Civil Law,  Legally Yours

Roque v. Lapuz

Roque v. Lapuz

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

FACTS:

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.

ISSUE:

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

HELD:

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Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: