ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 92462 June 2, 1997 - SANTIAGO GOKING v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97896 June 2, 1997 - TEKNIKA SKILLS & TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116748 June 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARJORIE CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 121434 June 2, 1997 - ELENA F. UICHICO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120880 June 5, 1997 - FERDINAND R. MARCOS II v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76969 June 9, 1997 - INLAND REALTY INVESTMENT SERVICE, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89369 June 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BERGONIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107259 June 9, 1997 - RAYMUNDO M. DAPITON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108475 June 9, 1997 - GAMALIEL DINIO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115944 June 9, 1997 - ELVIRA C. GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118536 June 9, 1997 - LAWIN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119362 & 120269 June 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO O. RABOSA

  • G.R. No. 123905 June 9, 1997 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124280 June 9, 1997 - FLORA S. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Bar Matter No. 730 June 10, 1997 - NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE SUPERVISED

  • G.R. No. 96999 June 10, 1997 - CARLOS O. YSMAEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106812 June 10, 1997 - TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST DEV. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 107302, 107306 & 108559-60 June 10, 1997 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120074 June 10, 1997 - LEAH P. ADORIO v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 120594 June 10, 1997 - ALFONSO TAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123639 June 10, 1997 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113713 June 11, 1997 - ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116940 June 11, 1997 - PHIL-AM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117561 June 11, 1997 - JULIO MARCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118041 June 11, 1997 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118921-22 June 11, 1997 - ERNESTO AUSTRIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120956 June 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MORENO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1248 June 13, 1997 - MARIEL ECUBE-BADEL v. DAVID DE LA PEÑA BADEL

  • G.R. Nos. 100513 & 111559 June 13, 1997 - SEVERINO ANTONIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102467 June 13, 1997 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110817-22 June 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO A. BUGARIN

  • G.R. No. 111088 June 13, 1997 - C & M TIMBER CORP. v. ANGEL C. ALCALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113103 & 116000 June 13, 1997 - NAPOCOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114764 June 13, 1997 - WILFREDO T. PADILLA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4244 June 17, 1997 - BUHANGIN RESIDENTS & EMPLOYEES ASSN., ETC. v. CORAZON NUÑEZ-MALANYAON

  • G.R. No. 100920 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLI SALCEDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109311 June 17, 1997 - ZENAIDA ASUNCION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110974-81 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 111357 June 17, 1997 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113799 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BAYDO

  • G.R. No. 119337 June 17, 1997 - BAYVIEW HOTEL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120030 June 17, 1997 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120553 June 17, 1997 - PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120802 June 17, 1997 - JOSE T. CAPILI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121787 June 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO GREFALDIA

  • G.R. No. 121964 June 17, 1997 - ABDULIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122932 June 17, 1997 - JOY BROTHERS, INC. v. NWPC

  • Adm. Case No. 4431 June 19, 1997 - PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1221 June 19, 1997 - ADORACION G. ANGELES v. PABLO C. GERNALE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1240 June 19, 1997 - WILFREDO C. BANOGON v. FELIPE T. ARIAS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1242 June 19, 1997 - ESTHER P. MAGLEO v. ARISTON G. TAYAG

  • G.R. Nos. 93100 & 97855 June 19, 1997 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP. v. SECRETARY OF DAR

  • G.R. No. 102612 June 19, 1997 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102723-24 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CABALLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103493 June 19, 1997 - PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106583 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 108107 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSAN PANTALEON

  • G.R. No. 108616 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO PATAWARAN

  • G.R. No. 109224 June 19, 1997 - MEGASCOPE GENERAL SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110226 June 19, 1997 - ALBERTO S. SILVA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112687 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABNER B. EUBRA

  • G.R. No. 113685 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. THEODORE BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114812 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODEL Z. SAHAGUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115968 June 19, 1997 - RUBIN FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116394 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BONOLA

  • G.R. No. 116918 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONFILO MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. 117005 June 19, 1997 - CARLITO D. CORPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117228 June 19, 1997 - RODOLFO MORALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118335-36 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSELLER ALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119071 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO ANTIPONA

  • G.R. No. 121429 June 19, 1997 - MARCIA TUMBIGA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122368 June 19, 1997 - BERNARDO NAZAL, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122389 June 19, 1997 - MIGUEL SINGSON v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122806 June 19, 1997 - TIMES BROADCASTING NETWORK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122866 June 19, 1997 - MELVA NATH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123073 June 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN CAYABYAB

  • G.R. No. 123673 June 19, 1997 - PEDRO C. CALUCAG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123708 June 19, 1997 - CSC, ET AL. v. RAFAEL M. SALAS

  • G.R. No. 124050 June 19, 1997 ccc zz

    MAYER STEEL PIPE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125008 June 19, 1997 - COMMODITIES STORAGE & ICE PLANT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125221 June 19, 1997 - REYNALDO M. LOZANO v. ELIEZER R. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125347 June 19, 1997 - EMILIANO RILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125798 June 19, 1997 - HADJI HAMID LUMNA PATORAY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125955 June 19, 1997 - WILMER GREGO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126361 June 19, 1997 - VICTOR R. MIRANDA, ET AL. v. JESSIE B. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127311 June 19, 1997 - CONRADO LINDO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127623 June 19, 1997 - DOMINADOR VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116216 June 20, 1997 - NATALIA S. MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116695 June 20, 1997 - VICTORIA G. GACHON, ET AL. v. NORBERTO C. DEVERA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118435 June 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO SERZO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 119178 June 20, 1997 - LINA LIM LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119745 June 20, 1997 - POWER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122079 June 27, 1997 - ANTONIO CONCEPCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100935 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ZABALLERO

  • G.R. No. 102316 June 30, 1997 - VALENZUELA HARDWOOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112260 June 30, 1997 - JOVITA YAP ANCOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115689 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO ARTIAGA

  • G.R. No. 121793 June 30, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADONIS BALAD

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 123905   June 9, 1997 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 123905. June 9, 1997.]

    MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORPORATION AND MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MR. JOSE P. MARCELO, Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (TENTH DIVISION) AND CEFERINA ARGALLON-JOCSON ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND MR. MARCELINO JOCSON, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    VITUG, J.:


    The case under review originated from an action for reconveyance filed by private respondent Ceferina Argallon-Jocson on 13 June 1986 against petitioners Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corp. ("MCFC") and Marcelo Steel Corp. ("MSC"), represented by Mr. Jose Marcelo, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXI, of Santiago, Isabela, and so docketed as Civil Case No. 0468. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondent Ceferina Argallon-Jocson and ordered petitioners MCFC and MSC to reconvey to her all the rights and interest on the disputed land (covered by various Transfer Certificates of Title).

    Petitioners filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 44232, from the trial court’s decision. In due time, the appellate court rendered its decision, dated 30 October 1995, penned by Mme. Justice Corona Ibay-Somera, affirming in toto the questioned decision of the trial court. The appellate court ratiocinated, in good part, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Appellee’s cause of action against appellant as alleged in her complaint is reconveyance of parcels of land covered by T-96670 . . . for the reason that appellants had failed to pay the balance of the purchase price, and after the latter failed to reconvey said parcels of land to the former after the appellants through Jose Marcelo acceded to reconvey them. This act of appellant in acceding to the demand of appellee to reconvey the parcels of land subject matter of controversy, after the former’s failure to pay the balance of the purchase price, constitutes an agreement or contract.’It is axiomatic that contracts may be entered into in any form orally or in writing or parol in part and written it being needful merely that the essential requisites for their validity be present.’ (Deloso v. Sandiganbayan, 217 SCRA 49). And ‘obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.’ (Intestate Estate of the late Ricardo P. Presbiterio, Sr. v. CA, 217 SCRA 372)." 1

    Parenthetically, it might be explained that the instant case is just one of other litigations between the parties involving identical issues but covering different parcels of land. One such case was filed on 04 February 1985, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXI, of Santiago, Isabela, docketed Civil Case No. 0327, filed by Metraco Tele-Hygienic Services Corporation, likewise represented by Ceferina Argallon-Jocson, against MCFC. The trial court there ruled in favor of Metraco by decreeing the rescission of the questioned deed of transfer and ordering MCFC to reconvey all the rights and interest it acquired over the parcels of land covered by the contract. MCFC appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals which was docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 40958. In its decision of 08 December 1994, the appellate court, through Mr. Justice Jorge S. Imperial, set aside the questioned decision of the trial court. In concluding that the court below erred in ordering the rescission of the contract and in directing MCFC to reconvey all the rights and interest it acquired over the parcels of land described under the contract, the appellate court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The question, then, arises: Was reconveyance the proper remedy under the undisputed circumstances? The answer to this pivotal question is found in a long line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on the matter. It has been consistently held that nonpayment of the price is a resolutory condition and the remedy of the vendor or transferor under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code is either to exact fulfillment or to rescind the contract. There being no other reason for coming to court but that the appellant corporation breached the contract by failing to pay the balance of the purchase price, appellee Metraco’s only remedy, after earlier demands for payments were to no avail, would have been to rescind the contract.

    "x       x       x

    "Second, and more importantly, appellee Metraco had, by failing to act sooner, forfeited the right to rescind the contract. Under Article 1398, the action to claim rescission must be commenced within four (4) years. The record reveals that the Deed of Transfer was executed by the herein parties on April 21, 1976, while appellee Metraco brought the action on February 4, 1985 only, or some nine (9) years later. Clearly, by failing to act seasonably, appellee Metraco lost the right to ask for a rescission of the contract if it had wanted to. Thus, appellee Metraco sought to salvage the adverse effects of its own omission by filing an action for reconveyance instead, which prescribes in ten (10) years.

    "The fact that rescission was the proper remedy and that the same was barred by prescription was brought to the attention of the lower court by the appellant corporation. Said court, however, chose to entertain the action for reconveyance, treating the same as also an action for rescission. In this regard, the lower court erred in even ordering the rescission of the contract when appellee Metraco did not even seek such relief in its complaint. While the action was for reconveyance, the facts taken into consideration by the lower court, such as nonpayment of the purchase price, should have been threshed out in an action for rescission. Whatever cause of action appellee Metraco had been lost by prescription. However, the judgment allowing rescission was made arising from an action for reconveyance." 2

    Metraco, through Ceferina Argallon-Jocson, filed a petition for review before this Court, docketed G.R. No. 119994, assailing the above decision. This Court, in its resolution of 11 October 1995, denied the petition for "failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the respondent court had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment." 3 The motion for reconsideration filed by Metraco was likewise denied with finality on 06 March 1996.

    In another complaint, Ceferina Argallon-Jocson sought, on 29 September 1986, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXIV, of Echague, Isabela, a similar action for reconveyance of property. Here, the trial court likewise rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff Argallon-Jocson. It ordered MCFC and MSC to reconvey all the rights and interest over the several parcels of land there involved. MCFC and MSC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 44150, where, on 10 January 1996, the appellate court, in this instance through Mr. Justice Eduardo G. Montenegro, likewise found the appeal meritorious and thus set aside the trial court’s decision and entered a new one dismissing the complaint. In arriving at his ponencia, Justice Montenegro took cognizance of the earlier decision of the Court of Appeals, penned by Justice Imperial, in CA-G.R. CV No. 40958, and said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "With the decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 40958 as precedent, since from said decision plaintiff-appellee appealed to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 119994 which was denied by the First Division in a resolution dated October 11, 1995 for ‘failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the respondent court had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment,’ parenthetically in effect the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Eleventh Division of this Court, We are constrained to similarly set aside the decision appealed from." 4

    Relying on the testimony of Argallon-Jocson that the bond certificates had not yet been released by the Land Bank when she filed her case, Justice Montenegro ruled that the complaint was prematurely filed and thus ordered its dismissal without prejudice.

    Private respondent Argallon-Jocson questioned Justice Montenegro’s decision before this Court, docketed G.R. No. 124764, but the same was dismissed by the Third Division in a resolution, dated 26 June 1996, for non-compliance with requirement No. 3 of Circular 1-88 since the petition lacked a certified true copy of the questioned resolution of the appellate court denying Argallon-Jocson’s motion for reconsideration.

    The motion for reconsideration of private respondent Argallon-Jocson (then petitioner) was likewise denied by this Court in its resolution of 02 September 1996.

    Back to the instant petition, the questioned decision of Justice Ibay-Somera disposed the case by holding that the act of petitioners MCFC and MSC of acceding, through Jose Marcelo, to the demand of Ceferina Argallon-Jocson to reconvey the parcels of land, subject matter of the controversy, after the former’s failure to pay the balance of the purchase price had constituted a binding contract.

    The Court disagrees.

    The letter of MCFC and MSC referred to in the questioned decision of the appellate court, cannot be so considered as a perfected agreement between the parties. This letter reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Dear Mrs. Jocson:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "This is in connection with your request for reconveyance of some properties covered by Operation Land Transfer which were already registered in the name of our corporation, and your proposal to offset the value of those claims already processed by the Land Bank with those still in the Field Office of the Ministry of Agrarian Reforms.

    "Our corporation will accept your proposal provided the following conditions are complied with, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That the reconveyance shall be on a case to case basis;

    "2. That no reconveyance shall be effected unless, the value of the claim to offset the advances for the property to be reconveyed is accordingly approved by the Land Bank for payment;

    "3. That advances not applied to a particular claim which is outstanding in our records in the total amount of P147,000.00 shall first be liquidated or applied as against payment from the Land Bank.

    "Meanwhile, we may start with the reconveyance of the property formerly owned by METRACO, and request your goodself to coordinate with us or Frank Dionisio on the matter.

    " [R]est assure of our esteem cooperation.

    "Very truly yours,

    "MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORPORATION

    "and

    "MARCELO STEEL CORPORATION

    "(SGD) JOSE P. MARCELO

    "President" 5

    Whether deemed to be an offer or an acceptance, the letter obviously is far from the requisite offer or acceptance contemplated under Article 1319 of the Civil Code. An offer must be clear and definite, while an acceptance must be unconditional and unbounded, in order that their concurrence can give rise to a perfected contract. The law provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Art. 1319. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Going into the next matter, it is quite evident that the various actions instituted against petitioners have been due to their non-payment of the balance of the purchase price owing to private Respondent. The Court shares the opinion 6 expressed by Justice Imperial 7 that the payment of the balance of the purchase price should not be delayed any further. Justice and equity demands it. 8

    WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44232 is SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for determination of the balance of the purchase price which, upon its determination, shall be paid to private Respondent. No special pronouncement on costs.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, (Acting Chairman), Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Padilla, J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo of G.R. No. 123905, pp. 19-A-20.

    2. Rollo of G.R. No. 119994, pp. 26-27.

    3. Ibid., p. 67.

    4. Rollo of G.R. No. 123905, p. 52.

    5. Rollo of G.R. No. 119994, p. 35.

    6. "Be that as it all may, considering that the appellant corporation was not able to prove that it had already paid the balance of the purchase price, justice dictates that payment be made at once, long delayed as it is. Mindful of the fact that it has been 18 years since the contract was executed and that no full payment has been made, equity demands that appellee Metraco should not have to go through the costly, tedious and protracted process of collecting the unpaid balance through the courts. To our mind, this controversy could have been avoided had the appellant corporation fulfilled its obligation within a reasonable time. We find no point in needlessly delaying the resolution of this controversy and in further clogging the dockets of the courts in this instance. Therefore, we deem it necessary to compel the appellant corporation to settle its obligation with appellee Metraco without further delay, without need of the appellee Metraco to have to come to court again to exact fulfillment." (Rollo of G.R. No. 119994, pp. 30-31.)

    7. Supra.

    8. The Court is happy to note that private respondent has, in the rejoinder, manifested her willingness to settle the dispute should petitioners be willing to pay what is still due from them.

    G.R. No. 123905   June 9, 1997 - MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED