ANG vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 80058| February 13, 1989
FACTS:

 Siblings Ernesto and Rosalinda Ang are owners of three parcels of land located and A Bonifactio St. Balintawak, Quezon City.
 Negotiations were undertaken for the sale of their properties with Lee Chuy Realty. Lee Chuy issued a check in the amount of P50,000 with a receipt embodying the terms and conditions of their
agreement.
 The check was received and encashed by the Angs. However, the accompanying receipt was not returned, instead another receipt was prepared and signed by them.
 It was stipulated in both that the Angs shall clear the subject properties of obstructions thereon.
 The difference between the two receipts is that the one issued by the Angs does not contain the total amount of the sale. While the receipt prepared by Lee Chuy stipulated that the property be sold for
P1,600,000.
 Rosalinda Ang sent to Lee Chuy a letter giving it up to January 24, 1980 to pay the balance of the purchase price, and that failure to do so will result in the cancellation of their agreement.
 Lee Chuy was surprised over the demand saying that they were ready to comply since December 1979, however it was the ants who had not yet complied with their undertaking of clearing the
property of obstruction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
RTC. In favor of Petitioners (Damages)
CA: In favor of Respondents (Sum of Money)

ISSUE/S:
1. Which party breached the terms of their agreement? – Siblings Ang (Petitioners)

RULING:

The parties should be restored to their original situation. Siblings Ang should refund the down payment with legal interest.

DISPOSITION:
 The existence of a perfected contract for the sale of the properties is unquestioned. What is to be determined is the agreed price for the sale.
 In the receipt of Lee Chuy the stated purchase price is P1,600,000. However the receipt signed by the Angs did not stae the agreed price.
 The siblings must have been aware of the improtance of indicating the correct amount in the receipt. They are the ones who clearly caused the obscurity when they omitted the purchase price in the
receipt they signed and prepared.
 In reciprocal obligations, the power to rescind is implied and any of the contracting parties may, upon non-fulfillment but he other, resolve the contract.
 Rescission may be had only for such breaches that are so substantial and fundamental so to defer the object of the parties in making the agreement.
 The instance of the Angs to increase the purchase price (P2,340,000) despite an already perfected contract of only P1,600,000 is considered a serious breach of the agreement. Lee Chuy therefore has
the right to rescind.

NOTES:

DOCTRINE: In reciprocal obligations, the power to rescind is implied and any of the contracting parties may, upon non-fulfillment but he other, resolve the contract.
Rescission may be had only for such breaches that are so substantial and fundamental so to defer the object of the parties in making the agreement.

SOURCE OF OBLIGATION: CONTRACT (CONTRACT OF SALE)