POWER COMMERCIAL V.

CA (June 20, 1997)

FACTS:
Petitioner asbestos manufacturer Power Commercial and industrial corporation bought the property
of spouses Reynaldo and Angelita Quiambao located in Makati City.

Since there are lessees occupying the subject land, part of the deed of sale is a warranty of
respondents that will defend its title and peaceful possession in favor of the petitioners.

The property is mortgage to PNP and as such, petitioners filed a request to assume responsibility of
the mortgage. Because of petitioners failure to produce the required papers, their petition was
denied.

Petitioners allege that the contract should be rescinded because of failure of delivery.

ISSUE:
WON the contract is recissible due to breach of contract.

HELD:
There is no breach of contact in this case since there is no provision in the contract that imposes
the obligation to the respondents to eject the people occupying the property.

There was also a constructive delivery because the deed of sale was made in a public document.
The contention of the petitioners that there could be no constructive delivery because the
respondents is not in possession of the property is of no merit. What matters in a constructive
delivery is control and not possession. Control was placed in the hands of the petitioners that is why
they were able to file an ejectment case. Prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required
and the execution of the deed of sale is deemed equivalent to delivery.