Bico, Jaytrex M.

BSA 3203

SILVESTRE DIGNOS and ISABEL LUMUNGSOD VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

and ATILANO G. JABIL
G.R. No. L-59266 | February 29, 1988

Petitioner: Silvestre Dignos and Isabel Lumungsod

Respondents: Hon. Court of Appeals and Atilano G. Jabil
Ponente: Bidin, J.

FACTS:

 The Dignos spouses were owners of a parcel of land, known as Lot No. 3453, of the
cadastral survey of Opon, Lapu-Lapu City. On June 7, 1965, appellants (petitioners)
Dignos spouses sold the said parcel of land to plaintiff-appellant (respondent Atilano J.
Jabil) for the sum of P28,000.00, payable in two installments, with an assumption of
indebtedness with the First Insular Bank of Cebu in the sum of P12,000.00, which was
paid and acknowledged by the vendors in the deed of sale (Exh. C) executed in favor of
plaintiff-appellant, and the next installment in the sum of P4,000.00 to be paid on or
before September 15, 1965.

 On November 25, 1965, the Dignos spouses sold the same land in favor of defendants-
spouses, Luciano Cabigas and Jovita L. De Cabigas, who were then U.S. citizens, for the
price of P35,000.00. A deed of absolute sale (Exh. J, also marked Exh. 3) was executed
by the Dignos spouses in favor of the Cabigas spouses, and which was registered in the
Office of the Register of Deeds pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 3344.

 As the Dignos spouses refused to accept from plaintiff-appellant the balance of the
purchase price of the land, and as plaintiff- appellant discovered the second sale made by
defendants-appellants to the Cabigas spouses, plaintiff-appellant brought the present suit. 

 The lower court, CFI Cebu, declared the deed of sale executed on November 25, 1965 by
defendant Isabela L. de Dignos in favor of defendant Luciano Cabigas, a citizen of the
United States of America, null and void ab initio, and the deed of sale executed by
defendants Silvestre T. Dignos and Isabela Lumungsod de Dignos not rescinded.

o The plaintiff Atilano G. Jabil is ordered to reimburse the defendants Luciano

Cabigas and Jovita L. de Cabigas, through their attorney-in-fact, Panfilo Jabalde,
reasonable amount corresponding to the expenses or costs of the hollow block
fence, so far constructed.
o It is further ordered that defendants-spouses Silvestre T. Dignos and Isabela
Lumungsod de Dignos should return to defendants-spouses Luciano Cabigas and
Jovita L. de Cabigas the sum of P35,000.00, as equity demands that nobody shall
enrich himself at the expense of another.

 With this decision, Jabil and the Dignos spouses appealed to CA. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the lower court except as to the portion ordering Jabil to pay for
the expenses incurred by the Cabigas spouses for the building of a fence upon the land in
question.
o A motion for reconsideration of said decision was filed by the defendants
appellants (petitioners) Dignos spouses, but on December 16, 1981, a resolution
was issued by the Court of Appeals denying the motion for lack of merit. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not a subject contract is a deed of absolute sale and not a contract to sell.
2) Whether or not there was a valid rescission thereof.

HELD:
1) Yes, the contract in question is a Deed of Sale, with the following conditions:

a. That Atilano G. Jabil is to pay the amount of P12,000.00 Phil. Philippine Currency as
advance payment;

b. That Atilano G. Jabil is to assume the balance of P12,000.00, Loan from the First Insular
Bank of Cebu;

c. That Atilano G. Jabil is to pay the said spouses the balance of P4,000.00 on or before
September 15,1965;

d. That the said spouses agrees to defend the said Atilano G. Jabil from other claims on the
said property;

e. That the spouses agrees to sign a final deed of absolute sale in favor of Atilano G. Jabil
over the above-mentioned property upon the payment of the balance of Four Thousand
Pesos.

Thus, it has been held that a deed of sale is absolute in nature although denominated as a
"Deed of Conditional Sale" where nowhere in the contract in question is a proviso or stipulation
to the effect that title to the property sold is reserved in the vendor until full payment of the
purchase price, nor is there a stipulation giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescind the
contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed period. (Taguba v. Vda. de Leon)

2) No, there was no valid rescission of the contract. It has been ruled, however, that "where time
is not of the essence of the agreement, a slight delay on the part of one party in the performance
of his obligation is not a sufficient ground for the rescission of the agreement" (Taguba v. Vda.
de Leon, supra). Considering that private respondent has only a balance of P4,000.00 and was
delayed in payment only for one month, equity and justice mandate as in a forecited case that
Jabil be given an additional period within which to complete payment of the purchase price.

Wherefore, the petition filed is hereby Dismissed for lack of merit and the assailed
decision of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed in toto.