Angeles vs Calasanz

ANGELES vs CALASANZ Appeal form the decision that the contract to sell was not validly cancelled and ordering the defendants to execute the final deed of sale.

Nature:

Facts

-

Dec 1957- Calasanz Calasanz spouses spouses and and Angeles Angeles and Juani entered into contract contract of  of  sale on a parcel of land for Php3920.00 with 7% interest per annum. Angeles and Juani made downpayment of Php392.00 and promised to pay the t he remaining amount at Php41.20 a month until the full f ull amount is paid for. Calasanz spouses accepted several delayed payments. They paid until July 1966 when their aggregate payment already reached r eached Php4533.38.

-

Dec 1966- Calasanz Calasanz requeste requested d the the past past due due accounts, accounts, particularly particularly for the the Aug Aug 1966 payment. And because Angeles and Juani failed to pay, Calasanz cancelled the contract. When the plaintiffs brought this to court, the RTC ruled in their favor.

-

Calasanz Calasanz claims claims that they had the right right to rescission rescission under Art 1191 1191 and the stipulation in their contract, Paragraph 6 saying they may cancel the contract in case the second party fails to satisfy the monthly installments. They continue to invoke that Paragraph 9 of their contract states that they do not lose this right though they concede some delayed payments.

Issue

Was the contract automatically and validly cancelled? ca ncelled? Held

NO. Though ART 1191 NCC states that the law does not prohibit the injured party form cancelling a contract due to non-compliance of the other party, the case does not apply that. This is because it is stated in jurisprudence Universal Food Corp vs CA that rescission is not permitted where the breach is only slight and casual. Here, the breach is considered to be just that because though they did not pay the Aug 1966 due, they did not have to because they already reached full payment even before that. This is already unjust enrichment on their part. As well, the defendant spouses are estopped from invoking the right of rescission when they continued to receive delayed payment of installments from the t he spouses Angeles and Juani.