Scribd
Upload
50 views2 pages

de Guzman Vs CA

The document discusses a case involving a contract to sell land between Pilar De Guzman and Leona Singh. The two parties reached a compromise in court but there was a dispute over payment. The question asks whether De Guzman can compel Singh to vacate the premises. The answer says no, because Singh's payment was only delayed by two days for valid reasons and she demonstrated eagerness to pay, so De Guzman must execute the documents to complete the land sale contract.

Uploaded by

Rewel Jr. Medico
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
50 views2 pages

de Guzman Vs CA

The document discusses a case involving a contract to sell land between Pilar De Guzman and Leona Singh. The two parties reached a compromise in court but there was a dispute over payment. The question asks whether De Guzman can compel Singh to vacate the premises. The answer says no, because Singh's payment was only delayed by two days for valid reasons and she demonstrated eagerness to pay, so De Guzman must execute the documents to complete the land sale contract.

Uploaded by

Rewel Jr. Medico
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Case Title: De Guzman et al v Hon.

CA et al
GR No. L-52733
July 23, 1985

Case Problem:

Pilar De Guzman (De Guzman), Rolando (Rolando) and Minerva (Minerva) Gestuvo
executed a Contract to Sell with Leona Singh (Singh) for two parcels of land owned by the De
Guzman, Rolando and Minerva. The initial agreement was that Singh should pay the balance of
the purchase price of PHP 133,640 on or before February 17, 1975 and two days before the
agreed date, Singh requested the De Guzman to furnish her the statement of account of the
balance due, the copies of the certificates of title covering the two parcels of land subject to sale,
and a copy of the power of attorney executed by Rolando in favor of De Guzman. However, De
Guzman denied the request which led to Singh’s filing of a complaint for specific performance
with damages against De Guzman and the Gestuvos before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Rizal.
On November 29, 1977, the trial court rendered its decision stipulating a compromise
agreement between the two parties which made Singh pay De Guzman the amount of PHP
240,000 no later than January 27, 1978 otherwise, the former shall vacate and voluntarily
surrender the premises without further or notice of demand.

Question:

1. Can De Guzman compel Singh to vacate the premises? Discuss. (10pts.)

Answer:

1. De Guzman cannot compel Singh to vacate the premises on her contention that the latter
did not comply with the compromised agreement.

Article 1242 of the Civil Code states that the payment made in good faith to any person
in possession of the credit shal release the debtor.

The two days delay of Singh was due to the fact that De Guzma failed to show on the
agreed date stipulated in their compromise agreement. Saturday, being a weekend, cannot
be considered as a delay on the part of Singh since the settlement should be done in court,
which only operates on a regular working day. Additionally, Singh’s eagerness to make
the payment was evidenced in her effort to go to De Guzman’s house as she waited for
the latter’s arrival.

Therefore, De Guzman should execute the documents required to complete their Contract
to Sell.
Tags: joint liability, solidary liability, illegal dismissal

You might also like