G.R. No.
112182 December 12, 1994
GR No. 118342, January 5, 1998 DBP v Court of Appeals and Lydia Cuba
GR No 118367, January 5, 1998 Lydia Cuba v Court of Appeals, Development Bank
of the Philippines and Agripina Caperal
FACTS: Plaintiff Lydia P. Cuba is a grantee of a Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 2083
from the Government. She obtained loans from the DBP and as security for said
loans, executed two Deeds of Assignment of her Leasehold Rights. However, she
failed to pay her loan on the scheduled dates in accordance with its terms. DBP
thereafter appropriated the Leasehold rights of Cuba over the fishpond in question
without foreclosure proceedings and sent a Notice of Rescission thru Notarial Act
and which was received by plaintiff Lydia Cuba. DBP then took possession of the
Leasehold Rights over the fishpond. Cuba then challenged the act of DBP in
appropriating to itself Cuba’s leasehold rights over the fishpond without foreclosure
proceedings. Furthermore, Cuba insists that the assignment was a mortgage
contract while DBP insists that it had the effect of Novation.
ISSUE: W/N the assignment amounts to cession of payment.
RULING: No, there was no cession. Neither did the assignment amount to payment
by cession under Article 1255 of the Civil Code for the plain and simple reason that
there was only one creditor, the DBP. Article 1255 contemplates the existence of
two or more creditors and involves the assignment of all the debtors property.
BRICKTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORP. (its new corporate name MULTINATIONAL
REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) and MARIANO Z. VERALDE, petitioners,
vs.
AMOR TIERRA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and the HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS: Petitioner corporation executed two Contracts to Sell in favor of
respondent. The total price was stipulated to be paid by private respondent in
specific amounts and at their maturity dates. Private respondent was only able to
pay petitioner corporation the sum of P1,334,443.21. Private respondent sent a
"Notice of Cancellation of Contract" on account of the petitioner's continued failure
to pay the installment due 30 June 1981 and the interest on the unpaid balance of
the stipulated initial payment.
ISSUES: WON the contracts to sell were validly rescinded/cancelled by Bricktown.
RULING: YES. Admittedly, the terms of payment agreed upon by the parties were
not met by private respondent. On this score, the provisions of Article 1169 of the
Civil Code would find no relevance whatsoever. The cancellation of the contracts to
sell by petitioner corporation accords with the contractual covenants of the parties,
and such cancellation must be respected. It may be noteworthy to add that in a
contract to sell, the non-payment of the purchase price (which is normally the
condition for the final sale) can prevent the obligation to convey title from acquiring
any obligatory force.