12. TERESITA E.

PASCUAL, WIDOW OF THE LATE ROMULO PASCUAL, WHO WAS

THE HEIR OF THE LATE CATALINA DELA CRUZ AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF HER
CHILDREN AND FOR HER OWN BEHALF, petitioner vs. TERESITA E. PASCUAL,
WIDOW OF THE LATE ROMULO PASCUAL, WHO WAS THE HEIR OF THE LATE
CATALINA DELA CRUZ AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF HER CHILDREN AND FOR HER
OWN BEHALF,, respondents.

[G.R. No. 235711. March 11, 2020.]

FACTS: Sometime in January 1989, Romulo Pascual entered into a sale transaction with
Encarnacion P. Ang, et al., through Antonio Ang, covering three parcels of land located in
Navotas City. This was embodied in a document denominated as "Pagpapatunay at
Pananagutan." On October 28, 1993, the lot referred to in paragraph 1 (a) of the
"Pagpapatunay at Pananagutan" was registered in respondents' names under Original
Certificate of Title No. 246. As to the two remaining lots, which were referred in paragraphs 1
(b) and 1 (k), petitioner claimed that the same were already surveyed and titles thereto were
already issued under the name of her husband Romulo Pascual, and that respondents failed to
pay in full their purchase price. This led her in filing a complaint for the rescission of the
"Pagpapatunay at Pananagutan" with claim for damages before the Regional Trial Court of
Navotas City on March 2, 2006.

ISSUE: Whether Pascual can rescind the contract due to non-payment of the balance price by
Pangyarihan.

HELD:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that Pascual was not entitled to rescind the contract as
she is not the injured party.

As aptly ruled by the RTC, while the provision in paragraph 5 of the "Pagpapatunay at
Pananagutan" is ambiguous, as it can be interpreted in two ways, that is, the titles mentioned in
the said provision is either in the name of Romulo Pascual and/or plaintiff, or in defendants'
names, the evidence on records would show that the intention of the parties in the said
paragraph 5 is that petitioner should secure first the titles of the subject properties in
respondents' names before they pay the remaining balance of the purchase price of the subject
properties.
It should be recalled that petitioner testified that respondents paid P50,000.00 as
downpayment for the three lots, and respondents made several payments thereafter on
installment basis. It was only after petitioner secured the OCT of the subject first lot under
respondents' name that respondents paid her its full purchase price. Thus, it is clear that
paragraph 5 of the "Pagpapatunay at Pananagutan" should be interpreted according to what
transpired on the payment and registration of the first lot.

Resultantly, respondents' non-payment of the balance of the purchase price is due to

the failure of petitioner to comply with their obligation in the contract. Thus, petitioner is not
entitled to rescind the contract as she is not the injured party.

Finally, petitioner is not entitled to the compensation for the use of the subject lots. To
repeat, it was petitioner who failed to comply with their obligation in the contract that resulted
to the non-payment of the balance of the purchase price. Thus, petitioner cannot benefit from
her own wrongdoing. Also, petitioner's neglect or omission to assert a supposed right for more
than sixteen (16) years is too long a time as to warrant the presumption that they had
abandoned such right. The law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.