views1 page

Santos Vs CA

The document discusses a land dispute case between the Santos couple and the Casedas. The Santos couple owned land that they mortgaged and later agreed to sell to the Casedas, but the Casedas did not fully pay the purchase price and failed to pay off the mortgage. The issue is whether this constitutes substantial breach to allow rescission of the sale contract. The court held that failure to pay the full price prevents the vendor's obligation to transfer title, so there is no rescission.

Uploaded by

Cecilia Alexandria Godoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views1 page

Santos Vs CA

The document discusses a land dispute case between the Santos couple and the Casedas. The Santos couple owned land that they mortgaged and later agreed to sell to the Casedas, but the Casedas did not fully pay the purchase price and failed to pay off the mortgage. The issue is whether this constitutes substantial breach to allow rescission of the sale contract. The court held that failure to pay the full price prevents the vendor's obligation to transfer title, so there is no rescission.

Uploaded by

Cecilia Alexandria Godoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SANTOS VS CA

FACTS

Petitioners spouses Fortunato and Rosalinda Santos owned the house and lot consisting 350 sq meters
located at Lost 7, Blk 8, Better Living Subdivision, Paranaque, Metro Manila. The land together with the
house was mortgaged with the Rural Bank of Salinas, Inc., to secure a loan of P150,000.00 maturing on
June 16, 1987.

On June 16, 1984, the petitioners received a letter from the bank demanding them the payment of
unpaid interests and other charges amounting to P16, 915. 84. Since the Santos couple has no funds,
they offered to sell their house and lot to petitioner Rosalinda’s good friend, Carmen Caseda, her fellow
market vendor. After inspecting the real property, Carmen and her husband agreed to buy the house
and lot. In the same month of June, they signed a contract stating that Rosalinda received a partial
payment of P54, 000 out of P350, 000 from Carmen Caseda for the house and lot.

After paying the certain partial amount, the Casedas immediately took possession of the property which
they then leased out. They also paid in installments the mortage loan but failed to pay in full for they
experienced bankruptcy in 1987. The petitioners took over the rental payments after seeing that the
private respondents lack the means to pay for their agreement.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE NON-PAYMENT OF MORE THAN HALF OF THE ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE
INCLUDING THE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE STIPULATION TO LIQUIDATE THE MORTGAGE LOAN ON
TIME WHICH CAUSED GRAVE DAMAGE AND PREJUDICE TO PETITIONERS, CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL
BREACH TO JUSTIFY RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT TO SELL UNDER ARTICLE 1191

HELD

No. Failure to pay the price agreed upon is not a mere breach, casual or serious, but a situation that
prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. Having ruled
that there is no rescission to speak of in this case, the question is moot.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

You might also like