Civil Law,  Legally Yours

Roque v. Lapuz

Roque v. Lapuz

G.R. No. L-32811; March 31, 1980


Roque, the seller, executed a Contract to Sell in favor of Lapuz within which two lots are payable for 120 monthly installments. Lapuz was unable to pay several monthly installments. Consequently, Roque, in a formal letter, demanded the buyer to vacate the lots and to pay reasonable rent. Roque also filed a complaint against Lapuz for the rescission of the contract. Upon appeal, the CA rendered judgment granting the buyer a period of 90 days within which to make good his obligation pursuant to par. 3 of Article 1191. The Court justified its ruling that there is just cause to fix the period.


Whether or not the buyer Is entitled to the benefits under par. 3 of Article 1191


No. It is true that Article 1592 does not apply in this case but this does not mean that the buyer, being the debtor, is entitled to the benefits of par. 3 of Article 1191. Lapuz is not entitled to have a new period to pay because he has been in default. Respondent’s failure to pay the succeeding 116 monthly installments after paying only 4 monthly installments is a substantial and material breach on his part, not merely casual, which takes the case out of the application of the benefits of paragraph 3, Art. 1191, New Civil Code.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: