Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Priscilla Zafra Orbe V Filinvest Land, Inc. G.R. No. 208185, September 06, 2017 Third Division (LEONEN, J.) Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    WARLYN DUMO
    302 views1 page
    Priscilla Zafra Orbe entered into a purchase agreement for a lot with Filinvest Land, Inc. but was only able to pay installments for less than two years before failing to make further payments. Filinvest sent a notice of cancellation that was not executed through a valid notarial act as required by law. The court ruled that since the cancellation was invalid, the purchase agreement remained in effect, and Filinvest must refund Orbe for the lot since it had already been resold, though not a full refund to prevent unjust enrichment. The refund would be subject to legal interest.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    208185

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Priscilla Zafra Orbe entered into a purchase agreement for a lot with Filinvest Land, Inc. but was only able to pay installments for less than two years before failing to make further payments. Filinvest sent a notice of cancellation that was not executed through a valid notarial act as required by law. The court ruled that since the cancellation was invalid, the purchase agreement remained in effect, and Filinvest must refund Orbe for the lot since it had already been resold, though not a full refund to prevent unjust enrichment. The refund would be subject to legal interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    302 views1 page

    Priscilla Zafra Orbe V Filinvest Land, Inc. G.R. No. 208185, September 06, 2017 Third Division (LEONEN, J.) Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    WARLYN DUMO
    Priscilla Zafra Orbe entered into a purchase agreement for a lot with Filinvest Land, Inc. but was only able to pay installments for less than two years before failing to make further payments. Filinvest sent a notice of cancellation that was not executed through a valid notarial act as required by law. The court ruled that since the cancellation was invalid, the purchase agreement remained in effect, and Filinvest must refund Orbe for the lot since it had already been resold, though not a full refund to prevent unjust enrichment. The refund would be subject to legal interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    PRISCILLA ZAFRA ORBE v FILINVEST LAND, INC.

    G.R. No. 208185, September 06, 2017


    THIRD DIVISION
    (LEONEN, J.)
    DOCTRINE:
    When R.A. No. 6552 or the Maceda Law speaks of paying "at least two
    years of installments" in order for the benefits under its Section 3 to
    become available. Otherwise, it will fall under Section 4. Should the
    buyer still fail to make payments within Section 4's grace period, the
    seller may cancel the contract. However, it must be made through a valid
    notarial act.

    FACTS:
    Orbe entered into a purchase agreement over a lot with Filinvest Land,
    Inc. After paying several installments (less than 24 months), Orbe was
    unable to make further payments.

    Filinvest sent a notice of cancellation. Noting that efforts to seek for a


    reconsideration of said cancellation proved futile, and that the parcel had
    since been sold by Filinvest to a certain Ruel Ymana "in evident bad
    faith," Orbe filed a Complaint for refund.

    ISSUE:
    Is Orbe is entitled to a refund under R.A. No. 6552?

    RULING:
    YES. The case of Orbe falls under Section 4 of R.A No. 6552 as she had
    failed to pay two (2) years' worth of installments. One of the requisites is
    that the seller must have sent a notice of cancellation or demand for
    rescission by notarial act.

    Filinvest's notice of cancellation here was executed by an individual


    identified only as belonging to its Collection Department. It was also
    accompanied not by an acknowledgement, but by a jurat. Even if it were
    to be condoned, Filinvest's jurat was not even a valid. The proof of
    identity used by the signatory to Filinvest's notice of cancellation was a
    community tax certificate, which no longer satisfies the requirement of
    2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

    There being no valid cancellation, the purchase agreement between Orbe


    and Filinvest remains valid and subsisting. And considering that the lot
    was already sold to another person, it is proper that Filinvest be ordered
    to refund Orbe. However, this refund shall not be the full, lest Orbe be
    unjustly enriched. The amount shall be subject to legal interest.

    You might also like