CATUNGAL VS.

RODRIGUEZ
G.R. No. 146839
March 23, 2011

FACTS

Agapita Catungal owned a 65,246 square meters parcel of land in

Taliban, Cebu City. Agapita with the constant of her husband entered into a
Contract to Sell with Angel Rodriguez, a respondent. Subsequently, The Contract
to sell upgraded into Conditional Deed of Sale. Rodriguez have already done
necessary survey and plans that will change the land from agricultural to
residential, Rodriguez also actively negotiated for the road right of way. The
spouses Catungal requested 5,000,000.00 advance on the purchase price. Due to
unwarranted demands in the view of the terms of the Conditional Deed of Sale
Rodriguez objected. Conditional Deed of Sale allow Rodriguez to have a sufficient
time to negotiate a road right of way and exclusive right to rescind the contract.
Thereafter, Rodriguez received a letter from Atty. Catungal that the contract is
cancelled and already terminated.

Rodriguez filed a complain against the Catungal unjustified, arbitrary

and unwarranted recission of the Conditional Deed of Sale. However, The spouses
Catungal claimed that Rodriguez doesn’t have an exclusive right to rescind the
contract. The trial court is in favor of Rodriguez. While the Catungal’s appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeals, for reconsideration. According to the new counsel
of the Catungals, Atty. Borromeo, The paragraphs of 1(b) and 5(49) of the
Conditional Deed of Sale violated the principle of mutuality under the Article 1308
of the Civil Code.

ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioner would be allowed to raise their theory of nullity of the
Conditional Deed of Sale for their first appeal
2. Whether the paragraphs 1(b) and 5 of the Conditional Deed of Sale violates
the principle of mutuality of the contracts under Article 1308.
 HELD

1. No. The Court doesn’t allow a situation which a party completely changes his
theory of case on their appeal and leaves his pervious assignment of errors in
his brief. Since during the proceedings the spouses Catungal’s never claimed
that the provisions in the conditional Deed of Sale, which stipulates that the
payment of the balance of the purchase price was contingent upon the
successful negotiation of a road right of way and granting Rodriguez the
option to rescind are void, by making the fulfillment of the contract dependent
solely on Rodriguez will.
2. No. Because according to the Conditional Deed of sale the respondent which
is Rodriguez shall pay it's balance of the purchase price once he has already
successfully negotiated and secure the road right of way, According to the
court it is not fully potestative which means that one of the parties has the
control to the contract or agreement, like what the Catungals petitioned. But in
fact it is not dependent on the sole will of the debtor but also to the will of the
third persons who also own the andjacent land or simply the owner of the land
whom the right of way should be negotiated. A mixed condition is expressly
allowed under the Article 1182 of the Civil Code. The obligation to pay the
purchase price is based upon the condition where the road-right-of way is
already acquire and settled.
AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM (AFPRSBS)
vs. EDUARDO SANVICTORES
G.R. No. 207586,
August 17, 2016

FACTS

PEPI formerly Antipole Properties, Inc. offered Eduardo Sanvictores a sale for
installment a 204 square meters parcel of land in Village East Executive Homes,
subdivision project located in Tayuman, Pantok, Binangonan, Rizal. San Victories
paid a required downpayment, A contract to sell was executed by PEPI and
AFPRSBS, as a seller, and Sanvictores as buyer. Sanvictores already paid the full
payment of purchase price of the property but depite of paying full PEPI and
AFPRSBS failed to execute the corresponding deed of absolute sale, and deliver
the title of the land. San Victories demanded PEPI on the deed of sale as well as
the transfer of title but despite the several follow ups from Sanvictores, PEPI did
not communicate. Which leads to Sanvictores filling a complaint for recission, and
a refund payment, and payment for the damages and and attorneys fees. PEPI
defended that the complaint of recission should be dismissed as it lacks in terms
of cause of action. Because according to them it is not a delay in their part because
the delay of delivering the title was due to force majeure. That they complied all of
their obligations in good faith and is always transaparent. AFPRSBS also
countered that they were not the owner and developer of the Village East
Executive Homes, It was PEPI. So, basically PEPI was the only seller, and Norma
Espina who sign the contract in the name of AFPRSBS was neither their
representative nor Treasurer, but PEPI's. The HLURB Arbitrer rendered a decision
in favor of Sanvictores. It ruled that the Sanvictores was entitled to the reliefs he
wants for in the complaint and that recission of the contract to sell was just proper
because of the unjustified refusal of the seller to execute the deed of absolute sale
and to deliver the title of the property despite of paying the full. On the other hand
the Office of the President concluded that PEPI and AFPRSBS was joint and
solidary in their obligation to Sanvictories. The CA denied motion for consideration
to AFPRSBS as it affirmed the decision of the OP. It concluded that the nature of
obligation of PEPI and AFPRSBS under the contract was solidary.
 ISSUES

Whether the obligation of PEPI and AFPRSBS under the subject contract to sell
was solidary

HELD

Yes, the Court defined solidary obligation as one in which each of the debtors is
liable for the entire obligation, and each of the creditors is entitled to demand the
satisfaction of the whole obligation from any or all of the debtors. On the other
hand, a joint obligation is one in which each debtor is liable only for a proportionate
part of the debt, and the creditor is entitled to demand only a proportionate part of
the credit from each debtor. In this case there is no doubt that the nature of
obligation of PEPI and AFPRSBS is under the subject contract to sell was solidary.
In the said contract PEPI and AFPRSBS was expressly referred to as “SELLER”
and not “SELLERS” meaning PEPI and AFPRSBS are considered as one seller to
the contract. As under the article 1207 of the Civil Code a liability is solidary “only
when the obligation expressly so states, when the law provides or when the nature
of the obligation so requires”. Also according to the contract the signatories are
Espina and Mena, AFPRSBS repeatedly argues that the contract was not signed
by any of its authorized representative. It was resolute in its claim that Espina was
not its treasurer or authorized representative. However, it remained silent as to
Mena. It never denied that Mena was its representative.