287 - Palanca v.

Guides, 452 SCRA 461

Title

SIMPLICIO A. PALANCA vs. ULYSSIS GUIDES

Topic

Payment

Art. 1235 of the Civil Code

"[W]hen the obligee accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing
any protest or objection, the obligation is deemed fully complied with,"

Facts

On Aug. 1983 Simplicio Palanca entered into contract to sell parcel of land to Josefa Jopson for 11,250, for
installement and paid 1,650, later on she transferred her right to Ulyssis Guides paid Jopson and eventually able to
pay the total amount to Palanca, upon asking for an absolute deed of sale to Palanca, it was found out that the
parcel of land was still under the name of Carissa De leon.

This later on led to filing of complain of the respondent in RTC, the case got to spend a lot of year due to request of
the petitioner to move the trial, this eventually made the trial court decide that the petitioner is waiving his rights
to present his answers and evidence and rendered judgement to petitioner to execute absolute of deed of sale,
pay damages and atty.’fees.

The Palanca, appeal to the Court of Appeals, which rendered affirmed the RTC.

Hence, this appeal.

The petitioner, contends that the reason it did not execute absolute deed of sale is because of deficient amount
that the respondent must pay because of Jopson was not able to pay months and that incurred interest which the
respondent did not pay.

Petitioner also contend that the RTC denied his right to due process when it rendered judgment without them
knowing the date of the hearing of trial, and also it is violation of PD no. 1508 on barangay conciliation before
going into court.

The respondent contends that Palanca is in bad faith when entered into contract with Jopson knowing that the
title is not under his name, which the main reason why it denied that the respondent is not fully paid, where in fact
Sps. Guides they exceed the amount to be paid and the RTC ordered them to reimbursed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent still has deficient payment for the contract of sell?

Whether or not the petitioner was denied by due process?

Ruling

1. No, the respondent is fully complied to her obligation.

Art. 1235 of the Civil Code which provides that "[W]hen the obligee accepts the performance, knowing its
incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection, the obligation is deemed
fully complied with,"
 petitioner waived the same when he accepted respondent’s payments without qualification, without any
specific demand for the individual charges he now seeks to recover.

2. No, the petitioner was not denied on his right to due process, and that it did not violate PD. 1508, because
they have been barangay conciliation with his counsels and the subdivision manager of the respondents.

A court denies a party due process if it renders its orders without giving such party an opportunity to
present its evidence

In his case, his counsel has been present in the hearing and that the SC found out that it was known to his
counsel the date of hearing but ignored it, that led to RTC to rendered judgment that he is waiving his
right to present in the trial.

The Court finds that the real reason for such delay was the fact that the land was still in the name of Carissa de
Leon.

That petitioner sold the lot which was then still in the name of another person, and in fact comprised an area
bigger than that indicated in the contract to sell speaks of bad faith on his part.

Petitioner is still duty-bound to convey title to the land to respondent since the latter has already fully paid the
stipulated purchase price.