"x x x.
Contract; contract to sell; seller’s obligation to deliver the corresponding certificates of title is simultaneous and reciprocal to the buyer’s full payment of the purchase price; rescission; effects; requires mutual restitution; Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree (PD 957); intent of PD 957 to protect the buyer against unscrupulous developers, operators and/or sellers; damages; when moral damages may be awarded; when exemplary damages may be awarded; propriety of award of attorney’s fees. It is settled that in a contract to sell, the seller’s obligation to deliver the corresponding certificates of title is simultaneous and reciprocal to the buyer’s full payment of the purchase price. In this relation, Section 25 of PD 957 (Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof), which regulates the subject transaction, imposes on the subdivision owner or developer the obligation to cause the transfer of the corresponding certificate of title to the buyer upon full payment, to wit:
Sec. 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. (Emphasis supplied.)
The long delay in the performance of GPI’s obligation from date of demand on September 16, 2002 was unreasonable and unjustified. It cannot therefore be denied that GPI substantially breached its contract to sell with Sps. Fajardo which thereby accords the latter the right to rescind the same pursuant to Article 1191 of the Code, viz:
ART. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.
Rescission does not merely terminate the contract and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but abrogates the contract from its inception and restores the parties to their original positions as if no contract has been made. Consequently, mutual restitution, which entails the return of the benefits that each party may have received as a result of the contract, is thus required.
To be sure, it has been settled that the effects of rescission as provided for in Article 1385 of the Code are equally applicable to cases under Article 1191, to wit:
x x x Mutual restitution is required in cases involving rescission under Article 1191. This means bringing the parties back to their original status prior to the inception of the contract. Article 1385 of the Civil Code provides, thus:ART. 1385. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can return whatever he may be obligated to restore.Neither shall rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith.In this case, indemnity for damages may be demanded from the person causing the loss.The Court has consistently ruled that this provision applies to rescission under Article 1191:[S]ince Article 1385 of the Civil Code expressly and clearly states that “rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest,” the Court finds no justification to sustain petitioners’ position that said Article 1385 does not apply to rescission under Article 1191. x x x (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
As a necessary consequence, considering the propriety of the rescission as earlier discussed, Sps. Fajardo must be able to recover the price of the property pegged at its prevailing market value consistent with the Court’s pronouncement in Solid Homes, viz:
Indeed, there would be unjust enrichment if respondents Solid Homes, Inc. & Purita Soliven are made to pay only the purchase price plus interest. It is definite that the value of the subject property already escalated after almost two decades from the time the petitioner paid for it. Equity and justice dictate that the injured party should be paid the market value of the lot, otherwise, respondents Solid Homes, Inc. & Purita Soliven would enrich themselves at the expense of herein lot owners when they sell the same lot at the present market value. Surely, such a situation should not be countenanced for to do so would be contrary to reason and therefore, unconscionable. Over time, courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is inconvenient or contrary to reason is not allowed in law. (Emphasis supplied.)
On this score, it is apt to mention that it is the intent of PD 957 (Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof) to protect the buyer against unscrupulous developers, operators and/or sellers who reneged on their obligations. Thus, in order to achieve this purpose, equity and justice dictate that the injured party should be afforded full recompense and as such, be allowed to recover the prevailing market value of the undelivered lot which had been fully paid for.
Furthermore, the Court finds that there is proper legal basis to accord moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, including costs of suit. Verily, GPI’s unjustified failure to comply with its obligations as above discussed caused Sps. Fajardo serious anxiety, mental anguish and sleepless nights, thereby justifying the award of moral damages. In the same vein, the payment of exemplary damages remains in order so as to prevent similarly minded subdivision developers to commit the same transgression. And finally, considering that Sps. Fajardo were constrained to engage the services of counsel to file this suit, the award of attorney’s fees must be likewise sustained. Gotesco Properties, Inc., et al. vs. Sps. Eugenio and Angelina Fajardo; G.R. No. 201167. February 27, 2013.
x x x."
