P.L.
Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corp. (2012)
Topic: Obligatory Force
PARTIES:
·
Petitioner: P.L. Uy Realty Corp
·
Respondents: ALS Management and Dev’t
FACTS:
·
Sept. 3, 1980 – PLU (vendor) and
ALS (vendee) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with Mortgage covering a parcel
of land in the name of PLU, located at F. Blumentritt Street, Mandaluyong.
·
The purchase price for the land was set at P8M. The
parties also stipulated in Par. 4 of the Deed on the eviction of informal
settlers
·
Sec.6 of the Deed provided that “realty taxes during
the validity of this mortgage, shall be for the account of ALS.”
·
Dec. 23, 1980 – Parties entered into an agreement
·
Par. 4 provided that in the event the informal
settlers do not leave the property, PLU would reimburse ALS
·
ALS failed to pay the second payment despite demands.
·
Aug. 25, 1982 – PLU filed a
complaint against ALS for Foreclosure of Mortgage and Annulment of the
documents; PLU alleged having had entered into an oral agreement with ALS where
the latter would agree to take over the task of ejecting the squatters from the
property issued in its name, through the efforts of ALS, the property was
already 90% clear of informal settlers
·
May 9, 1986 – RTC Makati ruled
that the obligation of PLU to clear the property of informal settlers was
superseded by an oral agreement between the parties whereby ALS assumed the
responsibility of ejecting said informal settlers and declared that the removal
of the informal settlers on the property is still a subsisting and valid
condition; that because the informal settlers still occupied 28% of the
property, the condition as to their eviction, had not yet been complied with.
·
RTC Makati found that the obligation of ALS to pay the
balance of the purchase price has not yet fallen due and demandable; thus it
dismissed the case for being premature.
·
ALS appealed the case to the SC, questioning RTC’s
decision that it had assumed the responsibility of ejecting the informal
settlers on the property.
·
During the course of the trial, the Court conducted an
ocular inspection and found 1 ½ hectares of the 5.4 hectare property still
being occupied by informal settlers.
·
The RTC Pasig likewise dismissed the complaint,
finding that the payment of the installments has not yet become due and
demandable as the suspensive condition, the ejection of the informal settlers
on the property, has not yet occurred; and even if ALS has taken up the
obligation to eject the informal settlers, its inaction cannot be deemed as
constructive fulfillment of the suspensive condition; that the foreclosure of
the mortgage is not the proper remedy, and that PLU should have caused the
ejectment of the informal settlers.
JUDGMENT: Dismissed.
RATIONALE/DOCTRINE:
·
Note that Art. 1306 of the Civil Code guarantees the
freedom of parties to stipulate the terms of their contract provided that they
are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
Thus, when the provisions of a contract are valid, the parties are bound by
such terms under the principle that a contract is the law between the parties.
·
Here, both parties knew for a fact that the property subject
of their contract was occupied by informal settlers, whose eviction would
entail court actions that in turn, would require some amount of time. They also
knew that the length of time that would take to conclude such court actions was
not within their power to determine.
·
Despite such knowledge, both parties still agreed to
the stipulation that the payment of the balance of the purchase price would be
deferred until the informal settlers are ejected. There was never any allegation
that PLU was coerced into signing the Deed of Sale with Mortgage or that its
consent was in any way vitiated. PLU was free to accept or decline such contractual
provision. Thus, PLU cannot now be allowed to renege on its agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment