141. Deiparine v.

CA, 221 SCRA 503 (1993)

G.R. No. 96643. April 23, 1993.

ERNESTO DEIPARINE, JR., petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CESARIO CARUNGAY and ENGR. NICANOR
TRINIDAD, respondents.

Gregorio B. Escasinas for petitioner.

Florido and Associates for respondents.

Doctrine:
While it is true that the stress test was not required in any of the contract documents,
conducting the test was the only manner by which the owner could determine if the
contractor had been faithfully complying with his presentations under their
agreement. Furthermore, both parties later agreed in writing that the core test should
be conducted. When the structure failed under this test the Carungay spouses were
left with no other recourse than to rescind their contract.

FACTS:

Spouses Carungay entered into a contract with Deiparine for the construction of a 3-
story dormitory in Cebu. Carungay agreed to pay Php970,000 inclusive of
contractor’s fee, and Deiparine bound himself to erect the building “in strict
accordance to plans and specifications.” Trinidad, a civil engineer, was designated as
Carungays’ representative, with powers of inspection and coordination with the
contractor.

Trinidad reported to Carungay that Deiparine had been deviating from the plans and
specifications, thus impairing the strength and safety of the building. Carungay
ordered Deiparine to first secure approval from him before pouring cement. This
order was not heeded, prompting Carungay to send Deiparine another
memorandum complaining that the construction works are faulty and done
haphazardly mainky due to lax supervision coupled with inexperienced and
unqualified staff.

Carungay then filed a complaint for the rescission of the construction contract for
damages.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the rescission of contract is valid due to breach.

RULING:
Yes. Article 1385 states that rescission creates the obligation to return the things
which were the object of the contract, together with the fruits, and the price with its
interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission
can return whatever he may be obliged to restore.

The construction contract falls squarely under Article 1191 because it imposes upon
Deiparine the obligation to build the structure and upon the Carungays the
obligation to pay for the project upon its completion. Article 1191 is not predicated
on economic prejudice to one of the parties but on breach of faith by one of them that
violated the reciprocity between them. The violation of reciprocity between
Deiparine and Carungay spouses, to wit, the breach caused by Deiparine’s failure to
follow the stipulated plans and specifications, has given the Carungay spouses the
right to rescind or cancel the contract.