Tayag v. Leyva
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Juan Galicia, Sr. and Celerina Labuguin executed a deed of conveyance on May 28, 1975, selling an undivided one-half portion of a land to Albrigido Leyva for P50,000.00. The payment terms included an initial P3,000.00, P10,000.00 within ten days, assumption of a P10,000.00 bank indebtedness by the vendee, and the balance of P27,000.00 within one year. Procedural History: Private respondent Leyva filed a suit for specific performance due to petitioners' (heirs of Juan Galicia, Sr.) reluctance to abide by the contract. The trial court ruled in favor of Leyva, applying constructive fulfillment and estoppel. The Court of Appeals modified the award but largely agreed with the trial court. Petitioners appealed, asserting that the full consideration was not paid and the contract should be rescinded. The Petition: Petitioners contend that the private respondent failed to fully pay the consideration for the sale, thus entitling them to rescind the contract. They dispute the findings of the lower courts regarding the payments made and the application of legal doctrines.
Issue(s)
Whether the private respondent fully complied with the conditions of the deed of conveyance and whether the petitioners waived their right to rescind the contract by accepting delayed payments. Whether the second installment payment was fully liquidated based on the admission of one of the petitioners. Whether the petitioners impeded the private respondent's full payment of the bank loan, leading to constructive fulfillment, and whether they can claim to be only obligees in the contract. Whether the consignation of the balance was valid and produced the effect of payment.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with a slight modification in the dispositive portion regarding the amounts to be withdrawn and delivered.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of full compliance and waiver of the right to rescind: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the petitioners, by accepting delayed payments from the private respondent beyond the stipulated periods and even during the pendency of the case, waived their right to rescind the contract. This acceptance, without protest or objection, operated as an estoppel, deeming the obligation as fully complied with pursuant to Article 1235 of the Civil Code. The Court noted that the petitioners' inaction and acceptance of payments, instead of immediately filing for rescission, indicated an abandonment of their right to do so under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. The Court cited Angeles v. Calasanz and Development Bank of the Philippines v. Sarandi to support the principle that acceptance of delayed payments waives the right to rescind. On the issue of the second installment payment: The Court found no error in the lower courts' conclusion that the P10,000.00 second installment was fully liquidated. This was based on the in judicio admission of Josefina Tayag, one of the petitioners, who testified that the check issued for this payment, though initially dishonored, was paid on a staggered basis. The Court held that this admission, made before the trial court, could not be subsequently refuted by the petitioners on the basis of estoppel under Article 1431 of the Civil Code and the Rules of Evidence. On the issue of the assumption of the bank indebtedness and constructive fulfillment: The Court upheld the application of Article 1186 of the Civil Code regarding constructive fulfillment. It clarified that in reciprocal obligations like a contract of purchase, both parties are mutually obligors and obligees. The petitioners impeded the private respondent's full payment of the bank loan by paying the balance themselves, thus preventing the vendee from fulfilling that specific condition. The Court found it puerile for petitioners to claim they were only obligees, as they were also bound as obligors to allow the assumption of the loan. On the issue of tender of payment and consignation: The Court ruled that the consignation of P18,520.00 (acknowledged by petitioners as deposited) produced the effect of payment. This was because it was established that two or more heirs of Juan Galicia, Sr. claimed the same right to collect the amount, falling under Article 1256(4) of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the Court noted that this consigned amount, combined with the P13,908.25 already paid by the private respondent, exceeded the P27,000.00 balance, resulting in an overpayment.
Main Doctrine
The acceptance of delayed payments by the obligee, without protest or objection, despite the expiration of the stipulated periods, constitutes a waiver of the right to rescind the contract and operates as an estoppel, deeming the obligation as fully complied with under Article 1235 of the Civil Code. Consignation of the amount due, when there are multiple claimants to the same right to collect, also produces the effect of payment.