SPOUSES SPOUSES DELFIN DELFIN TUMIBA TUMIBAY Y v SPOUSES SPOUSES MELVIN MELVIN LO LOPEZ PEZ G.R. No. 171692 171692 Jun !" 2#1! FA$TS% Petitioners executed a Special Power of Attorney, authorizing Reynalda to oer oer for sale a land, land, covere covered d by a TCT under the nae nae of petiti petitione onerr Aurora! Aurora! Reyna eynald lda a sold sold the the land land to her her daug daught hter er,, Rowen owena, a, with withou outt the the conse consent nt of the the petitioners for an unconscionable aount of "#$% although the ar&et value of the land is at ' illion! Respondents (Reynalda and Rowena) claied that Rowena and petitioners agreed that Ro&n' &ou() *u+ ,- ('n) o/ P-0. ##"### ,o * 0') on n3,'((4n, ! Rowena paid *+, in -anuary +""# and fro f ro thereon thereon paid onthly installents! Thereafter, Thereafter, a deed of sale was executed executed by Reynalda in favor of Rowena, Rowena, without having paid the full aount of the purchase purchase price! Petitioners Petitioners claied that although there was a SPA, Reynalda violated the SPA when she sold the land without see&inhg the approval of the petitioners! Petitioners aintained that the onthly payents where ere deposits as re.uested by Rowena so the she would not spend the sae! Petitioners claied the Reynalda acted in /ad 0A1T2 when she executed the deed of sale in favor in her favor but placed it in the nae of her daughter, daughter, R3456A, R3456A, which which sale is null null and void because because an agent agent cannot purchase for herself the property sub7ect of an agency, a gency, 1SS859 w:n there was a valid contract; <5S! 25=>9 The parties entered into a contract to sell! A contract to sell is a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the sub7ec sub7ectt prope property rty despit despite e deliv delivery ery there thereof of to the prosp prospect ectiv ive e buyer, buyer, binds binds his hisel elff to sell sell the the said said prop proper erty ty exclu xclusi sive vely ly to the the pros prospe pect ctiv ive e buye buyerr upon upon ful?llent of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payent of the purchase price! 1n a contract to sell, @ownership is retained by the seller and is not to pass until the full payent of the price! 1t is @coonly entered into so as to protect the seller against a buyer who intends to buy the property in installentsB by withholding ownership over the property until the buyer eects full payent therefor! 2owever, R3456A was in breach of the contract to sell because when the deed of sale sale was was exec execut uted ed,, the the full full pric price e of the the land land is yet to be paid paid!! Ther There e was was a preature preature transfer of title without the consent of the petitioners! 0or this this reason, the contract to sell is rescissible rescissible!! Article Article ++"+ f the civil code provides provides that the power power to resci rescind nd obliga obligatio tions ns is ipli iplied ed in recipr eciproca ocall ones, ones, in case case one of the obligors should not coply with what is incubent upon hi! The in7ured party ay choose choose betwee between n ful?l ful?lle lent nt and the resci rescissi ssion on of the obliga obligatio tion, n, with with the payent of daages in either case! 2e ay also see& rescission even after he has chosen chosen ful?ll ful?llen ent, t, if the latter latter should should becoe becoe ipos ipossib sible! le! As a genera generall rule, rule, @rescission will not be peritted for a slight or casual breach of the contract, but only for such breaches as are substantial and fundaental as to defeat the ob7ect of the parties in a&ing the agreeent! RowenaD act of transferring title of the sub7ect land in her nae without the &nowledge and consent of petitioners and desp despit ite e nonp nonpay aye ent nt of the the full full pric price e ther thereo eof, f, cons consti titu tute tes s a su subs bstan tanti tial al and and fundaental breach of the contract to sell!
Petitioners are entitled to moral damages and attorney’s fees while respondent Rowena is entitled to the reimbursement of the monthly installments with legal interest.
Art! ++E! Those who in the perforance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any anner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for daages!
0raud or alice (dolo) has been de?ned as a @conscious and intentional design to evade the noral ful?llent of existing obligations and is, thus, incopatible with good faith! Rowena was guilty of fraud in the perforance of her obligation under the sub7ect contract to sell because she &new that she had not yet paid the full price when she had the title to the sub7ect land transferred to her nae, and (') she orchestrated the aforesaid transfer of title without the &nowledge and consent of petitioners! 4here fraud and bad faith have been established, the award of oral daages is proper!
