NICOLAS P. DIEGO, Petitioner, vs. RODOLFO P. DIEGO and EDUARDO P. DIEGO, Respondents
NICOLAS P. DIEGO, Petitioner, vs. RODOLFO P. DIEGO and EDUARDO P. DIEGO, Respondents
NICOLAS P. DIEGO, Petitioner, vs. RODOLFO P. DIEGO and EDUARDO P. DIEGO, Respondents
*
NICOLAS P. DIEGO, petitioner, vs. RODOLFO P. DIEGO
and EDUARDO P. DIEGO, respondents.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
362
363
_______________
1 G.R. No. 188064, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 283, 299. Citation omitted.
Emphasis supplied.
2 Rollo, pp. 8-5.
3 Id., at pp. 46-62; penned by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes and
concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Celia C.
Librea-Leagogo.
4 Id., at pp. 63-64; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo
and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Estela
M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court).
5 Id., at pp. 73-78; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Emma M. Torio.
365
VOL. 691, FEBRUARY 20, 2013 365
Diego vs. Diego
_______________
6 Records, pp. 1-4.
7 Id., at pp. 22-25.
366
_______________
8 Rollo, pp. 73-78.
367
_______________
9 Id., at p. 77. Emphasis supplied.
10 Id., at p. 56.
368
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT
OF SALE BETWEEN PETITIONER NICOLAS DIEGO AND
RESPONDENT RODOLFO DIEGO OVER NICOLAS’S SHARE
OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE SUSPENSIVE
CONDITION HAS NOT YET BEEN FULFILLED.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT RODOLFO DIEGO
REMAINS LEGALLY BINDING AND IS NOT RESCINDED
GIVING MISPLACED RELIANCE ON PETITIONER NICOLAS’
STATEMENT THAT THE SALE HAS NOT YET BEEN
REVOKED.
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER NICOLAS DIEGO ACTED
LEGALLY AND CORRECTLY WHEN HE UNILATERALLY
RESCINDED
369
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 19-21.
370
Petitioner’s Arguments
In his Petition, the Supplement12 thereon, and Reply,13
Nicolas argues that, contrary to what the CA found, there
was no perfected contract of sale even though Rodolfo had
partially paid the price; that in the absence of the third
element in a sale contract―the price―there could be no
perfected sale; that failing to pay the required price in full,
Nicolas had the right to rescind the agreement as an
unpaid seller.
Nicolas likewise takes exception to the CA finding that
Rodolfo was not in default or delay in the payment of the
agreed balance for his (Nicolas’s) failure to file a case to fix
the period within which payment of the balance should be
made. He believes that Rodolfo’s failure to pay within a
reasonable time was a substantial and material breach of
the agreement which gave him the right to unilaterally and
extrajudicially rescind the agreement and be discharged of
his obligations as seller; and that his repeated written
demands upon Rodolfo to pay the balance granted him such
rights.
Nicolas further claims that based on his agreement with
Rodolfo, there was to be no transfer of title over his share
in the building until Rodolfo has effected full payment of
the purchase price, thus, giving no right to the latter to
collect his share in the rentals.
Finally, Nicolas bewails the CA’s failure to award
damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses for what
he believes is a case of unjust enrichment at his expense.
Respondents’ Arguments
Apart from echoing the RTC and CA pronouncements,
respondents accuse the petitioner of “cheating” them,
claiming that after the latter received the P250,000.00
downpayment,
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 204-224.
13 Id., at pp. 237-262.
371
_______________
14 Id., at p. 226.
15 Supra note 1.
372
_______________
16 Id. Emphasis supplied.
17 G.R. No. 153820, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 36.
18 Id., at p. 49.
19 Id. Emphasis supplied.
20 490 Phil. 7; 449 SCRA 99 (2005).
373
_______________
21 Id., at p. 11; p. 103.
22 Id., at p. 18; p. 111.
23 Id., at p. 19; p. 112. Emphases supplied.
374
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Diego vs. Diego
July 8, 1993
Received the amount of [P250,000.00] for 1 share of Diego
Building as partial payment for Nicolas Diego.
(signed)
Nicolas Diego25
As we ruled in San Lorenzo Development Corporation v.
Court of Appeals,26 the parties could have executed a
document of sale upon receipt of the partial payment but
they did not. This is thus an indication that Nicolas did not
intend to immediately transfer title over his share but only
upon full payment of the purchase price. Having thus
reserved title over the property, the contract entered into
by Nicolas is a contract to sell. In addition, Eduardo
admitted that he and Rodolfo repeatedly asked Nicolas to
sign the deed of sale27 but the latter refused because he
was not yet paid the full amount. As we have ruled in San
Lorenzo Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,28 the
fact that Eduardo and Rodolfo asked Nicolas to execute a
deed of sale is a clear recognition on their part that the
ownership over the property still remains with Nicolas. In
fine, the totality of the parties’ acts convinces us that
Nicolas never intended to transfer the ownership over his
share in the Diego Building until the full payment of the
purchase price. Without doubt, the transaction agreed upon
by the parties was a contract to sell, not of sale.
_______________
24 Records, p. 90.
25 Id.
26 Supra note 20.
27 See TSN, March 21, 2001, p. 22.
28 Supra note 20.
375
_______________
29 449 Phil. 25; 401 SCRA 54 (2003).
30 Id., at p. 40; p. 62.
31 Id., at p. 42; p. 66.
32 Id.
33 Id. Emphasis supplied.
34 Id. Emphasis supplied.
376
_______________
35 Supra note 29.
36 Heirs of Cayetano Pangan and Consuelo Pangan v. Perreras, G.R.
No. 157374, August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 253, 262. Emphasis supplied.
37 Id.
377
_______________
38 See TSN, March 21, 2001, pp. 12-21.
39 See Memorandum for Defendants, p. 3, records, p. 40.
40 Id., at p. 5; id., at p. 149.
41 See Report of Daroya Accounting Office, pp. 1-2; id., at pp. 76-77.
42 Id., at p. 2; id., at p. 77.
378
_______________
43 Luzon Development Bank v. Enriquez, G.R. Nos. 168646 & 168666,
January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 332, 351.
44 See Tan v. Benolirao, supra note 17 at p. 53; Chua v. Court of
Appeals, supra note 29 at pp. 43-44.
45 391 Phil. 739; 337 SCRA 67 (2000).
379
_______________
46 Id., at pp. 751-752; p. 77. Italics in the original.
47 Supra note 29.
380
_______________
48 Id., at pp. 43-44; p. 68.
49 See Tan v. Benolirao, supra note 17 at p. 54.
50 Supra note 29 at p. 43; p. 68. Emphasis supplied.
51 Supra note 1 at p. 296.
52 See Chua v. Court of Appeals, supra note 29 at pp. 51-52; p. 75.
381
_______________
53 See Report of the Daroya Accounting Office, p. 1, records, p. 76.
54 Id., at p. 2; id., at p. 77.
55 Id.; id.
56 Id.; id.
57 Tan v. Benolirao, supra note 17 at p. 48.
382
_______________
58 CIVIL CODE, Articles 19 and 20.
383
_______________
59 Alcatel Philippines, Inc. v. I. M. Bongar & Co., Inc., G.R. No. 182946,
October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 741, 743-744.
60 Estores v. Supangan, G.R. No. 175139, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 95,
108-109.
384
_______________
** Per raffle dated October 17, 2012.
385
――o0o――