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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Clause As Contemplated in Art. 1226?

    Uploaded by

    Dan Marco Griarte
    Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation agreed to sell land to Lolita Millan but failed to issue the transfer certificate of title after Millan made payments. Millan filed a complaint seeking to compel the transfer or damages. Robes-Francisco argued the contract stipulated refunding payments with 4% interest if the title was not transferred, limiting damages. The court found the 4% interest clause was not a penal clause under Article 1226 and did not preclude additional damages, as Millan was entitled to legal interest even without the clause.

    Copyright:

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

    Clause As Contemplated in Art. 1226?

    Uploaded by

    Dan Marco Griarte
    29 views1 page
    Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation agreed to sell land to Lolita Millan but failed to issue the transfer certificate of title after Millan made payments. Millan filed a complaint seeking to compel the transfer or damages. Robes-Francisco argued the contract stipulated refunding payments with 4% interest if the title was not transferred, limiting damages. The court found the 4% interest clause was not a penal clause under Article 1226 and did not preclude additional damages, as Millan was entitled to legal interest even without the clause.

    Original Title

    Robes v Millan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation agreed to sell land to Lolita Millan but failed to issue the transfer certificate of title after Millan made payments. Millan filed a complaint seeking to compel the transfer or damages. Robes-Francisco argued the contract stipulated refunding payments with 4% interest if the title was not transferred, limiting damages. The court found the 4% interest clause was not a penal clause under Article 1226 and did not preclude additional damages, as Millan was entitled to legal interest even without the clause.

    Copyright:

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

    Clause As Contemplated in Art. 1226?

    Uploaded by

    Dan Marco Griarte
    Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation agreed to sell land to Lolita Millan but failed to issue the transfer certificate of title after Millan made payments. Millan filed a complaint seeking to compel the transfer or damages. Robes-Francisco argued the contract stipulated refunding payments with 4% interest if the title was not transferred, limiting damages. The court found the 4% interest clause was not a penal clause under Article 1226 and did not preclude additional damages, as Millan was entitled to legal interest even without the clause.

    Copyright:

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

    ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.

    CFI and MILLAN


    G.R. No. L-41093 October 30, 1978

    FACTS: Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation agreed to sell to Lolita Millan for and in consideration
    of the sum of P3,864.00, payable in installments, a parcel of land in Caloocan. Millan complied with her obligation
    under the contract and the vendor agreed to cause the issuance of the transfer certificate of title within 6 months.
    However, vendor failed to issue the transfer certificate of title. Millan filed a complaint for specific performance
    and damages against Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corporation. The complainant wants to: compel the
    reformation of the deed of absolute sale; 2) compel the defendant to deliver the certificate of title or to pay not
    less than P27,600.00; 3) claim for damages. In its defense, petitioner invokes Art. 1226 and contends that the deed
    of absolute sale executed between the parties stipulates that should the vendor fail to issue the transfer certificate
    of title within six months from the date of full payment, it shall refund to the vendee the total amount paid for
    with interest at the rate of 4% per annum, hence, the vendee is bound by the terms of the provision and cannot
    recover more than what is agreed upon.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the provision in the contract which stipulates interest at the rate of 4% per annum is a penal
    clause as contemplated in Art. 1226?

    Ruling: No, it is inconceivable that the provision in the deed of sale is a penal clause which will preclude an award
    of damages to the vendee Millan. The said clause does not convey any penalty, for even without it, pursuant to
    Article 2209 of the Civil Code, the vendee would be entitled to recover the amount paid by her with legal rate of
    interest which is even more than the 4% provided for in the clause.

    You might also like