Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    Agcaoili vs. GSIS 165 SCRA 1 Facts: in This Case, Appellant GSIS Approved An Application of The Appellee Agcaoli For The

    Uploaded by

    Mizelle Alo
    Agcaoili applied to purchase a house from GSIS but the house was uninhabitable. Agcaoili refused to make payments until repairs were done, and GSIS cancelled the contract. The court ruled in favor of Agcaoili, finding that: 1) There was a valid contract between the parties when Agcaoili agreed to purchase the house. 2) GSIS failed to fulfill its obligation to deliver a livable house. 3) GSIS could not cancel the contract due to Agcaoili's non-payment since the house remained uninhabitable. 4) Agcaoili made efforts to occupy the house so GSIS' reason for cancellation failed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Agcaoili vs. GSIS 165 SCRA 1 Facts: in This Case, Appellant GSIS Approved An Application of The Appellee Agcaoli For The

    Uploaded by

    Mizelle Alo
    53 views1 page
    Agcaoili applied to purchase a house from GSIS but the house was uninhabitable. Agcaoili refused to make payments until repairs were done, and GSIS cancelled the contract. The court ruled in favor of Agcaoili, finding that: 1) There was a valid contract between the parties when Agcaoili agreed to purchase the house. 2) GSIS failed to fulfill its obligation to deliver a livable house. 3) GSIS could not cancel the contract due to Agcaoili's non-payment since the house remained uninhabitable. 4) Agcaoili made efforts to occupy the house so GSIS' reason for cancellation failed.

    Original Description:

    Agcaoili vs GSIS

    Original Title

    Agcaoili vs GSIS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Agcaoili applied to purchase a house from GSIS but the house was uninhabitable. Agcaoili refused to make payments until repairs were done, and GSIS cancelled the contract. The court ruled in favor of Agcaoili, finding that: 1) There was a valid contract between the parties when Agcaoili agreed to purchase the house. 2) GSIS failed to fulfill its obligation to deliver a livable house. 3) GSIS could not cancel the contract due to Agcaoili's non-payment since the house remained uninhabitable. 4) Agcaoili made efforts to occupy the house so GSIS' reason for cancellation failed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views1 page

    Agcaoili vs. GSIS 165 SCRA 1 Facts: in This Case, Appellant GSIS Approved An Application of The Appellee Agcaoli For The

    Uploaded by

    Mizelle Alo
    Agcaoili applied to purchase a house from GSIS but the house was uninhabitable. Agcaoili refused to make payments until repairs were done, and GSIS cancelled the contract. The court ruled in favor of Agcaoili, finding that: 1) There was a valid contract between the parties when Agcaoili agreed to purchase the house. 2) GSIS failed to fulfill its obligation to deliver a livable house. 3) GSIS could not cancel the contract due to Agcaoili's non-payment since the house remained uninhabitable. 4) Agcaoili made efforts to occupy the house so GSIS' reason for cancellation failed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Agcaoili vs.

    GSIS 165 SCRA 1


    Facts: In this case, appellant GSIS approved an application of the appellee Agcaoli for the
    purchase of a house and lot in the GSIS Housing Project at Nangka, Marikina, subject to the
    condition that the latter should forthwith occupy the house, a condition that Agcaoli tried to
    fulfill but could not because the house was absolutely uninhabitable. However, Agcaoli ask a
    homeless friend, a certain Villanueva, to stay in the premises as some sort of watchman, pending
    completion of the construction of the house.
    Agcaoli after paying the first installment and other fees, having thereafter refused to make
    further payment of other stipulated installments until GSIS had made the house habitable; and
    appellant having refused to do so, opting instead to cancel the award and demanded the vacation
    by Agcaoli of the premises; and the latter having sued the GSIS in the Court of First Instance of
    Manila for specific performance with damages and having obtained a favorable judgment, the
    cases was appealed by the GSIS.
    Issue: Whether or not Agcaoli is entitled for specific performance with damages.
    Held: Appeal of GSIS must fail.
    There was then a perfected contract of sale between the parties; there had been a meeting of
    minds upon the purchase by Agcaoli of a determinate house and lot from GSIS at a definite price
    which is payable in amortizations and from that moment the parties acquired the right to
    reciprocally demand performance. It was, to be sure, the duty of the GSIS, as seller, to deliver
    the thing soled in acondition suitable for its enjoyment by the buyer, in other words to deliver the
    house subject of the contract in a reasonably livable state. This it failed to do.
    Since GSIS failed to fulfill its obligation, and was not willing to put the house in a habitable
    state, it cannot invoke Agcaolis suspension of payment as cause to cancel the contract between
    them. In recipient obligation, neither party incur in delay of the other does not comply or is not
    ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. Nor may the GSIS
    succeed in justifying its cancellation of the award by the claim tha Agcaoli had not complied
    with the condition of occupying the house within three (3) days. The record shows that Agcaoli
    did try to fulfill the condition.
    Finally appellant having caused the ambiguity as the exact prestation of the agreement, the
    question of interpretation arising therefrom, should be resolved against it.

    You might also like