We also decide that there has been no waiver by the petitioners to demand the cancellation of the deed of sale with mortgage coverage. The fact that the defendant spouses have accepted instalment payments through their lawyer does not constitute a waiver on their part of their right to cancel the deed of sale with the assumption of the mortgage. Adelina Timbang only accepted the instalment payments as a permit for the petitioners, as they repeatedly promised that they would pay. However, after a considerable period of time (18 months after the last payment) and the purchase price not yet paid in full, the defendant spouses exercised their right of withdrawal when they paid the outstanding balance of the mortgage to NHMFC. It was only after the applicants stopped paying that the respondent spouses exercised their right of withdrawal. 48 Section 1381. The following contracts are revocable: “Articles 1191 and 1592 of the Civil Code apply to sales contracts. In sales contracts, RA 6552 applies. In Rillo v.
Court of Appeal, the Court of First Instance stated:. . . The power to cancel obligations is implicit in mutual obligations, if one of the debtors were not to comply with what is incumbent on him, this is clear from a reading of the provisions of the Civil Code. However, it is also common ground that, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, that power must be invoked before the courts; it cannot be exercised solely on the basis of a party`s judgment that the other party has breached the obligation. If there is nothing in the contract that entitles the applicant to annul it without bringing an action before the courts, the applicant`s action to unilaterally terminate the contract in that case is unjustified. A: A defaulting buyer of instalment real estate, whether or not he has paid two years of payments, has three usual remedies in the absence of a valid withdrawal granted by Article 6 of R.A. No. 6552 and the court: (a) pay in advance each payment at any time, necessarily without interest; (b) to pay at any time the full outstanding balance of the purchase price without interest and to obtain full payment of the purchase price indicated in the certificate of ownership of the property that is the subject of the transaction in accordance with Royal Decree No.
9552; or (c) request a reasonable refund of all prior payments and/or instalments made by the defaulting Buyer to the Seller that are relevant to its transaction in accordance with ROYAL No. 9552, if any. “When you interpret contracts together, it is proof that the parties have entered into a purchase contract and not a purchase contract. The claimant retained ownership without further recourse by the defendant until full payment of the purchase price of the property. Such a payment is a positive condition precedent, the non-compliance with which is not actually a serious or other breach, but an event that prevents the applicant from transferring ownership obligations under Article 1184 of the Civil Code. x x x We disagree. The transaction between Eulalio Mistica and the defendants, as evidenced by the kasulatan, was clearly a purchase contract. A deed of sale is considered to be of an absolute nature if the deed does not stipulate that the ownership of the property sold is reserved for the seller until full payment of the price; nor a provision that gives the seller the right to unilaterally terminate the contract as soon as the buyer does not pay within a certain period. [9] It follows from the above that resignation (“decision” in the Old Civil Code) is a main action within the meaning of Article 1191, while withdrawal under Article 1383 is a subsidiary act. The first is based on a violation by the other party that violates reciprocity between the parties, while the second is not.
A defaulting Buyer who has paid less than two years in instalments shall be entitled to: (a) The Seller shall grant the Buyer a grace period of 60 days of at least 60 days, to be calculated from the due date of the deposit; (b) The Seller must provide the Buyer with a notice of cancellation/request for notarial termination by notarial deed if the Buyer does not pay the instalments due at the end of the said grace period; and (c) Seller may in fact terminate the Contract only upon receipt of Buyer`s notarized revocable notice/withdrawal request. The Maceda Law applies to contracts for the sale of real estate in several instalments, including condominium apartments, but with the exception of industrial land, commercial buildings and sales to tenants. The land concerned, which consists of five plots, does not include residential real estate within the meaning of the Maceda Law. `On 5 April 1979, Eulalio Mistica concluded a contract with [the defendant Bernardino Naguiat] for the sale of part of that land covering an area of 200 square metres. This agreement was set out in writing in a document entitled “Kasulatan sa Pagbibilihan”, which reads as follows: failure to pay in full the purchase price of the Tino Virtual Right Library will result in the termination of the contract and the forfeiture of half a per cent of the total amount paid to Emily; “2. If the Court of Appeal has ruled that the termination of the contract is no longer possible, considering that a certificate of ownership has been issued in favor of the private defendant. Citing Seva v. Berwin & Co., Inc.,47 the applicants submit that no resignation should be ordered because there is no evidence that the defendant Fernandina Galang is willing, willing and able to fulfil her own obligation to return to them the total payments they made.
They added that there were no claims in this regard in the respondent spouses` response. Second, Judge Edgardo L.`s book states. Paras: “It can only be required (in terms of the right of withdrawal or dissolution) if the applicant is willing, willing and able to fulfil his own obligation and the other is not.” In other words, if one party has fulfilled or fulfilled its obligation and the other party has not, the other party may exercise its right of withdrawal. In the present case, the defendant spouses fulfilled their obligation when they left ownership of the property in question to the plaintiffs. Thus, they have the right to demand the cancellation of the deed of sale with mortgage support. .
