OBDeleven PRO vs VCDS ( VAG COM ) vs VCP ( Vag Can Pro) vs Carista vs Carly for VAG vs Launch EasyDiag supported functions CompareFull description
Descripción: pandora vs zabbix
perbandingan acrylic, kaca dengan polycarbonat, keuntungan dan kerugian serta aplikasinya
PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ CasesFull description
Sandingan Sistem Manajemen Keamanan Informasi vs Sistem Manajemen Anti Penyuapan vs Sistem Manajemen Mutu vs Sistem Manajemen LayananFull description
Comparison of Petrol diesel,lpg & CNG run vehicle cars
VS Aristóteles - EnsayosDescripción completa
difference between guilty and plead guilty under indian evidence act and inherent powers of the high courtFull description
G.R. No. 124045 May 21, 1998
The Babasa spouses (vendor) entered into a contract of “conditiona sale of registered lands” with Tabangao Realty (vendee) over 3 parcels of land in Batangas City for P2M, P300K as downpayment.
It was agreed that the balance of the purchase price shall be paid by Tabangao upon presentation by the Babasas of transfer certificates of titles in their name in favor of Tabangao within twenty (20) months from the signing of the contract.
Consequently, Tabangao leased the parcels of land to Shell. Shell immediately started the construction thereon of a Liquefied Petroleum Gas Terminal Project, an approved zone export enterprise of the Export Processing Zone.
Two days prior to the expiration of the 20-month period, specifically on 31 December 1982, the Babasas asked Tabangao for an indefinite extension within which to deliver clean titles over the lots. Because Tabangao did not want to pay the montly interests.
The Babasa spouses executed a notarized unilateral rescission dated 28 February 1983 to which TABANGAO responded by reminding the BABASAS that they were the ones who did not comply with their contractual obligation to deliver clean titles within the stipulated 20-month period, hence, had no right to rescind their contract. The BABASAS insisted on the unilateral rescission and demanded that SHELL vacate the lots. The Babasas put up structures to to impede the movements of persons and vehicles in the lot.
Their contract with Tabangao became null and void with the expiration of the 20-month period given them within which to deliver clean certificates of title. The contract was a lease contract, not of sale. Even assuming that it was indeed a sale, its nature was conditional only, the efficacy of which was extinguished upon the non-happening of the condition (non-delivery of clean certificates of title w/in 20 mos).
2. WON the Babasas have the right to rescind the contract on the premise that they have not complied with their obligation to deliver the titles to Tabangao (thus making such contract null and void)? NO
The contract is laden with terms and stipulations clearly indicative of a contract of sale. The parties desire and mutually “agreed on the sale and purchase of the three parcels of land”. There was a “vendors” and a “vendee”, not lessor and lessee. In fact, Tabangao was granted absolute and unconditional right to take immediate possession of the premises. Even if there was no word “ownership” mentioned in the contract, it does not mean that the contract was one of lease. It is too late for petitioners to insist that the contract is not what they intended it to be.
Even if it was titled as a contract of conditional sale, it is one of absolute sale. There is absolutely no proviso reserving title to the Babasas until full payment of the purchase price, nor any stipulation giving them the right to unilaterally rescind the contract in case of nonpayment. A deed of sale is absolute in nature although denominated a “conditional sale” absent such stipulations. In such cases, ownership of the thing sold passes to the vendee upon the constructive or actual delivery thereof. Constructive delivery was accomplished upon the execution of the contract without any reservation to the Babasas. Actual delivery was made when Tabangao took unconditional possession of the lots and leased them to Shell.
Babasa’s act of unilaterally rescinding their contract with Tabangao was improper. In fact, it should Tabangao who has the right to rescind the contract on account of Babasa’s failure to do its obligation to deliver clean certificates of title. Besides, it would be the height of inequity to allow the BABASAS to rescind their contract of sale with TABANGAO by invoking as a ground therefor their own failure to deliver the titles over the lots within the stipulated period.
A condition imposed to perfect a contract is different from a condition imposed for the performance of an obligation. The non-fulfillment of a condition to perfect a contract results in
the failure of a contract. The failure to comply with the conditions imposed for a performance of a contract merely gives the other party (Tabangao) the option to either refuse to proceed with the sale or to waive the condition.